Re: Free speech: Perpetually at risk

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 09:46:20PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> The Elks argued they were in fact selective b/c, among other things, they
> imposed the requirement that potential members believe in God.  The court was
> siply rejecting that argument, on the basis that this requirement hardly rules
> out anyone (and hence does not make the club "*genuinely* selective".
> 
> The "genuintely" part is presumably meant to prevent clubs from coming up with
> arbitrary restrictions, which are not enforced, and thereby arguing they are
> private rather than public.

So does that mean now that they can't discriminate against women, they can't
discriminate on religious beliefs (or lack thereof) either?

(unless they move to Michigan and call for affirmative action, of course)

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE++mFVtppIl2G1SjcRAmJMAKDA/fVtJ5FhiKtzKBmono1pD/AF3ACfaD5J
5HycxvUz54nI31ZqgtZolX0=
=b26L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----