Live free or die!
The other side of sex, tolerance, democracy, autonomy and what-not: the Elks have to admit women, and if members make sexist remarks while discussing a particular application they can get stuck with stiff damages for emotional harm. The New Hampshire Supreme Court decided that the Elks are a “public accommodation” because they have lots of members, most applicants get the required 2/3 vote for admission, and they cover a lot of their budget by putting on events open to the public (to which women are in fact admitted). Since the Elks are a public accommodation they have to admit women, and since sexist comments are intentional the plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages for emotional harm the comments caused. So what are the various guardians of the law telling us?
One point the decision leaves unsettled is how the Elks can police
their own compliance when membership decisions are made democratically
by secret ballot. They can control language, but what about votes? Presumably they’ll have to have quotas of some sort —
democracy is a good thing, but only within limits. How to do that within
the limits of Justice O’Connor’s demand that affirmative action methods
be “soft” and not “hard” may, for all I know, become the subject of future litigation.
Comments
Someone once told me that Elks do not admit non-whites as members - anybody know if this is true? If it is, I’m surprised they’re not also being attacked for exclusivity on “racism” grounds as well as “sexism”. Posted by: Will S. on June 30, 2003 2:19 PMAccording to one of the linked cases they used to admit only whites but changed that some time ago. Posted by: Jim Kalb on June 30, 2003 5:02 PM |