Intrepid wrote:
What about Polish Clubs; Italian Clubs; Irish Clubs; Indian Clubs; British Clubs; Dutch Clubs; French Clubs; American Clubs et al?
Do they, and can they, exclude people who are not Polish etc.?
Good point, Intrepid. They certainly can, do, and should. In North America, clubs and organizations composed of people who wish to express their pride in their heritage have been around a long, long, time. They might have been composed chiefly of recent immigrants at the time, many now have third generation and fourth generation people as their members. And there is
nothing wrong with this at all.
Did you know the word "soccer" for what the rest of the world calls "football" comes from these clubs? Back around the turn of the century, when the North American version of football was taking shape, there were these games taking place between German-American Associations and English-american Associations using the old style, round football-not the then-new North American style.
So the old, European style of football came to be known as "association" football, as opposed to the new style, because only the German-American, English-American, Whatever-American Associations were still playing it.
From there, of course, it was but a short step for "association" football to be abbreviated to "assoc" football-as most of the flyers announcing the game abbreviated it-and then, of course, the answer to the question, "What style of football player are you", becomes "I am an assoccer". Besides, the new name has the sound of 'sock' in it, as in giving something a good dick, so it stuck.
All of which is just to illustrate that clubs which celebrate pride in one's immigrant or ancestral past are a rich part of American heritage, one which is worth celebrating, not falling victim to some twisted and inept interpretation of what nondiscrimination is supposed to be about.
Baldimo wrote:
2 wrongs do not make a right.
You just don't get this, do you? Or should I say, you are bound and determined not to get this, in a desperate attempt to shoehorn reality into your faulty interpretations of nondiscrimination.
It is not wrong to set up clubs or organizations, based on heritage, where the membership and access to meetings, conventions, etc is restricted to people whose heritage is some percentage. In the case of most clubs I am familiar with, that percentage is half. But it can be some other percentage, as the founders and leaders of the club see fit.
To break this down: You can start a club whose membership is restricted to any heritage, gender, etc,and whose meetings are closed to anyone not a member of that group.
However, if you choose to open up a bar or restaurant, unless you restrict customerhood to members only, (in which case you are just making your bar/restaurant an extension of your club), you have to serve anyone of any group who walks throgh the door, assuming they follow dress codes etc and behave normally.
