RootsBooster Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 That seems quite clear then, it couldn't apply to golf clubs as it stands. How so ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 The purpose of a golf club is to facilitate the playing of golf. It isn't a club set up for a particular group, like deaf women, as the example given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 The purpose of a golf club is to facilitate the playing of golf. It isn't a club set up for a particular group, like deaf women, as the example given. Unless it was set up for a particular group, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 Unless it was set up for a particular group, of course. I suspect "a golf club for men" would not meet the standard. Taking "for x" onto the end of the purpose of the club doesn't seem to be what the act means. Otherwise the act might as well not exist at all with regards to clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 I suspect "a golf club for men" would not meet the standard. Taking "for x" onto the end of the purpose of the club doesn't seem to be what the act means. Otherwise the act might as well not exist at all with regards to clubs. Well, Muirfield is a private club, for male golfers. That's how it was set up and that's how it remains, it seems to meet the criteria. Don't get me wrong, it's blatantly sexist and stubborn of them, I'm no fan of it. As a private club set up for a particular group they are within their rights though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 Has it been tested in court yet? Once it has, then we'll know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 Has it been tested in court yet? Once it has, then we'll know for sure. It's very possible that it'll never be tested in court. Many lawyers might think that a private club intended for a particular group does not contravene the equality act, what with it meeting the criteria word for word. Out of curiosity I'd be very interested to hear an argument against it, can you think of one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 Has it been tested in court yet? Once it has, then we'll know for sure. Similar cases have been tested, which is why Muirfield is confidently acting within the law. They are a "gentleman's club where golf is played". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 It's very possible that it'll never be tested in court. Many lawyers might think that a private club intended for a particular group does not contravene the equality act, what with it meeting the criteria word for word. Out of curiosity I'd be very interested to hear an argument against it, can you think of one? Many working mens clubs still do not give women full rights, its not something that toffs only toffs do, discriminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 22, 2016 Share Posted May 22, 2016 It's very possible that it'll never be tested in court. Many lawyers might think that a private club intended for a particular group does not contravene the equality act, what with it meeting the criteria word for word. Out of curiosity I'd be very interested to hear an argument against it, can you think of one? The act gives a very clear example of the sort of exception that is intended. The broader interpretation you are applying means that no club will ever fall within it, as any club can be simply append "for whatever narrow discriminatory group we wish" on the end. Social club for whites. Social club for blacks. Social club for men/women/under 40's/over 40's/gays/straights/folks who don't live in caravans/whatever. In which case the act may as well not exist with regards to private clubs, which surely wasn't the intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now