Discriminatory Golf Course Cancels CFI Event - Loses Lawsuit

[BlackL1ght]

//http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/atheist_group_settles_landmark_discrimination_case_with_michigan_country_cl/

Plaintiff Calls Settlement "Unqualified Vindication" for Nonbelievers' Rights

A Michigan country club that cancelled an event by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), allegedly because of the speaker's and attendees' atheism, has agreed to a settlement in the case brought against it, marking perhaps the first time federal and state civil rights statutes have been successfully invoked by nonbelievers in a public accommodations lawsuit.

In April of last year, the Center for Inquiry, an organization advocating for science, reason, and secular values, brought suit against the Wyndgate Country Club of Rochester Hills, Michigan for violation of both the federal and state civil rights laws, as well as breach of contract, after it cancelled an October, 2011 CFI-Michigan event featuring famous atheist Richard Dawkins. The club tried to justify breaking its contract by stating that "the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies." The club's representative specifically cited a concern over Dawkins' appearance on The O'Reilly Factor a few days before, in which Dawkins' atheism was the chief topic.

"We're very pleased with the outcome of this case, which we regard as an unqualified vindication of the rights of nonbelievers," said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. "We are confident it will send a strong message that as much as this country now rejects discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and religion, so must we reject just as strongly discrimination against those with no religion."

As part of this settlement, the Wyndgate has agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to the Center for Inquiry.

"Of course the majority of businesses welcome the patronage of nonbelievers as much as anyone else," added Lindsay, "but if one should choose to prejudicially exclude us because of our lack of religious belief, we have shown that there will be consequences."

CFI was represented in this lawsuit by the Royal Oak, Michigan law firm of Pitt, McGehee, Palmer, Rivers & Golden, P.C. CFI is grateful for their able assistance in this case.

* * *
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization headquartered in Amherst, New York, with executive offices in Washington, D.C. It is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI's web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.

Good to know that this actually works.

[Brian37]

I heard about that, good for them.

[Plu]

That's good to hear.

[ApostateLois]

Excellent news! Christians are slowly learning that they can't expect to be treated in a non-discriminatory way if they don't want to return the favor. "Treat others as you want to be treated," and all that. Or is that another of Jesus' teachings that they can safely ignore?

[widdershins]

Excellent news! Christians are slowly learning that they can't expect to be treated in a non-discriminatory way if they don't want to return the favor. "Treat others as you want to be treated," and all that. Or is that another of Jesus' teachings that they can safely ignore?

The test for this is actually quite simple.  Do you WANT Jesus to want you to ignore it?  Then he does!  Or do you WANT Jesus to think it very important?  Then he does!  He pretty much believes whatever you want him to.

[Sleeper]

"...the owner does not wish to associate with certain individuals and philosophies."

That's fine. He can just associate a shit load of his club's money to them, then. Cool?

[commonsense822]

Not in favor!  They should be allowed to not serve atheists.

[widdershins]

Not in favor!  They should be allowed to not serve atheists.

How many places would atheists not be allowed then?  Should business not be allowed to served Christians too?  Muslims?  Should I be allowed to hang a sign in my business window saying "No Jews"?  Would it be all right if I specified that I meant nobody of the Jewish faith, but those of Jewish nationality were welcome?  I completely disagree with your assessment.

[Sleeper]

Not in favor!  They should be allowed to not serve atheists.

...Wyndgate Country Club of Rochester Hills, Michigan [violated] both the federal and state civil rights laws, as well as breach of contract...

The law's against you. Sorry.

[commonsense822]

Not in favor!  They should be allowed to not serve atheists.

How many places would atheists not be allowed then?  Should business not be allowed to served Christians too?  Muslims?  Should I be allowed to hang a sign in my business window saying "No Jews"?  Would it be all right if I specified that I meant nobody of the Jewish faith, but those of Jewish nationality were welcome?  I completely disagree with your assessment.

Yes.  If you own your business you should have to right to serve whoever you choose to serve, and deny service to whoever you wish to.  There will be implications for such decisions though.  

For example if I owned a restaurant and decided to deny service to Jews then I would not only lose the service of the Jews I'm denying service to, but also anyone that disagreed with my decision to deny service.  I would be putting myself at a competitive disadvantage towards the other restaurants that served to Jews.  Let the market sort them out.  

The law's against you. Sorry.

Say that to the Boy Scouts of America.  Have you tried joining them lately?  I'm pretty sure the law is on their side.  There are keywords in this article that are important.  First off, they did not go through the court system.  They settled.  Big difference legally.  It said that they were sued for violating federal and state civil rights laws but it didn't say they were found guilty of violating them.  When you settle you make no legal precedent, you settle outside the court system.

And they most likely settled not for fear of those civil rights laws, but more importantly probably because of the breach of contract they had.  The same laws that protect the BSA protects this golf course.

[Sleeper]

I agree with your free market attitude, but it wasn't a "Hey can we have a conference here?" "Nah," situation. If it was then you'd be right, they have every right to deny whoever they wish - they are a private club. But to agree (even read and sign a contract) then say "Nah, because we don't like your personal convictions," is a different story. The CFI probably made a lot of time and energy consuming and expensive plans, not to mention the plans and money of the attendees. If it were a Christian group god-blocked by atheists I'd feel the same way.

[Jmpty]

Bazinga!

[Johan]

Say that to the Boy Scouts of America.  Have you tried joining them lately?  I'm pretty sure the law is on their side.  

Apples to oranges. The Civil Rights Act offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation but it does protect against discrimination based on religion.

[Plu]

Stores being allowed to deny service like that sounds like a dangerous precedent. Certain groups of people (atheists included) are having a hard enough as is dealing with life in religious cities. Imagine if every small store there denied you service for your beliefs in addition to all the other crap you get.

It's nice if the market sorts in out, but in practice you'll run into the opposite situation, where the locals go "deny him service or we'll go someplace else" and then the market favors denying service to certain groups instead of the other way around.

[widdershins]

Say that to the Boy Scouts of America.  Have you tried joining them lately?  I'm pretty sure the law is on their side.  

Apples to oranges. The Civil Rights Act offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation but it does protect against discrimination based on religion.

Not to play devil's advocate here, but the Boy Scouts also don't allow atheists.  The difference is that they are afforded certain protections because they are a religious organization, bought and paid for by the Baptists many years ago.  It has nothing to do with the type of discrimination.