I don't care what exclusive clubs get set up either but I don't agree that they should obtain any imprimatur from the state (such as in the form of licenses to sell alcohol) if they discriminate on the grounds laid out in the equality legislation.
I disagree. The only way to square the constitutional right to free association, with the demands of equality and justice, is to give everyone equal right to exclude others.
If Portmarnock was State owned and State run then you'd have a point. But this is a groups of citizens making a decision about who can join their private club.
This throws up all of the "exclusive organisations" that Jem listed above. None of which we have a problem with, and in return you get the Portmarnock's of this world who if equality is to have any meaning are "equally" entitled to their stance, even if it isn't a popular one.
I wouldn't go so far as Jem. I don't think Public houses should be allowed to exclude people based on membership of some group. There's a difference between the right to run a PRIVATE club and the right to run a PUBLIC house. We licence Pubs on the basis that they will serve the Public and that should mean ALL of the public.
If the Equality Legislation is out of step with this then the legislation is the problem.
As I said I don't agree with Portmarnock's stance, but their right to hold the stance makes for a healthier society. The positives of such "exclusiveness" outweigh the negatives by a long way.
>>In other words, those that beat the drum hardest on equality are often the most >>unequal in their attitude.
>Could you provide a couple of examples?
Oh dear. I'm going to draw some serious fire on this one, but here goes.
I think many women quite willing to accept and even rejoice in inequalities between Men and Women which favour Women. In my (limited) experience, the women who are most vocal for womens rights and equality, are often the least likely to have a problem with the ways in which men are discriminated against.
Here's just one example.
I very rarely hear women calling for greater equality in the way men are treated as second class citizens in actual legislation in this country in particular in relation to the family courts.
If any limb of the state was as biased against women as this one is against men there would be outrage. And rightly so.
If you believe in equality then you should campaign first and formost for the right of every citizen to be treated equally by the state. When the important stuff like that is sorted out you can move on the trivial stuff like whether or not you have the right to vote in a Golf Club.
I don't blame these women for this, we all have a habit of seeing only the ways in which we are discriminated against. It takes a very enlightened person to understand and take up someone elses cause.
But I think those who are troubled about Portmarnock should be politely reminded that there are far greater examples of inequality enshrined in the actual laws of the state that should be tackled first.
Start with the family courts, and the right of schools to discriminate on religous grounds. When you have that sorted out I'll talk you you again about the right to vote at the AGM of a Golf club.
As long as the state discrimintates it's pointless trying to get the citizens to treat everyone equally.
-Rd
