So will Dawkins be appearing at an alternate venue, or has this event been cancelled?
Votes: +4

The Wyndgate claims to be a "private" country club. I'm not a lawyer but I think this may give them more rights to exclude. I think this is why I am excluded from visiting my local Chinese Gentlemen's Club. While I find their behavior rude, ignorant and inconsiderate, I do think they have a right to form a private club and exclude whomever they want. Hopefully enlightened members will exclude themselves to the point where Wyndgate is so exclusive it is no longer viable. Votes: +22

I have to admit, I don't quite get it. According the the email I received from CFI on this issue, these are privately owned facilities, that they rent out on occasion for public use. I do not see any reason why they should not be allowed to choose who uses their privately owned facilities.

If they refused to let a white supremacist use their facilities, would we scream foul? If they refused to allow a homeopathic convention to be hosted there, would we cry that they were being unfair?

I agree that there is bigotry in this decision. And I agree that pressure should be put on them to change, by informing the public about it, and encouraging others to express their disagreement with this decision. But claims that it is illegal? That it somehow violates our civil rights?

I'm dubious. Votes: +20

Just to clarify, when I say "rude, ignorant and inconsiderate," I am talking about Wyndgate, not my local Chinese Gentlemen's Club. Votes: +8

Hotels are privately owned facilities. They are not allowed to discriminate in the rental of their facilities. Does this "private" club rent facilities for public use is the question. Acceptable answers are yes or no. A little bit, or kinda/sorta are not acceptable answers before the law. They could argue the proposed event is not suitable for the facilities or would disrupt other activities. But cancelling a booked event because the guests are the wrong colour our believe in the wrong type of fairies is very hard to justify in a court of law. A judge might be hesitant to force them to honour the contract, and the relative timetables might make that moot, but, if a judge found the club was in the business of renting facilities to the general public, he or she could order the club to refund all payments made by the CFI and pay all of the CFI's expenses in securing an alternate venue and pursuing the matter in court.

However, even a court of law is to some extent a court of public opinion, and in the USA at least, adherents of mainstream religions have more right to not be offended by atheist than atheists have to be fairly treated. This will be very interesting. Votes: +25

Gordon, some good points. Now, a question.

Let's change the situation. An atheist owns private facilities that are sometimes rented out for public use. An organization approaches him, saying that they want to rent the facilities for a scientific symposium. He agrees.

After making the agreement, he discovers that the "scientific symposium" is actually a white supremacist convention with speakers presenting 'scientific reasons why whites are superior to other races', or other such nonsense. Or it is a homeopathic symposium, presenting 'scientific' proof of the efficacy of various homeopathic treatments.

The owner of said facility is loathe to be associated with such events; and informs the organizers that they are no longer willing to host such an event.

I would agree that he should be required to refund any moneys paid; perhaps even compensate them for additional costs in finding a new venue. But would this really be a "violation of their civil rights"?

Or is this a rallying cry to be used only when we are the ones being discriminated against? Votes: +5

As ever, IANAL applies here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL ). If the event is on private property, the owner is *probably* under no obligation to invite any given person. Votes: +0

The key words in the article were "has broken their contract". So I agree with Gordon. If they entered into a contract which did not specifically exclude topics which may be discussed during the event, then surely they should be legally obliged to honour it? Without that assurance, all contracts would be pointless.

"Yes, I know I signed a contract to buy that property from you for $1,000,000. But I don't like the colour of your socks. So I'm not going ahead with it".

And yes, if atheist owners of a venue enter into a contract which later turns out to be for an event promoting racism, or homophobia, or whatever, then providing the event is lawful, they have to honour that contract, although they are free to issue a public statement to the effect that they consider the views being expressed to be abhorrent.

I think most skeptics would be smart enough to investigate the event before renting their venue, and write the details into the contract. If the details were later modified, it would be perfectly proper to void the contract.
Votes: +13

The difference between your hypothetical scenario of an atheist denying a white supremecist and this factual scenario is the language in the American Civil Rights Act which only applies to protected groups. As far as I know white supremacist are not a protected group. The next question is, are atheists a protected group? Because we fight so hard to be excluded from being labeled as a religion would the courts be forced to make a ruling on that matter? Votes: +1

This wouldn't be an issue if the club had said no in the first place. Maybe it should be, maybe not, but it wouldn't be. They didn't say no. They said yes, and then later broke the contract. The question is are the reasons given reasonable cause to break a contract?

Was the CFI open and honest about the content of the event? Did the club practice due diligence? Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned atheist and the CFI is an institution of some public stature itself. If the names CFI and Richard Dawkins appear in material given to the club, it seems likely the reasonable man standard would hold the club should have known what was coming.

I hope the CFI was open and honest enough the original contract can be judged valid, because then the really interesting question gets asked. Is the atheism of a speaker sufficient grounds to break a legal contract? The owner seems confident in the rightness of his position. He boldly states it. Will the club as an institution adopt the same stance, or something more discrete? Or will someone suggest the management of the club entered into the contract inappropriately as they knew (or should have known) that the owner would not approve of the booking? That sounds like something the right and left hand need to sort out amongst themselves.

My prediction: The event will not be held at the club. The CFI will be offered a full refund by the club and funds to cover any additional expense incurred securing a new venue upon submission of receipts to the club. The matter won't be brought before a judge or adjudicator of any description. There will be only limited media coverage which in the main will focus on the owner's rights as a private citizen. There may be some coverage which spins an atheist group trying to leverage big government to force a God-fearing man to betray his beliefs and principles.

As I said, it should be interesting. Votes: +2

@kdv: My comments fully acknowledged that there would be issues of breaking a contract, and a need to compensate for any losses thereof. However, that does not equate to a violation of civil rights. My question is whether this rises to the level of a civil rights violation, as claimed in James Randi's letter.

@Mighty_troglodyte: I cannot find any mention of "protected groups" in the section of the Civil Rights Code that James Randi refers to above. What it says is, "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and 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." So yes...racists have equal 'protection' with atheists, or any other group, when we are discussing civil rights issues. Votes: +0

Here in the UK, a shopkeeper or bar owner can ban a person from the premises without giving a reason. In fact, they are often advised not to give a reason, as doing so could lead to a lawsuit. In January 2011, two Christian hotel owners in Cornwall who banned gays were found guilty of discrimination ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...l-12214368 ) The Wyndgate situation is less clear cut, and although Richard Dawkins could sue, it would probably be best to move on and point out that he was banned from holding the event at the club. Votes: +0

It is also worth noting that The Beatles had a clause in their contract that banned segregated audiences in the US ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente...s-14963752 ) Recently a contract specifying this in 1965 was sold at auction. The lesson for sceptics is to take a leaf out of The Beatles' book before hiring venues for events. Votes: +6

If you want all the details and references, head on over to the thread about this at Pharyngula. In brief, the club are legally a "place of public accommodation", since they hire out their facilities to non-members. In law, that's an all or nothing affair - you are either members only (in which case you're free to discriminate at the level of whom you allow to join) or you're legally obliged not to discriminate based on (among other things) religion. According to well established precedent (right up to SCOTUS levels), for the purposes of discrimination legislation atheism is regarded as a religion. They cancelled the contract and made a statement which plainly indicates that the reason was religion. There doesn't seem to be much room for legal wrangling here. Votes: +19

A private organization is allowed to descriminate, as has been affirmed by numerous state and federal court decisions including SCOTUS. See the wiki page on the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies for a good summary. In short:

The BSA's policies have been legally challenged but have not been found to constitute illegal discrimination; as a private organization in the United States the BSA has the right to freedom of association[.]

Votes: +0

I'm not sure CFI has a case either, since according to the same quoted Civil Rights law:
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964SEC. 201

"(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b). "
Votes: -2

If you were given a venue at JREF and that was removed due to your religion, then that would be hypocrisy. But there are numerous reasons why you should not be given a venue. To be given such an opportunity usually requires some sort of accomplishment in the field of skeptical inquiry and that you have a topic to present that relates to the field.

Sir, when are you denied a venue at any convention, it might have something to do with your lack of qualifications, not your religion. Votes: +7

I don't speak for Randi, nor am I one of his minions. However, I am pretty sure that what you say is not correct and you would be welcome to speak. If a speaker was very well known as a religious figure, I dare say that the audience would be curious to know how he could be rational about homoeopathy (to take your example) but not metaphysics.

I am not at all religious, but I note that many scientist and some sceptics are. In my experience the religious views of insightful people usually involve the realisation that those views are irrational and they accept their religion as a part of the human experience - and certainly not something that can be objectively demonstrated to be true. Votes: +7

You'd be allowed to speak, but it would be within the organizer's rights and the attendee's expectations to require you to stay on topic (i.e. debunk homeopathy without religious witnessing or proselytizing). This is why religious people can be public school teachers. An educator or professional speaker should be able to speak on a specific topic without straying or injecting personal unrelated content. Votes: +5

"you said its impossible for a Christian not to be duped by all manner of woo"

I don't know how you came to that conclusion when what I actually said was that many scientists and some sceptics are religious. Perhaps your preconceptions are getting in the way.

As for what Randi would choose to do in you hypothetical situation: how you can be so sure you know? Perhaps you can give us an example of when Randi or some other well-known sceptic behaved in the manner you describe? Votes: +9

Sorry about the typos above. Its been a long day... Votes: +3

Your words:"If a speaker was very well known as a religious figure, I dare say that the audience would be curious to know how he could be rational about homoeopathy..."

As to the hypothetical, lets just ask Randi himself (assuming he reads these posts). Would he allow an outspoken Christian to keynote a skeptical topic (homeopathy, etc) if said person assured him they would stay on topic? Votes: -9

There is no case to answer with regard to religious discrimination. The act should be interpreted to mean that a person/s may not be refused goods or services on account of their religion. Atheism is not yet a religion and therefore atheism is not a protected from discrimination under the law.
There is of course the matter of breach of contract which may also be addressed in the civil courts though I suspect that is not the fish the RDFRS wish to fry. I don't think it is outrageous to be honest. For instance, if the cancelled speakers had been homeopaths and not atheist, would the JREF be so outraged? I see it as a case of atheistic antagonism rather than righteous indignation.
All this being said, it is a mystery why they would book the event in the first place. Surely, Dawkins views are known? Votes: +0

Clever retort but you didnt answer the question:

Would you allow an outspoken Christian to keynote a skeptical topic (homeopathy, etc) if said person assured him they would stay on topic? Votes: -10

Randi said: "...religious speakers have appeared at JREF functions, as well as parapsychologists with whom we seriously differ." Is that not enough for you?

As for your contention regarding Randi's likely behaviour I again ask you to answer my question: can you give an example of when Randi or some other well-known sceptic behaved in the manner you describe?

Why do you believe that your allegation is likely to be true? The charge of hypocrisy is a serious one so I think it only reasonable that we ask for some kind of evidence – not necessarily proof – that the accusation is plausible. If you cannot provide that evidence are we left to imagine that your assertions based on nothing more than the ignorance and bigotry that you accused me of earlier?
Votes: +4

It seems some people are either too lazy to read what others write here, or too stupid to understand it. I'll try again for the hard of thinking.

1) Any organisation is free to discriminate in terms of its membership (like the BSA). However, as soon as it allows non-members to rent its spaces, the provision of those services fall under the anti-discrimination laws.

2) The law forbids discrimination on religious grounds. In law, for the purposes of discrimination, atheism counts as a religion.

The venue is available for hire by the public. They cancelled RD's booking because he's an atheist. That creak-thud you hear is the sound of the case opening and shutting. Votes: +10

I just browsed through the Wyndgate website looking for any overtly religious activities or even any christian sounding catch phrases. I didn't find any at all.

Their annual event calender isn't very religious either. Here are their events.
Easter Buffet, Mother's Day Buffet, Independence Day Festivities, Ladies' Shopping Day at The Wyndgate, Fall Family Fun Day, Children's Ornament Making Party, Santa Brunch.

The Easter event is pretty much a religious based though if they have Easter Bunnies that is certainly secular. I'm kind of surprised that Christmas is NOT mentioned!

If I were to book an event there I would not have any clue that was any religious consideration at all. It seems like an entirely secular business. So they really are going to be considered as foolish to rational people. Votes: +1

"Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment 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.”" - Center for Inquiry http://www.centerforinquiry.ne...ned_in_MI/ Votes: +3

2) The law forbids discrimination on religious grounds. In law, for the purposes of discrimination, atheism counts as a religion.
Dawkins aims to kill religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl8lR69K7Zc&feature=related Votes: -7

Doesn't that just mean people who are not members can attend such events?

No, that's not what the law means.

On another note, it appears that once again I am pulling the train of the soft gangrape of the lowly rated comment, and I suspect that some of you are going around to the end of the line and taking a second turn. That's okay, it kind of turns me on.

This is my first post here and I don't know what this means. I'm certainly not trying to turn you on.
Votes: +2

Remember that religious protections apply the the religious and non-religious. Votes: +2

Of course the law applies to all but the non religious cannot invoke religious discrimination protection since they cannot be discriminated against on religious grounds, being that they are not religious!

This is just incorrect. You cannot legally discriminate against someone because of their religion or lack thereof. Votes: +5

While this behavior is odious and foolish, and Randi's points are generally valid, I think that in general the laws about public accommodations do not apply to private clubs. Someone compared this to a hotel earlier, but that's not a similar situation: A hotel does not exclude the general public as a matter of standard policy. A private club does.

Now, if they merely canceled the contract, and the contract does not contain any language allowing them to do so unilaterally for any reason, then there's probably a case to be made on contract law grounds, but I very much doubt anti-discrimination legislation applies here.

IANAL, of course. Votes: +1

It seems rare these days that even private clubs are 100% private. Many, dare I say most, of these sorts of institutions apply for public grants from local, state, and federal coffers. This often (your laws may vary) opens up 'private' institutions to public law. Although this club may say they are private, is this completely true? If someone can show that they receive support from their local, state, or federal governments, there might be a good case for arguing that they cannot discriminate. All this being said, they are probably thinking that if they can stall the group with silence, this will all go away once the date passes and the likelihood of anyone taking this any further is small. Votes: +2

I understand the paradox you are pointing out. How can lack of religion have the same legal standing as having a religion? I can only answer with a question: How can it not? Is it really your viewpoint that there should be legal protections that apply to witches, Scientologists, Rastafarians and sub-genii but not to those who disavow all religions? Was it really the intention of the founding fathers to say "We don't care which religion you believe in but you MUST believe in a religion?" I've heard others express this opinion so I guess you wouldn't be alone - George Bush Sr. said on multiple occasions that atheists should not be considered citizens. To me this seems obviously antithetical to American ideals of freedom and fairness. Is that the America you want? Votes: +1

George Bush Sr. said on multiple occasions that atheists should not be considered citizens.

Of course he did, dear. George Bush [NOT] Sr., more properly referred to as George H.W. Bush, is a reptilian shapeshifter, and you know how they feel about atheists.

Seriously, dude? I am skeptical of the veracity of your statement. Votes: -1

popsaw, get back under your bridge. Being regarded on the same level as a religion for the purposes of discrimination doesn't make atheism a religion, it makes it a protected class.

lytrigian: read the thread, your point is addressed several times. The law applies to any institution that offers its space to rent for the general public. Votes: +2

Is the club obligated to rent space to al-Qaeda, the Vivid Awards, the Miss Nude America Contest, or the Source Awards? The Charlie Sheen Roast? The NAMBLA Convention? The Church of Satan? Calypso Louie Farrakhan?

Well, let's see. The relevant law says "race, color, religion, or national origin". So they could probably get away with discriminating against al-Qaeda and NAMBLA on grounds that they promote criminal activity and the Miss Nude America and Vivid Awards because of the sexual content. As for the other groups, the Country Club is free to turn anyone away as long as it's not for one of the verboten reasons. They could claim that they stand to lose money on the deal, for instance.

On another note, it appears that once again I am pulling the train of the soft gangrape of the lowly rated comment, and I suspect that some of you are going around to the end of the line and taking a second turn. That's okay, it kind of turns me on.

Are you aiming for sympathy or a reach-around?
Votes: -1

Although it is in no way a private institution, didn't the Smithsonian go through something similar with the Discovery Institute? Surely there are parallels to be drawn. Also, I can't remember what the JREF's position on it was, but I'm sure there was at least one Swift article about it. That may clear up whether any hypocrisy exists on the part of JREF. Votes: -2

This is just incorrect. You cannot legally discriminate against someone because of their religion or lack thereof.

Yes you can, so long as it is not on the grounds of a persons race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Votes: -6

You wrote: "Seriously, dude? I am skeptical of the veracity of your statement. "

Good for you, dear! You should check it out for yourself. May I suggest googling "George Bush atheists citizens" without quotes for starters. That will get you this website among others:

http://robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm Votes: +1

Oh, I'm sorry dear, did I put you on tilt? Would you like some tea? Or perhaps some A?

I looked at the website you were so kind as to provide, and I found this:

Beginning a few years after my story was published, some atheists and other concerned citizens began to ask for proof that the conversation between Mr. Bush and myself actually took place, and that Mr. Bush actually said what he said. I had nothing but my spotless reputation to go on, but that's not enough for many who don't know me. Being that I was a print journalist, I had no need for a tape. All I needed to do was to take accurate notes and report the story in writing.

As they would say on Cartalk: Booogus! As they would say on Mythbusters: The myth is busted! As Penn and Teller would say: Bullshit.

Mr. Sherman goes on to write:

Subsequent to these astonishing statements, I wrote to (then) Vice President Bush demanding a clarification of these remarks. More than two months later, on February 21, 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, wrote to me from the White House as follows:

Your letter of December 19, 1988, to President Bush has been referred to me for reply. As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees.

This letter was a clear admission by the President, through his counsel, that he had indeed made the remarks and was not backing down from them.

(Emphasis added by me).

That last sentence there, that's what is commonly called a LIE.

So you supplied a source that is on its face bogus bullshit and contains an obvious lie. Well done. Votes: -3

@ Melody Henshel
written by popsaw, October 12, 2011
This is just incorrect. You cannot legally discriminate against someone because of their religion or lack thereof.

Yes you can, so long as it is not on the grounds of a persons race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

A little proofreading goes a long way, m'Lady. Votes: +0

private golf clubs are still able to refuse to allow women, jews, blacks and presumably atheists, to use the facilities. the faility that hosts the Masters golf classic opened themselves up to blacks, not because they lost a lawsuit or because they had a ethical epiphany, but because they faced a significant loss of revenue when the PGA threatened to move the event elsewhere. this case of discrimination does not seem to be that different. not to say that it is right, or desireable, but that it may very well be legal, without regard to how outrageous it may be. i would guess that only longterm and significant financial losses would cause the owner(s) to rethink their position. but i could be wrong. Votes: -1

There seems to be a lot of confusion. The country club is allowed to be discriminatory within their organization, but once the advertise their space as "open to the public" for rental they need to legally abide by discrimination laws. This has been mentioned many times in posts and articles. It's a very easy concept to understand. Votes: +1

I don't know what country you live in, because you don't seem to understand US laws. The non-religious are a protected class and it is implied under religious discrimination. Votes: +4

written by popsaw, October 12, 2011
This is just incorrect. You cannot legally discriminate against someone because of their religion or lack thereof.

Yes you can, so long as it is not on the grounds of a persons race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Thick or dull, which are you? Quickly now!

He said: "You cannot legally discriminate against someone because of their religion[.]"

You said: "Yes you can, so long as it is not on the grounds of ...religion[.]"

You really don't see the problem? Seriously, dude? Votes: -4

once the advertise their space as "open to the public" for rental they need to legally abide by discrimination laws.

"Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions."

I suggest once again that they are open to the public in terms of attendance at special events and occasions, not necessarily in terms of to whom they will rent.

I also suggest that you are not a lawyer. Votes: -1

The lawyers at CFI seem to think that "open to the public" requires you to follow discrimination laws. This was also my experience as a lease holder of a potential rental space of a private organization. In full disclosure, I am an employee of CFI. Votes: +0

>> 2) The law forbids discrimination on
>> religious grounds. In law, for the purposes
>> of discrimination, atheism counts as a religion.
> Dawkins aims to kill religion

So...his religion wants to kill all other religions.

Never heard of such a thing!



But good luck! I'm doing my part. Votes: +0

The law means what the law says, and what a Judge says it means. Lawyers are paid to convince Judges that the law says whatever their clients want the law to say. The law is not graven in stone. If a "Private" Golf Club can exclude blacks and women, unless and until the Club chooses to change their rules, then it seems likely that this "Private" Golf Club can exclude atheists. The legal details are a matter for a court of law, and unless you two want to present legal briefs and make your arguments here, then sit and wait for the legal ruling with the rest of us. Or save everyone the time and just get a room already. Votes: -5

I am a rational materialist, an atheist, without belief. I am not an anti theist, and I perceive Dawkins to be an anti theist. He does not speak for me, nor does he represent my views, opinions predispositions or prejudices. I perceive
Dawkins as an ass on a philosophical crusade.

my 2 cents:
Dawkins is a biologist, he should be more cognizant with the fact that all human beings are related - all one family.

my own thought - all for one, one for all Votes: -2

The legal details are a matter for a court of law, and unless you two want to present legal briefs and make your arguments here, then sit and wait for the legal ruling with the rest of us. Or save everyone the time and just get a room already.

Sadly, the rules of the board as I understand them do not allow me to tell you to go screw. I do not know what your proper role is, but may I suggest it is not to control the discussion? Votes: +5

Thick or dull, which are you? Quickly now!

He said: "You cannot legally discriminate against someone because of their religion[.]"

You said: "Yes you can, so long as it is not on the grounds of ...religion[.]"

You really don't see the problem? Seriously, dude?

Oh, the irony. Go back and re-read who posted what. Go ahead, take a minute to let it sink in.

So which are you: thick or dull? Votes: +0

You are quite right. I fear my zealous regimen of self-abuse has enervated me to the point of affecting my reading abilities.

I'll just go screw now. Votes: +4

The concept of a 'proper role' rests upon the premise of an ultimate authority, a premise which is at best unproven and which I personaly reject. Though it could be argued that a 'proper role' rests upon the ultimate authority existing within a specific and particular frame of reference, all things being relative. In this frame the authority would be the TOS (or in this case TOU) and my proper role would be 'gadfly' or an observer and contributor of ideas.

I find that assertions as to 'right and wrong' in matters such as this to be worthy of ridicule, while discussions as to what is desireable (or not) to be illuminating and discussions as to what is legal (or not) to be educational.

The ethical question seems to favor the right of the private club, or the right of the public service provider to refuse service at their discretion, save for the harm this right does to a protected class. Since the people being refused service are not advocates of hate, intollerance or violence, and their activities are unlikely to produce harm, there seems to be no good reason to exclude them from a protected class.

The legal questions are more complex, involving both civil rights and contract law, and as stated previously, legal matters such as these depend upon the specifics of the contract in question, the existing law, how a court can be influenced to decide which law is applicable and how to interpret the law. While discussion of the legal merits of any opinions on the issues may be protected speach, and a personal right, they are little more then exercises in rhetoric, save when they are presented in a court of law.

While I believe that Dawkins has the ethical high ground and that the legal gound is in fair dispute, with the edge going to the private club, I stand by my opinion that the interest displayed by several of the participants in this comment thread express repressed sexual tensions that would be best dealt with privately and behind closed doors, for the sake of societal custom and propriety.

Of course, I could be wrong ... Votes: -5

... BREAKING: Bill O’Reilly to respond to “Wyndgate-Gate” on Friday, October 14, O’Reilly Factor ...

As reported on Monday, October 10, a CFI–Michigan event featuring Richard Dawkins was abruptly cancelled after the owner of the venue saw an 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. Read more: http://www.centerforinquiry.ne...nt_banned/ Votes: +0

I stand by my opinion that the interest displayed by several of the participants in this comment thread express repressed sexual tensions that would be best dealt with privately and behind closed doors, for the sake of societal custom and propriety.

You sound like one of those people who is turned on by the idea of other people having repressed sexual tensions, and therefore sees those tensions where they don't exist. It's good that you're so open about it. While we're being open, I would like to put my penis in your vagina, and that's all I think about when I type. Now of course you'll say, "I'm justsomeguy so I don't have a vagina." No matter, I'll make do. I'm still thinking about it. Votes: -1

"I would like to put my penis in your vagina, and that's all I think about when I type." Caller XXX

Whatever floats your boat spanky, I'm all for free-thought.

I still think that the Private Club should have the right to refuse service,
IF
*their contract permits AND
*they notify Dawkins in a timely manner that allows him to engage an equivalent alternate venue AND
*an equivalent alternate venue is available AND
*they issue a full refund of any fees or downpayments AND
*Dawkins does not fall into a protected class under applicable Civil Rights laws

For example: I would not expect the local American Legion to have to rent their facilities out to MoveOn.Org, or a Black Evangelical Church to host a White Supremecist's Wedding. Votes: -3

Why should the exercise of their property rights depend on the availability of an equivalent alternate venue? That makes no sense at all. It's not their problem. Votes: +4

@Caller X
written by Caller X, October 11, 2011
One wonders if Mr. Randi is aware that the state constitution of Massachusetts to this day requires state funding of religious activities. Hint: they're not funding Jews.

No, it does not.
Article III of Part the First did originally call for the legislature to fund Protestant churches, but this was superseded when Article XI of the Articles of Amendment was ratified in 1833, making the churches themselves responsible for their own funding.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution Votes: +2

I have been bazingaed. Thank you Mr. "okmyk"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...al_Series) Votes: +2

I'm sure that what you think is right matters to you, but it means nothing in a court of law. As has been pointed out several times on this very thread, the law very clearly states that offering their facilities for hire to the public makes the club a place of public accommodation. They are still free to discriminate on utterly arbitrary grounds when it comes to admittance to membership (and thus the hire of any facilities that are strictly members only), but when it comes to hiring out facilities that are available to non-memebers they are fully bound by tha applicable anti-discrimination legislation. This legislation clearly states that you cannot refuse to rent the space to a person or group based on their being in a protected class, including a religion. Case law right up to the supreme court has firmly established that, for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation, atheism is equivalent to a religion. I am not a lawyer, but I am literate. All the evidence seems to indicate that you have some problem in that area. Votes: +2

Reminder: O'Reilly's response was pushed back until tonight, Monday. Be sure to watch! Votes: +0

the private club made a commitment to perform. they wish to back out of that commitment, not because they are unable to perform, but because they are unwilling. forcing them to act against their will may not be required by law, but breaking their agreement harms the other party in the agreement, and the other party deserves to be made whole, which in this case would require that an equivilent alternate venue be made available. Votes: -1

you presume that the case law you refer to is the only case law that could have any bearing and is the case law that a judicial authority would decide is relevant and applicable. a proposition that has yet to be proven. Votes: -3

for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation, atheism is equivalent to a religion.

Atheism is not a registered/legal religion and is not recognized as such in the US (or anywhere else, therefore there is no case to answer regarding religious discrimination which applies to legally recognized religions
Dawkins whould have already subpoenaed the country club if it were but he has not done so or has keptit a secret if he has!
Furthermore, if atheism is a religion, Dawkins wishes to do kill atheism since his expressed desire is to do kill religion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yR8DaGOa1s Votes: -2