Richard Dawkins was supposed to speak at a hotel near Detroit, but had to change his plans at the last minute because the hotel owner watches TV and is bigoted and unethical.
Prejudice against atheists manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by the Center for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
The Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.
Hmm. The most prominent atheist in the world gets openly discriminated against, and where’s the outrage? I hope CFI is pursuing legal action.
But I’m totally sure the guy would’ve been OK with letting one o’them Coloreds speak. As long as he uses the kitchen entrance.
I look forward to the outrage from all the usual outlets.
No really. I look forward to it.
I’m getting used to disappointment.
It sounds like there could be grounds for a lawsuit, and one I’d be willing to donate to even though I don’t have much to give.
It’s what Ben Stein warned us about.
See what pseudoscience does?
Too bad he was too stupid to recognize which was legitimate science and which was whiny BS.
Glen Davidson
Does it really count as watching TV if you’re watching FOX news?
AMERICA!
A day doesn’t go by without a xian atrocity. Routine.
They do stuff like this a lot. Never turn your back on a xian death cultist. Cthulhu, the name alone should warn you.
A private venue has the legal right to viewpoint discrimination so I am not sure there could be a lawsuit except as far as they may have had a contract that was breached.
If it were illegal for them to deny Dawkins, then it would also be illegal for a hotel to deny Pat Robertson.
That being said we all also have the right to send them complaint letters and to not give them our business and encourage others to do the same.
Unbelievable, even for the US. A better solution than a lawsuit, perhaps, would be for CFI et al to offer not to sue in exchange for the hotel hosting (at its own expense) a public seminar focusing on Consitutional and statutory protections against religious discrimination.
No, Giffy, you’re factually wrong. US law prohibits this type of discrimination in “places of public accommodation.” This isn’t a gray area, and it’s not amenable to disagreement – it’s a plain fact. Add to that the breach of contract, and there are plenty of grounds for a suit.
I have covered this abhorrent topic before in my short essay, Theistic Bigotry: The Reality of Denying Fantasy, writing in part, “While religionists in the U.S. continue to enjoy a privileged status for their unfounded beliefs, unbelievers face increasing acts of life-altering prejudice and discrimination by America’s pious.” However, the banning of Richard Dawkins at a country club, which is open to the public (unless you are an atheist), reaches a new nadir in religious discrimination against unbelievers in America.
Re Giffy @ #8
I’m not so sure about that. A hotel is a place of public accommodation and is thus covered by the Federal Public Accommodation’s Act.
On behalf of rational Michiganders everywhere, I feel like I want to apoligize for the ugly behavior of a single invidivual.
On the bright side, this could provide a good topic of discussion for when Dawkins speaks at our school this week…
U! S! A!
U! S! A!
U! S! A!
U! S! A!
Having grown up in Detroit, I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy actually has a whites-only policy.
Really glad to be away from there. The racism was a huge reason. So was the violence. Joining the Army and deploying to Afghanistan was actually the safer choice.
From the Wyndgate website:
And
So, on top of a possible breach in contract, there’s also a violation of ‘truth in advertisement’!
Why did this person make a deal with the Center for Inquiry in the first place? Did he expect a gathering of National Enquirer fans?
Stupid goes in, stupid comes out.
Can’t explain that.
It isn’t a private venue far as the law is concerned. That is the problem for the owner/operators if this ever comes to trial. Open and shut case.
If it were illegal for them to deny Dawkins, then it would also be illegal for a hotel to deny Pat Robertson.
it is.
and, it is.
you know, this has been the law of the land since the civil rights act was passed in 1964.
how is it that so few Americans seem to be aware of something so basic?
@10 If it were a matter of banning atheists because they were atheists that would be one thing. No different from banning a race. E.g. a business cannot say ‘no black people’, but that does not mean they have to allow the Black Panthers to hold a rally there.
SCOTUS includes atheism in with any given religion for discrimination purposes. Poor owners, up the creek with a canoe or paddle…
So, Richard Dawkins is always armed? And calling for an armed insurrection? Your analogy is piss poor.
They are also a private club and the law exempts private clubs except as far as they open to the public.
This place isn’t a hotel, it’s a private country club. That probably complicates matters as far as bringing suit against them.
Actually, political party is another thing you’re not allowed to discriminate based upon.
It’s all about public accommodation – if you offer your services to the public, you have to give them to everyone, regardless of protected class.
You could be an ass and say ‘no shoes no service’ or ‘no language no service’ or ‘no blue hair’ but those aren’t protected classes.
@10 If it were a matter of banning atheists because they were atheists that would be one thing. No different from banning a race. E.g. a business cannot say ‘no black people’, but that does not mean they have to allow the Black Panthers to hold a rally there.
actually, yes, they do, especially if they already entered into a contract.
the only way to avoid this is by disallowing entire types of proceedings to occur, and this has to be noted before any contract for use is set up.
example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/01/AR2005060101986.html
the Smithsonian allows rental of its theater for public use.
However, it categorically does NOT allow use for ANY religious or political venue (the ID group LIED to them, and they still let it go on because they didn’t want to be seen as discriminatory).
The difference here is that this country club, which DOES NOT SPECIFY RESTRICTIONS FOR PUBLIC USE, has in fact discriminated against a specific group.
if they wanted to set it up like the Smithsonian did, which does NOT discriminate or promote a specific religious or political group, that would be fine.
this country club didn’t do that though, so they are libel under even the most general application of the civil rights act itself.
case closed.
seriously.
It is not a private club – they are advertising their services. That means they are not private.
This place isn’t a hotel, it’s a private country club. That probably complicates matters as far as bringing suit against them.
again, NO.
they rent their space to the public.
because they do this, they are NOT exempt from the Civil Rights Act.
hell, I just read the article, and they even cover this in THERE.
are you people so lazy you won’t even bother to read the linked article itself?
It’s a (mostly) private members-only golf club. They have no lodgings, they just have ‘event facilities’, which means a large room with a podium and lots of folding chairs.
It is very much so NOT a hotel.
In order to be private, they must be absolutely private. Only members can hire out the facilities. If they even breathe they are open to anybody for hire, they fall under the anti-discrimination statutes. What an idjit fuckwit, if you can’t see the truth of what they are doing, and try to wave it away. Can’t be done. They will lose big time. SCOTUS is not their friend, and their is no precedence to allow their blatant discrimination.
Cripes. This isn’t difficult, and being wrong about it doesn’t make one a bad person (Giffy). No one’s calling you a stupid bastard or impugning your honor. But you are wrong on this point, factually wrong. People have pointed out the actual law to you, and there are several articles with lawyers weighing in on this very point. This isn’t in controversy. You don’t get to have a “different opinion” about a plain fact Why are you so invested in defending a mistake?
@27 The Smithsonian is a public facility, not a private venue. Public venues like Universities have to do what you say. Viewpoint is not a protected class when it comes to private actors renting a venue. I can only rent my space to jazz musicians if I want or not allow the republicans to hold their convention there.
@32 Find me one successful case where a private venue was sued for viewpoint discrimination.
Under federal law I mean. Some states have broader protections than the Civil Rights Act.
giffy.
last time:
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THE COMPANY IS PRIVATE, IF THEY RENT SPACE TO THE PUBLIC.
this country club RENTS SPACE TO THE PUBLIC.
as such, it falls EXACTLY under the purview of the civil rights act, just as if it was an entirely public venue.
sweet plastic jesus on my dashboard, you’re one dense cookie!
They have no lodgings, they just have ‘event facilities’, which means a large room with a podium and lots of folding chairs.
holy crap!
why are there so many clueless gits here?
it doesn’t fucking matter if it’s a HOTEL, it rents venue space TO THE PUBLIC.
PERIOD.
fuck me, you think the Smithsonian Institute is a hotel?
why do you think I included a link to these very issues using the Smithsonian as an example?
Private clubs can discriminate, but
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=wmjowl&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26sqi%3D2%26ved%3D0CEgQFjAG%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.wm.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1091%2526context%253Dwmjowl%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcivil%2520rights%2520act%2520private%2520country%2520club%2520rent%2520%2520%26ei%3DsXqTTqWgB8moiQLLmZnjBA%26usg%3DAFQjCNHxdkHZDU3s0Xed-I5QvthfZjvL0Q%26cad%3Drja#search=%22civil%20rights%20act%20private%20country%20club%20rent%22
#33/34 It’s not a private venue, as made clear over and over and over and over and over and over, and oh yeah, even in the original freakin article. Might be good you actually read something before rehashing a false argument for the umpteenth time.
If they only rent the space out to club members, its private, the moment they rent it out to non-members, it isn’t.
In this case, they also publicly advertise that they offer these services to non-members, making it even more a PUBLIC VENUE.
Things like this happen in the UK frequently, although not with atheists but with gay people. A Christian couple who owned a bed and breakfast (not sure if Americans use this term, but it basically means letting out a room in your home, but you are still subject to the same laws hotels have to follow and are rated like such) refused to allow two men to stay with them after they found out they were a gay couple and wanted to share a room. Fortunately the gay couple took the bigots to court and won, IIRC the bigots appealed and failed. http://news.sky.com/home/article/15897770
@36 Then find a case where this has happened. The Civil Rights Act is limited to protected classes and viewpoint is not one of them.
Shoulda gone to Marriott. Shame, because the one in Detroit is pretty awesome. (Speaking as a former Marriotter.) We hosted plenty of groups that were controversial, and their money was as good as anyone elses.
But the real loser is the country club; they lost his business, and will lose more business from those who don’t believe in discrimination.
Giffy, have you really never noticed that “religion” is a protected class under Title VII?
You keep saying “viewpoint.” That keeps being entirely immaterial.
@36 Then find a case where this has happened. The Civil Rights Act is limited to protected classes and viewpoint is not one of them.
this was already covered upthread. See #22. Even includes a handy link.
giffy, you’re a moron.
case closed.
Seriously. I don’t get it, Giffy. Why are you arguing this way? Is it just entrenched self-defense now, regardless of the fact that you’re wrong? Honestly – I’m not trying to be mean, but I’m utterly baffled.
@43 Like I said, discrimination against someone because they are an atheist is illegal. Discriminating against an atheist because they hold views that a venue objects to is not.
I cannot say that Christians are not allowed to rent my venue but I can say that NOM is not welcome based not on their religion, but on their views regarding gay people.
Ron Lindsay is a lawyer, as is Eddie Tabash. This should be good.
Discriminating against an atheist because they hold views that a venue objects to is not.</i
you really are an idiot.
yes, it is.
this has been explained to you several times now.
I cannot say that Christians are not allowed to rent my venue
this IS WHAT THEY DID. just substitute “atheists” for “christians”.
do you have a learning disability?
you’re really not getting this, are you.
wow.
… banging my head on the wall that is giffy caused my keyboard to skip the closing italics bracket.
Giffy is just lying here. For legal purposes, atheism is considered under religion. Not viewpoint.
This was ruled on long ago by the US Supreme court.
@Giffy If the Wyndgate Country Club wants to make the point in their defense that they don’t object to Dawkins as an atheist, but because of other views he holds, then they can make that defense in the lawsuit. But if they do, I can’t wait to see what they come up with. Presumably, the event was related to The Magic of Reality, which is about science, so it would seem they don’t object to science advocacy. Other than science advocacy and atheism, I don’t know that Richard Dawkins has any other relevant views that might come into play here. Certainly nothing else came up in the O’Reilly interview, which was apparently the turning point.
Ron Lindsay is a lawyer, as is Eddie Tabash. This should be good.
meh.
If we’re laying odds, my bet is that they won’t bother to take it to trial.
Just calling attention to it with the news article was most likely sufficient.
Not saying it wouldn’t be interesting, fun even, if they did, but I’m betting they won’t.
While Giffy continues his mindless lying, here are a few google captures. For legal purposes, atheism is defined as equivalent to a religion and entitled to all legal protections granted to religions.
Sorry, that should be Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000a), not Title VII.
Giffy wants case citations, so here are a few:
That’s what I could find in five minutes on Westlaw.
Giffy’s pretense aside, this is not in fact a difficult case. Title II of the Civil Rights Act specifically mandates that “[a]ll persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyoment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
On the facts provided, there’s simply no way that the Wyndgate Country Club can credibly argue that (1) they’re not a place of public accommodation or (2) they didn’t discriminate against this event based specifically on Dawkins’ (lack of) religion. Sorry, Giffy, but the Club is all but certain to lose this one in court.
@37 Icthyic
I never said I thought it was or was not in their rights to discriminate. The fact is, it is not a hotel it is a privately owned membership-only golf club.
I didn’t see, although I may have missed it, whether this event would have been open to the public. In my reply to the posting at Blag Hag, I expressed my dislike that they canceled the event.
Oh, for fuck’s sake! Accomodation does not mean hotel! Public accomodation includes things like restaurants, restrooms, theaters (though some do fall asleep during particularly poor performances (or so I have heard)), and, yes, country clubs if they rent their facilities out to non-members! It has been stated repeatedly in this thread.
It does not fucking matter whether or not the event was open to the non-invited publid. A wedding held at a country club falls under the definition of a public accomodation — can anyone just waltz in to a private wedding? The act of renting out the facility, or any part of the facility, to anyone who is not a member of the country club, makes it a public accomodation whether or not the public is invited!
Care to try again?
You haven’t been reading our posts. The club advertises for public business, not just by members. Ergo, it killed any such defense as you keep thinking is in place with stupidity. They are a public business. Period, end of story.
The good doctor will still be in the Rochester area on Oct 13 on the campus of Oakland University (kudos and thanks to campus group atheistsatou.com), which I very much plan on attending (I trust no one will plan on trying to run him out THERE).
PZ – If you get news of a lawsuit defending Dawkins and atheists in Detroit, please let us know who might be collecting donations. Maybe the ALCU might even be interested.
I think Giffy is not going to be seen again. Somehow I don’t think he’s the kind to say “whoops, sorry I fucked up” publicly.
Agree with PZ in suggesting CFI Michigan explore legal action on discriminatory grounds.
Local Michganders should write some critical op-eds and send ’em to local publications–exercise some written muscle; put the actions of this country club out for public view (students of atheistsatou.com, unite!).
Lord Shplanington @#6
I am fairly sure it is supposed to be “AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!”
:P
It’s too bad you weren’t also booked to give at talk at that same venue and time, PZ.
Because, if so, and prior patterns hold, they would have banned Dawkins, but let you through, and we’d get another ironic example of both their hypocrisy and their ignorance.
Amphiox @63: Yeah, and that’s very possibly how the sequence of events would have played out, too. Dang—the symmetry would have been hilarious.
Dawkins just pains them too much:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/2011/10/10/mormonism-is-not-a-cult-okay/#comment-4774
I should point out that the original person who took the reservation and signed the contract was almost certainly an employee who had no problems with Dawkins speaking and is perfectly aware of the law on public accommodation. The owner probably only became aware later that Dawkins was even speaker. Now I have two thoughts (1) I hope the employee hasn’t suffered because they took the booking and (2) who owns he country club.
Wow, it’s always fun to hear about former employers in the news…
Larry made his money as an owner of a rather large auto supplier, before the bankruptcy. The golf course was a hobby.
Yeah, Larry is pretty right wing. He almost shorted out my neurons one day when he told me that because Bill Clinton had sex with female interns it proved that he was gay, although he used a different term for gay.
You’re being a bit harsh about blacks, I remember we had a black sales guy and a black women admin. Of course we had several hundred office staff in suburban Detroit. The plants had a pretty diverse staffing, but when you hire cheap, you take what you can get….
@ Josh…
Thanks for for keeping a more moderated tone about stressing a point. Not real sure it reflects well on the ‘kids in the room’ when they feel need for profanity and name-calling simply because one is arguing their point–right or wrong– in a non-abusive manner. After all, wouldn’t want to reflect ‘Christian-like’, right-wing behavior.
Hypothetical case:
1) Someone who is a member of an established, recognized religion (protected class), but of a maverick sect/splinter..
2)who wants to rent a de facto public venue to…
3)MERELY espouse their views of violence/destruction/social upset in the name of their religion, or for furthering it.
religion
Let me see if I got this right. An alpha male has sex with a female subordinate. And this proves that he is a faggot?
It is a good thing that I have a thick skull. My brain just had a little explosion.
I hope your job paid well if that was typical of what you dealt with.
Hypothetical case:
why don’t you fucking look it up, instead?
as if you really cared.
@Ben
For your hypothetical case, they get to rent the room. That’s what you sign up for when you open your business to let space.
The way to fight hate speech is with more speech. If you don’t like what the organisation is saying, then by all means argue it. You can’t refuse to rent them the space. Chances are pretty good that your average hate-spewing splinter sect won’t want to do business with you anyway, if you express your disapproval strongly enough.
Thanks for the insight cmv..
I have created a petition on Change.org to ask the hotel owner to apologize.
http://www.change.org/petitions/wyndgate-country-club-apologize-for-anti-atheist-discrimination
@54 I am not saying that the Civil Rights Act does not apply to them, it most likely does, unless they fit within the private club exemption.
What I am saying is within that one is allowed to discriminate so long as it is not against a protected class. In this case they can say that Dawkins is not an event they want to have so long as they have a legitimate reason that is not solely based on him being an atheist. Just like they can not rent their space to the KKK, Democratic Party, or NOM.
Might want to reread The Krishna case. The 3rd circuit found it was not a public forum and upheld the ban on solicitations. Really though, the stadium being a publicly owned facility makes it a poor comparison. I am asking for an example of a private facility not being allowed to chose events based on content.
They’re afraid he might use the elevators.
Paul, you are not funny.
Go Grizzlies! Hell yeah!
Alas, I have moved to the east coast.
Giffy keeps asking for a citation, so here we go
Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association
A lesbian couple tried to rent a beachfront pavilion from the Assn and were refused.
The Methodist group argued that their religious beliefs allowed them to be exempt from New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, both Federal and State courts ruled against the Assn.
FFS, man, didn’t you read the excerpt above?
…or this part of the article?
…or better still, this part of the article?
Inane Jane
It’s your thick skull! Hey, at least you got it.
One
Two
One two
Fuck you
Paul, though you’re off to a good start, there are larger places with greater audiences to allow you to more efficiently make a public ass of yourself. Suggest you try commenting on YouTube videos.
@79 I said based on federal law. Litigation is still ongoing in that case, but it is under New Jersey law, which adds sexual identity to the list of protected classes. Under federal law that would be legal.
We all get it Paul. We just don’t particularly want it.
wow iv’e been ripped by an excellent rhyme, and an ad hominem.
On the other hand, I would recommend every book that Dawkins has written.
Ancestor’s Tale was excellent.
not sure jafafa would understand the reference though…
Giffy, willful blindness isn’t terribly useful in legal analysis. Why you insist on pretending that you haven’t had the facts of the case—which directly refute your pretenses—thrust right in your face I can’t understand.
And what you have been shown, repeatedly, is that the club, by its own admission, has discriminated in terms that are specifically barred by Title II: on grounds of religion. Pretending that hasn’t been pointed out doesn’t benefit you.
“They can say that Dawkins” is from Mars. That’s utterly irrelevant; they’ve already made clear that he and CFI have been disinvited based on religion. Ergo they lose.
Disinvitations that, unlike the one in the instant case, would not be on the basis of religion. Why do you insist on pretending you haven’t heard that. This is religious discrimination. We have pointed that out to you repeatedly. Religious discrimination. Religious discrimination. Religious discrimination. How many times do we have to say this before it gets through your skull? And before you stop pretending that the case has something to do with “viewpoint” discrimination?
No, not “content”—religion. You can’t win an argument by simply pretending the crucial fact doesn’t exist.
If you’re a practicing attorney, I hope you don’t try this same tactic in front of real-life judges. The plug-your-ears-and-hum approach you’re taking toward the central fact in this case would not go over at all well in any courtroom I’ve practiced in.
Paul, just because Richard Dawkins has written several excellent popular books about biology and has been an elegant spokesperson for atheism does not mean that he cannot be very wrong in other fields.
Fuck off, you fuckface.
He might have a great future as a Tea Party candidate though.
Giffster, you’re making me believe in reincarnation. I’m certain that you are my Uncle Danny back from the grave still arguing with my equally deceased and equally righteous father about whether the PB2Y-3 Catalina had Pratt and Whitney Wasp engines with dry or wet sumps, thus ruining another holiday dinner with his refusal to admit he was wrong and that they were dry sump fed and that my dad was right and yes, the turkey was damned good and sorry for hollering through dinner. Let. It. Go.
Sorry, Gang, but Giffy seems to me to be raising a not trivial question. I don’t see how the troglodyte who owns the Wyndgate violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act which prevents discrimination only on grounds of “race, color, religion, or national origin” unless atheism is in fact a religion. I certainly wouldn’t want to argue that it is, and if the courts have generally held that it is [not simply in a single prison case involving an inmate’s access to literature], that’d concern me. I think the downside of having atheism judicially defined as a religion may outweigh the upside.
The owner refused on grounds that he did not want his facility associated in the public mind with people like Mr. Dawkins and those who held to his philosophy. That seems mushy enough that I’m not sure a case on Title II grounds would be a slam dunk winner. [A breech of contract suit might well be.]
It’s be wise to keep in mind, I think, that behaving like a blithering idiot in the conduct of your business is not, and should not be, illegal or subject [except under narrowly defined circumstances] to government sanction. The owner is behaving like a horse’s ass. On that we can all agree. I’m not convinced he’s behaving illegally but for the breech of contract issue.
@87 Where did they say it was because he was an atheist?
In my second post I said “If it were a matter of banning atheists because they were atheists that would be one thing. No different from banning a race. E.g. a business cannot say ‘no black people’, but that does not mean they have to allow the Black Panthers to hold a rally there.”
I agree, if their reason was that he was an atheist it would be illegal. However there is more to Dawkins than simply that, just as there is more to the Christian Coalition than just being Christians. I can’t say Christians cannot rent my event center, but I sure can say that I won’t rent to an anti-gay convention. Hence why hotels that host these events often get calls to cancel them or boycotts. For example: http://www.examiner.com/lgbt-issues-in-santa-ana/anti-gay-hate-group-to-celebrate-at-disney-s-grand-california-hotel In Bernstein the only difference between them and other weddings is the gender of the party, and since under NJ law discrimination based on sexual identity is illegal, they hopefully cannot deny them.
Some commentators have been saying that if you are a public accommodation you can’t discriminate period. That is wrong. You can only not discriminate on the basis of a protected class. Religion is one. Views that may be associate with religion, like what this event was, are not.
Beyond simply not wanting to rent to him they would also have solid arguments about not wanting to attract controversy, security concerns, and the appropriateness of the venue.
By your logic if I had an event space, and a racist church wanted to hold a we hate gays and black people rally, I’d have to rent it to them because otherwise I would be discriminating against Christians. That’s absurd.
In other words if they were denying a stamp convention because it was an atheist stamp convention they would be in violation of the law as the only thing there differentiating that from something they would allow is the atheism. However that does not mean they have to allow the Catholic Right to Life League to hold an event there since its not that they are Catholics that is the problem, but the political or social views they will be expressing.
Rights Act which prevents discrimination only on grounds of “race, color, religion, or national origin” unless atheism is in fact a religion.
for the THIRD TIME…
you uh, DID SEE THAT THIS WAS ALREADY COVERED, RIGHT?
there’s a big link to the SCOTUS case on point in 22.
shockingly poor reading comprehension skills on display.
…keep diggin’ that hole, gifster.
Thanks for for keeping a more moderated tone about stressing a point. Not real sure it reflects well on the ‘kids in the room’ when they feel need for profanity and name-calling simply because one is arguing their point–right or wrong– in a non-abusive manner. After all, wouldn’t want to reflect ‘Christian-like’, right-wing behavior.
You want to talk like you’re in a fucking church, go to a fucking church. You’re in a bar here, with adults, not children or uptight fuckfaced prudes.
Some commentators have been saying that if you are a public accommodation you can’t discriminate period. That is wrong. You can only not discriminate on the basis of a protected class. Religion is one. Views that may be associate with religion, like what this event was, are not.
Look, moron, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE CONSTITUTION ATHEISM IS A FUCKING RELIGION, you stupid, stubborn deluded fuckface!
What part of this are you too determined to be right regardless of reality to understand?
Aquaria, you have to admit it’s amusing that anyone should praise me for taking a moderate tone. Of course, it would be even funnier if it had been you!
Bob Becker
Legally in the US it is as per a fairly old Supreme Court decision.
As Raven in comment 53 points out.
And Giffy – religion really is a protected class, as are religious views. You would have to rent your space to the Christian Coalition if they offered you the asking price and you couldn’t come up with some other reason not to host them.
No, that’s the law. It is why we do not protest the people who host such things – because they are legally obliged to not discriminate on religion.
All right, color me a fool for walking into the lions’ den.
I don’t think this case would be a slam dunk illegal discrimination case against the club.
I think it would be a exciting prize fight that goes the distance given the club probably will muster deep pockets to support them and thus sharp lawyers advocating for them without hesitation.
And (here I go into the den) Giffy has presented a point that will have some traction in their defense if they play it right.
What I am saying is that Giffy has a useful nugget for sharp advocates and I could see the club mounting a cogent defense in that framework.
I think they would be smart enough to avoid connecting their rejection to a rejection of a protected group per se. Rather I think they would play it the other way – that Dawkins incites violence (or harassment) against a protected group (christian religion) and they were not going to be party to it.
Just because that seems shaky to many of us and I think they would ultimately fail if it goes the distance (if both parties persist) does not mean they could not make it a battle for Dawkins.
Note I do not address the apparent breech of contract that probably would take wind out of their sails.
But I am cautioning us is do not miss the forest of what Giffy is saying for the trees you would disagree with. Lawyers that know their craft and practice it well will not miss the nugget.
ConcernedJoe: I don’t think there’s any traction there. Unfortunately for the venue, they have made public statements prior to consulting lawyers (or, if lawyers were consulted, they should be fired). The statements make it pretty clear what their motives for cancellation were, and no amount of sharp lawyering will twist those words away from discrimination against a protected class.
—
—
(Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F. 3d 678 – Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2005)
Are we there yet?
ConcernedJoe,
You would have a point had the owners not already said why the cancelled the booking. Given that they said it was because “they did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.”
That is an admission of their part that they discriminated on the grounds of either Dawkins’ atheism, or his support for the theory of evolution. Both clearly are not legal grounds for refusing service. I should point out that in Dawkins’ case the two are closely intertwined.
Now they could claim that the reason they initially gave is not the real reason. I doubt though that will fool a court for a second.
Giffy:
Are you familiar with the First Principle of holes? (Tip o’ the hat to Ichthyic @ 95)
This is simple case. There is both breach of contract and illegal religious discrimination — and the guilty party has for all practical purposes admitted guilt.
He needs to become an example. If he does not then it says bigots can get away with it.
Thanks for the petition Kevin! Now if only I knew some non-white gay atheists in that area. I would like a few of them to help the cause by making-out in the lobby.
Without wanting to get in to the dogpile above, it would be very interesting to know the exact wording that the venue used to cancel the agreement (plus exactly what was said on the phone).
Breach of contract may be more clear, but the religious descrimination angle might be tougher to prove although from the post it seems pretty damning!
Unless Michigan laws regarding hotels has changed a lot in the last few years filing a lawsuit for breach of contract is not worth the effort. Either party can cancel up to very shortly bfore the actual time of the event with no penality. Also damages a limited to only actual damages, no punative damages are allowed.
The relevant case law has been posted on this thread multiple times. It’s old, voluminous, and the point is simple.
For legal purposes, atheism falls under category of religion.
You don’t see it because you are unable to read for comprehension. You really have two choices here.
1. Find a third grader to read it for you and explain the two and three syllable words.
2. Get a Thinking Brain service dog to read written material for you.
Marcus 102 and Matt 104
Yes siree bob – and I think that helps “our side” win ultimately.
Thing for your thoughts.
and THANKS for your thoughts too!
This is a lie. You aren’t thinking but merely babbling like a loon or a fundie xian.
Atheism was defined judicially as equivalent to a religion decades ago by multiple court cases. Like it or not, you can be a bigot all you want but you can’t discriminate against atheists any more than Moslems, Jews, or Pagans.
Not that it matters, but how can an individual “own” a club? By definition isn’t a club owned by its members?
There is some information about the owner bigot of Wyndgate country club from google. It’s not all that complimentary.
He has been sued before. Apparently he got rich off of auto parts and then his company went bankrupt.
It looks like he is a wealthy businessman and got his and could care less about anything or anybody else.
As Marcus and Matt have pointed out, the club has already said the reason for cancellation was that the owner disagrees with Dawkins’ views on religion.
In order to mount a cogent defense, they’d have to backtrack and lie about their reasoning. “What the owner meant to say was that we don’t host academic lectures” or something like that. Could they backtrack and lie? Yes. Does that make Giffy’s analysis useful? No.
Giffy’s error is that he keeps ignoring the point that the owner already stated the reason for the cancellation, and the stated reason falls under Article II discrimination. His point is that there are hypothetical reasons the owner could haven given to legally cancel. Okay, point taken. But the owner didn’t give one of those hypothetically legal reasons. The fact of this case is, he gave an illegal reason.
Apparently, Larry J. Winget siphoned money from his auto parts company to fund other companies it owned including the golf course. It then went bankrupt and he got sued. The legal complaint called it “fraudulent”.
“The 91-page lawsuit, filed in a Detroit bankruptcy court by Venture and unsecured creditors, calls the transactions made between Venture and the separate affiliates “a concerted scheme by Winget” that was “fraudulent.””
If you put Larry J. Winget into google all sorts of stuff comes up. He seems to spend a lot of time in court sueing and being sued.
“made in numerous lawsuits currently pending against Winget raise concern as to”
I didn’t read any of the .pdfs so it isn’t too clear what is going on. And I don’t care enough to bother wading through huge numbers of court documents. Some of it seems to involve taxes.
My impression is that he siphoned large quantities of money out of his main company which then collapsed and he is trying to keep it or some such. He doesn’t sound like a nice guy at all.
The article says it was because of religion, but I don’t see them saying it, and the article is not exactly written by a neutral party.
Like I said repeatedly, if it was because of his religion, i.e. being an atheist, then yes that’s illegal discrimination. However philosophies does not equal religion and it would take a defense attorney seconds to list any number of things Dawkins has said or believed that would not qualify.
I’m not saying the club is right, far from it, I am just saying that a lawsuit would almost certainly be a failure.
And no, you do not have to rent to the Christian Coalition unless the reason you are denying them is their religion as opposed to their politics or other views. Well under federal law anyway. Your mileage may vary under state law.
True, but if you think they are lying you need to produce evidence. You have not done so, so I am assuming you have none. Therefore this point is dismissed.
What do you think was meant by philosophies ? In the context it means only one thing. Therefore this point must also be dismissed.
Given you have been wrong about so much, your opinion is worthless. This point is also dismissed.
This is just meaningless, and therefore also dismissed.
There is no outrage outside the actual sceptical community itself, and this is nothing new. Just a few days ago, Archbishop Williams employed an interesting form of words when he characterised the attacks on Anglicans in Zimbabwe as ‘mindless and godless’. He did not seem conscious of the fact that he had just employed the lack of religious belief as an insult, thus alienating atheists everywhere and contributing further to the intolerant attitiude toward atheists prevalent in Zimbabwe. He also seemed oblivious to the irony inherent in the fact that he used this turn of phrase to refer to a group led by the excommunicated former anglican bishop Nolbert Kunonga, a fellow theist.
Very few people seemed to even notice that Williams had just demonised atheists – fewer still seemed to care.
Of course, during his visit to the UK last year, Pope Palpatine went even further by seeking to link atheism to nazism. Once again, there was no public outcry, and the only people who seemed interested in holding the Pope to account for his bigotted statements about atheists were… the atheist and humanist groups themselves.
If we are waiting for society at large to recognise discrimination against atheists as being equivilent to other forms of discrimination – say on the basis of ethnicity or religious belief – then we will likely be waiting a very long time indeed.
Discriminatory and prejudiced statements and actions pertaining to atheists happen all the time, and not by disempowered fringe figures but by the recognised leaders of global religions, and no one cares. Anti-atheist bigotry has a level of social acceptability perhaps only exceeded by sexism (and, in some parts of the world, homophobia). No one sees it as wrong, and so no one takes a stand against it. When it comes to tackling discrimination against non-believers, we are on our own, and I don’t see this situation changing any time soon.
It’s here.
According to polls two of the most hated groups in the USA are Moslems and atheists.
The other two are…fundie xians and the Tea Party.
The xians have sown a lot of hate. They are reaping the fruits of their labor. A lot of people just end up hating them back.
I think the downside of having atheism judicially defined as a religion may outweigh the upside.
Really?
Upside: protection for atheists’ basic human rights.
Downside: Bob Becker might have to add some nuance to an argument on the internet.
I’ll take my civil liberties over your rhetorical convenience, thanks.
Meh…
Apparently, not a great venue anyway:
<a href="http://courses.golfreview.com/cat/mid-west/michigan/golf-course/the-wyndgate/prd_70544_3853crx.aspx#reviews"
Gregory @121: To be fair on Williams, he was specifically talking about the actions of a bishop. In that context, “godless” is a valid criticism – “God wouldn’t like what you’re doing”, rather than lumping atheism with evil.
Marcus Hill @ 125;
Perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his intended meaning, but at the very least he is still thoughtlessly equating ‘godlessness’ with unethical behaviour. He may appreciate the nuance, but I doubt that all his followers will. It all plays into the discourse that one ‘cannot be good without god’, whether Williams intended it ot or not.
The constitution says creed, even. Which means that if you decided to kick out all Democrats, you’d be violating the public accommodation law, as well.
I think the downside of having atheism judicially defined as a religion
no, you forgot the rest of what is supposed to go there:
atheism is classified as a religion for the purposes of judging whether one’s civil rights are impacted by a specific action.
that is not actually the same as atheism=religion.
instead, it is merely a way of saying those professing a lack of a religion should be equally protected as those who profess a specific belief.
it fits perfectly with the 1st amendment.
Just came across this. According to the newscaster, CFI (not named in the report, just referred to as “the organization that worked with the professor and set up this appearance”) does plan to sue.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/the_edge/rochester-hills-country-club-cancels-richard-dawkins-appearance-20111012-ms
Oh, they definitely plan to sue. For those not on their mailing list, here’s a message they sent out today: