Do you value freedom of association?

[Lincoln]

Exactly, Berz.

[st_swithin]

Committees are formed when there is an apparent lack of association among the organised.

[Japher]

Sorry, but if the government decides that nobody can have a club or organisation in which people associate with people like themselves, you don't have free association. What you are advocating is a massive extension of govt power. You suprise me.

That's not what I said... I think.

I said people should be able to have clubs or organization in which people associate with their own like... It just shouldn't be a "rule". Meaning it shouldn't be allowed in the by-laws of said organization or the like. Why this little indication? Because setting "laws" that govern the organizations selection WILL make it racists, sexists, what-have-you-ist, and that is wrong. Yet, if a specific organization decides to exclude someone for any reason than that is their buisness.

Thus, people should be able to exclude whoever they wish, they just can't put it in writting. Then, if someone claims racism, there is no way to prove it, so they can just shut the hell up!

I.e.

I will be rejected from joining the Hell's Angels because I don't own a bike, or is because I am small boned?

I will be rejected from Curves because I am not a man, or did they just not like my horny attitude?

I will be rejected from joining the Black Panthers because I am white, or is it because I am too radical for them?

I will not be able to have a restaurant that serves only to whites because I am a racist or is it because 'I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone'?

[Caligastia]

Ok, I see what you're saying now, but I still don't agree.

It seems to me that if a club/organisation is going to have rules by which you must abide, you might as well have them out in the open. Don't you think your suggestion would involve a lot of wasted time on the part of people applying for memberships they can't possibly get, but they didn't know that because there was nothing in the rules about it?

I just don't see how not having the rules in writing would improve anything. The rules will still exist de facto. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. I just don't see a problem with having organisations in which people can be with others like themselves.

[Japher]

To me it's like having the "Whites Only" sign in the window vs. the knowledge that the place hates non-whites... Nothing can be done.

I don't think the KKK has a specific rule that says no blacks, but I really don't think a black would join.

Gay clubs don't have a rule that says no straights, but most straight ppl wouldn't go in one.

It's about keeping everyone "happy", or how to deal with freedom of association when it offends someone.

[Caligastia]

Freedom of association should offend someone. Otherwise it wouldn't be freedom of association.

[Japher]

Ok, I'll go with that

[Caligastia]

Sweet.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher

Gay clubs don't have a rule that says no straights, but most straight ppl wouldn't go in one.

Well, duh -- if heteroes flocked into our clubs, they would find out all the details of our secret, evil master plan to take over the world.

Thus, defeating the purpose of our clubs.

[Dr Strangelove]

Perhaps the real question is whether the use of the right of association is so pervasive that it truely hamstrings those who are excluded. It doesn't take a genius, or a liberal, to acknowledge that the exclusion of blacks from so many institutions in our society based on this right prior to Ms. Parks heroic stand amounted to a monstrous oppression of black people's right to aspire to the same freedoms enjoyed by whites.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Organisations are made up of individuals exercising their freedom of association.

So?

Organisms are made up of cells, but organisms are not cells.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Do you believe those in government should have the right to decide who you may or may not associate with? Or do you feel you are capable of making that decision for yourself?

Like, a democratic govt can actually enforce my associative behaviour?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Japher
Gay clubs don't have a rule that says no straights, but most straight ppl wouldn't go in one.

My wife used to go to a lot of gay bars with her gay friends, and there was this one bar that wouldn't let her in because she was a woman. It happens...

[MrFun]

I have two straight friends who, when I was still in the home area, would go clubbing with me and one other gay guy at the gay night clubs.

We would have a good time, even though these two heteroes are a couple.

[st_swithin]

The first rule of the gay night club is you don't talk about going straight.

[Ramo]

What MtG said. Your organization gets public subsidies, then its subject to reasonable public rules concerning non-discrimination.

[Berzerker]

So?

Organisms are made up of cells, but organisms are not cells.

Umm...nice one UR. If individuals have freedom of association, they retain that freedom when joining an organisation. To argue they lose the freedom when they exercise it (your argument) is illogical. You're effectively saying that if 2 people get married, gov't can come in and demand they marry other people too because they are no longer "individuals" as a married couple.

Ramo -

Your organization gets public subsidies, then its subject to reasonable public rules concerning non-discrimination

"Reasonable"? "Public"? What happened to PRIVATE organisations? How do these alleged subsidies magically transform private property and private citizens into public property? I think it's unreasonable to tell people they must associate with people I like regardless of whether or not politicians are "subsidising" them.