Augusta, Boy Scouts, and Free Association

smoothmoniker · 03-04-2003, 07:33 PM

The Boy Scouts want to exclude homosexuals.

Augusta National wants to exclude women.

Setting aside, for the time being, the ethical arguments for or against their respective positions, I'm interested in finding out what people think about the essential right of free association.

Is freedom of exclusion an necessary component of free association? The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that it is, but are they correct?

Secondarily, should the means of discriminating between those allowed membership and those excluded be essential to the purposes of association, or are they just as valid if they are tangiential? In other words, if the purpose of my associate with other people is to build a windmill, excluding those who cannot swing a hammer pertains to the essential purpose. Excluding all those who's names start with the letter "M" is clearly tangential. Speaking ethically rather than legally, is it still within my rights to do so?

-sm

(PS, if this devolves into a pro-anti-war thread like everything else on the site, so help me I'll vomit on my spiffy new sketchers)

View Poll Results: Does the ethical right to free association necessarily include free exclusion
Yes, to associate you must exclude	10	55.56%
No, you may associate without excluding	2	11.11%
2 medium cheese pizzas, a pepsi, and some cookies	3	16.67%
Undecided	0	0%
I'm a post-modernist, therefore your language games hold no reference to reality, and all answers are equally meaningless	3	16.67%
Free thinking is bad. very bad. we must all do what the voices in our head whisper. they are good. they are very good.	4	22.22%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

03-04-2003, 07:33 PM	#1
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	Augusta, Boy Scouts, and Free Association The Boy Scouts want to exclude homosexuals. Augusta National wants to exclude women. Setting aside, for the time being, the ethical arguments for or against their respective positions, I'm interested in finding out what people think about the essential right of free association. Is freedom of exclusion an necessary component of free association? The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that it is, but are they correct? Secondarily, should the means of discriminating between those allowed membership and those excluded be essential to the purposes of association, or are they just as valid if they are tangiential? In other words, if the purpose of my associate with other people is to build a windmill, excluding those who cannot swing a hammer pertains to the essential purpose. Excluding all those who's names start with the letter "M" is clearly tangential. Speaking ethically rather than legally, is it still within my rights to do so? -sm (PS, if this devolves into a pro-anti-war thread like everything else on the site, so help me I'll vomit on my spiffy new sketchers)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)