| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CMx2
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 06/03/2006 : 08:24:48 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
The “problem” with using the Masters as an example of a club that is still an “all men’s” club is that there is a women’s equivalent, the WPGA.
Herman
No.
The "problem" is that you don't seem to understand the definition of the word "private".
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 210 |
 |
|
|
Cheri
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/03/2006 : 09:33:36 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeWilly
Excuse me, Cheri, I did not see your post before I was composing my response. Obviously I concur with your position with respect to the word Private.
I did not mean to engage in blatant redundancy by repeating your Augusta National example but it is certainly on point.
No offense meant.
No problem.
Hugs, Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3519 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/03/2006 : 1:42:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CMx2
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
The “problem” with using the Masters as an example of a club that is still an “all men’s” club is that there is a women’s equivalent, the WPGA.
Herman
No.
The "problem" is that you don't seem to understand the definition of the word "private".
CMx2,
Then please explain why it is that the Supreme Court ruled that the PGA HAD to allow a man with a medical condition (in this case a withered leg) COULD use a golf cart to go from hole-to-hole, instead of walking. Even though it was clearly against the rules that the PGA had set forth for playing in their tournaments?
I mean stop and think about it for a second. How many people/men with “bum” legs do you think really want to play in the PGA/Masters? Yet, The Supreme Court despite a lower court’s ruling that the PGA had the “right” to set it’s own rules that they HAD to make allowances for a person with a medical condition.. I mean going by what some of you have been saying the PGA has the right to tell golfers that IF they want to play in it’s tournaments that they have to walk from each hole to the next hole. Yet, clearly The Supreme Court obviously saw it differently, correct?
Clearly the Supreme Court did NOT agree with the lower court, and found/ordered that they HAD to make allowances for this one man. Is that NOT making allowances or exceptions for the minority as someone asked earlier?
That case as I said set the precedence that would allow the lawyer of a man with a medical condition that results in his having frequent and/or uncontrollable erections to sue if a club tries to act against him for having an erection in a “public” setting. And not “doing” anything about it.
Herman
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/04/2006 : 6:15:56 PM
|
Obviously as the following stories at the New York Times show "private" clubs cannot set rules that violate the law. And discriminating against a person because of a medical condition (regardless of how rare/uncommon) IS clearly against the law as well as the American's with Disabilities Act.
The Americans With Disabilities Act took aim not only at overt discrimination against people with disabilities, but also at barriers to access in the public and private sectors.
http://tinyurl.com/0
Herman
|
Edited by - Digital_Cowboy on 06/04/2006 6:27:40 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
CMx2
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 10:31:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
CMx2,
Then please explain why it is that the Supreme Court ruled that the PGA HAD to allow a man with a medical condition (in this case a withered leg) COULD use a golf cart to go from hole-to-hole, instead of walking. Even though it was clearly against the rules that the PGA had set forth for playing in their tournaments?
I mean stop and think about it for a second. How many people/men with “bum” legs do you think really want to play in the PGA/Masters? Yet, The Supreme Court despite a lower court’s ruling that the PGA had the “right” to set it’s own rules that they HAD to make allowances for a person with a medical condition.. I mean going by what some of you have been saying the PGA has the right to tell golfers that IF they want to play in it’s tournaments that they have to walk from each hole to the next hole. Yet, clearly The Supreme Court obviously saw it differently, correct?
Clearly the Supreme Court did NOT agree with the lower court, and found/ordered that they HAD to make allowances for this one man. Is that NOT making allowances or exceptions for the minority as someone asked earlier?
That case as I said set the precedence that would allow the lawyer of a man with a medical condition that results in his having frequent and/or uncontrollable erections to sue if a club tries to act against him for having an erection in a “public” setting. And not “doing” anything about it.
Herman
o.k. so according to your "logic" (I use the term loosely), All burden lies on the accuser.
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
and that the burden of proof is on the accuser and NOT the accused???
and
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
And given that in the US that the burden of proof is on the ACCUSER and NOT the accused to prove their case WHY should the accused have to prove anything?
Using your logic, if a guy comes to a nudist club and has a constant erection and makes the claim of a medical condition, Its up to the club to prove otherwise.
Using your logic, if a guy goes to the PGA and claims to have a bum leg and states that he must ride from hole to hole in order to play, its up to the PGA to prove otherwise.
Using your logic, this guy with the "bum leg" didn't need to PROVE his leg was bad. For all we know, his leg was fine. He just wanted to ride the golf cart from hole to hole to conserve energy for his game. Right?
WRONG!
Now read this carefully.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSED AND NOT THE ACCUSER.
According to your logic, the supreme court is going to make a ruling about someone with a medical condition without that person even proving that they have the condition?
WRONG!
According to your logic, any club that denies access to a male, just because he is walking around with a constant erection WITHOUT proving he has a medical condition, is seriously risking a law suit.
Again I'll say
WRONG!
But I look forward to hearing what crap you can come up with to argue this.
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 210 |
|
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 3:23:25 PM
|
Cowboy, Casey Martin's case came squarely under the Americans with Disabilities Act. His leg condition was found to be a disability within the meaning of the act.
Moreover, since the act applies to "workplaces" and Mr. Martin's workplace was the golf course on which PGA sponsored events took place the court held that he was allowed reasonable assistance (use of a golf cart) to compete.
Do you think that a medical condition that causes erections might be a disabilty within the meaning of the ADA?
Nor do I.
Cowboy the WPGA is not the counterpart to Augusta National Golf Club; the PGA is. Augusta National is a private club that may pick and choose who it allows to be a member.
|
Edited by - GeeWilly on 06/05/2006 3:27:31 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 9:42:53 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CMx2
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
CMx2,
Then please explain why it is that the Supreme Court ruled that the PGA HAD to allow a man with a medical condition (in this case a withered leg) COULD use a golf cart to go from hole-to-hole, instead of walking. Even though it was clearly against the rules that the PGA had set forth for playing in their tournaments?
I mean stop and think about it for a second. How many people/men with “bum” legs do you think really want to play in the PGA/Masters? Yet, The Supreme Court despite a lower court’s ruling that the PGA had the “right” to set it’s own rules that they HAD to make allowances for a person with a medical condition.. I mean going by what some of you have been saying the PGA has the right to tell golfers that IF they want to play in it’s tournaments that they have to walk from each hole to the next hole. Yet, clearly The Supreme Court obviously saw it differently, correct?
Clearly the Supreme Court did NOT agree with the lower court, and found/ordered that they HAD to make allowances for this one man. Is that NOT making allowances or exceptions for the minority as someone asked earlier?
That case as I said set the precedence that would allow the lawyer of a man with a medical condition that results in his having frequent and/or uncontrollable erections to sue if a club tries to act against him for having an erection in a “public” setting. And not “doing” anything about it.
Herman
o.k. so according to your “logic” (I use the term loosely), All burden lies on the accuser.
Given that here in the USA we have a little thing that says a man i.e. person is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty, yes.
quote:
You should be considered innocent until it can be proved that you are guilty. If you are accused of a crime, you should always have the right to defend yourself. Nobody has the right to condemn you and punish you for something you have not done.
Sadly, it appears that there are those here who do want to “condemn and/or punish” a man just because he has had an erection. And for whatever reason hasn’t done anything about it as quickly as some think that they should.
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
and that the burden of proof is on the accuser and NOT the accused???
and
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
And given that in the US that the burden of proof is on the ACCUSER and NOT the accused to prove their case WHY should the accused have to prove anything?
quote:
Using your logic, if a guy comes to a nudist club and has a constant erection and makes the claim of a medical condition, Its up to the club to prove otherwise.{/QUOTE]
Again, given that here in the USA, a person is PRESUMED to be INNOCENT, UNTIL
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/18/2006 : 10:04:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeWilly
Cowboy, Casey Martin’s case came squarely under the Americans with Disabilities Act. His leg condition was found to be a disability within the meaning of the act.
Moreover, since the act applies to “workplaces” and Mr. Martin’s workplace was the golf course on which PGA sponsored events took place the court held that he was allowed reasonable assistance (use of a golf cart) to compete.
It applies to BOTH work places AND the private sector, i.e. a club cannot deny a person membership based on a medical condition regardless of how rare it might be. And I am sure that there are plenty of people who would argue that playing golf isn’t/wasn’t Mr. Martin’s only choice for earning a living. And that he could have found a job that didn’t require the employer to make “special” considerations for him.
quote:
Do you think that a medical condition that causes erections might be a disability within the meaning of the ADA?
Nor do I.
IF it prevented him from taking part in some sort of activity, yes I can.
quote:
Cowboy the WPGA is not the counterpart to Augusta National Golf Club; the PGA is. Augusta National is a private club that may pick and choose who it allows to be a member.
Clearly though as the Martin v PGA case shows NOT if it’s viewed as discrimination based on something that a person has no control over. That would be like saying that people who have Tourettes Syndrome and are prone to uncontrollable bursts of profanity should be “barred” from public places because someone might not know that they have Tourettes Syndrome and be offended by their outburst. Or the mentally challenged who have a limited grasp of right from wrong should likewise be “barred” because they might do something that someone finds “offensive.” Do any of those sound “right” to you? Barring someone because they have a condition that they cannot control, and that some find to be “offensive” because they do not understand what is going on?
We had I believe in another thread a young lady saying that she was at a nudist venue and that there had been a man floating on a raft with an erection and not doing anything about it. She eventually turned so that she wasn’t facing the pool. And that shortly after having done so the man’s wife approached her and explained that he had had penile implants, and that that is why he had a constant erection.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
GeeWilly
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/19/2006 : 7:43:07 PM
|
Cowboy, until you have studied and understand the law, please refrain from attempting to use it to substantiate some of your bald assertions.
Moreover, your proclivity for taking one extraneous comment; e.g., the French woman who reported awareness of her partner's erection on the dance floor and was (apparently) all right with it; and using it as if it were truth directly spoken by an oracle, is both fallacious and embarrassing. It is "arguing from the exception", Cowboy, and it is logically unacceptable. (See further the study of Logic, Cowboy.)
We understand, Cowboy, that you are proud of your erection to the same degree that you seem incapable of discerning that such is exponentially more obvious in a nudist environment than any arousal a woman might experience. And again, you find one female who thinks her arousal is noticeable and latch onto it as if axiomatic truth.
It is just not so, my friend, and you can spit into the wind as long as you like without changing that. Let it go.
|
Edited by - GeeWilly on 06/19/2006 7:48:43 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 249 |
|
|
|
CMx2
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/19/2006 : 10:35:05 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeWilly
Cowboy, until you have studied and understand the law, please refrain from attempting to use it to substantiate some of your bald assertions.
+1
I'd also say his knowledge of law is only rivaled by his knowledge of medicine!
|
Edited by - CMx2 on 06/19/2006 11:12:01 PM |
|
Country:
| Posts: 210 |
|
|
|
JustJim
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 08:11:48 AM
|
A "Private" club, such as a nudist resort, can freely "discriminate" in any manner they see fit based on the owner or operator's personal bias or concerns about any applicant. They can control the number of "singles" to keep the ratio of men/women where they want it....they can decide not to extend membership or even admission to anyone they wish, just as you can decide who you allow to enter your home when they knock on the door.
The unenlightened few who contend they have a "right" to be on the premises of a private nudist resort sporting a constant erection (whether medically induced OR erotically induced), are dead wrong. If the owner/operator of the resort determines that it's disruptive or threatening or offensive to the membership, that person can and will be asked to leave.
The argument that an erection can be a medical condition and therefore exempt or protected by the ADA in a private resort enviroment is incorrect and ridiculous. Other medical conditions are not tolerated in a nudist resort such as: Leprosy, Severe Tourette's syndrome, uncontrollable flatulence...etc etc... get it?
JustJim
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 80 |
|
|
|
Digital_Cowboy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 07/09/2006 : 6:37:18 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JustJim
A “Private” club, such as a nudist resort, can freely “discriminate” in any manner they see fit based on the owner or operator’s personal bias or concerns about any applicant. They can control the number of “singles” to keep the ratio of men/women where they want it....they can decide not to extend membership or even admission to anyone they wish, just as you can decide who you allow to enter your home when they knock on the door.
The unenlightened few who contend they have a “right” to be on the premises of a private nudist resort sporting a constant erection (whether medically induced OR erotically induced), are dead wrong. If the owner/operator of the resort determines that it’s disruptive or threatening or offensive to the membership, that person can and will be asked to leave.
The argument that an erection can be a medical condition and therefore exempt or protected by the ADA in a private resort environment is incorrect and ridiculous. Other medical conditions are not tolerated in a nudist resort such as: Leprosy, Severe Tourette’s syndrome, uncontrollable flatulence...etc etc... get it?
JustJim
Jim,
You are the one who is wrong. Clubs here in the United States can NOT discriminate against a person based on any of the Federally or State Protected criteria such as age, gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, or medical conditions. (http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Mark's%20View/Thought%2026.html) There are plenty of clubs that USED to be men’s only clubs, but women have successfully sued for admittance because the men in said clubs would discuss business and that put the women at a disadvantage. There are also PLENTY of schools that used to gender exclusive but are now “co-ed,” such as West Point Military Academy as well as other military schools, and Vassar College in Poughkeepsie, NY, to name just a few.
Also if you take the time to read the article that is linked to above, you will see that the courts are ruling more and more that IF a “private” club or organization does business with, or rents their facilities to the public (such as a club/resort that rent’s it’s buildings or grounds for weddings), or if they receive any kind of tax break, then they DO fall under the anti-discrimination laws. The United States Jaycees have had to admit women into it, because of the actions of its Minnesota chapters allowing women as Full Members.
You can also learn more here as the bill discussed in the following article is aimed at clubs like the PGA/Augusta Masters golf tournament (http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=309&Itemid=61), I’ll admit that I do not know what the eventual outcome of that bill is/was, but it clearly shows that “private” clubs are NOT as “powerful” as they once were, nor are they “free” to discriminate against anyone for one of the aforementioned Federally or State protected conditions such as age, gender, creed to name but a few things.
A club would be acting responsibly in restricting access to certain areas to people with say Leprosy, or other health conditions that would put the majority of it’s members at risk. But a club would hard pressed to justify denying access to a person with Tourette’s Syndrome regardless of how mild or severe as Tourette’s is NOT a health “hazard” to other members.
Herman
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 310 |
|
|
|
later
Forum Member
|
Posted - 07/10/2006 : 5:36:03 PM
|
Totally unbelievable! From some guy attempting to justify his erections to Tourette syndrome! Unbelievable!
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 100 |
|
|
|
CathyK
Forum Member
|
Posted - 07/13/2006 : 9:24:36 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by later
Totally unbelievable! From some guy attempting to justify his erections to Tourette syndrome! Unbelievable!
Mega dittos!!
Cathy
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 128 |
|
|
|
JustJim
Forum Member
|
Posted - 07/14/2006 : 07:38:32 AM
|
Cowboy... presenting a "bill" that has been proposed most definitely isn't the same as citing a law that has been passed. While you're trying to "educate me" I think you might use a little remedial work yourself.
Organizations that receive federal or state funding cannot discriminate based on the "protected categories"... but private organizations or clubs can do as they please if they are self funded and don't expect to do any business with the government.
Otherwise, the Harlem Globetrotters would be forced to represent the community standards by being 80% white...and the Ku Klux Klan would need to undertake an aggressive affirmative action recruiting plan to meet the standards of having enough minorities in their ranks.
Thanks for your input but it's grossly flawed.
JustJim
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 80 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Frequent Uncontrolable 
