Skip to main content

View Diary: Michigan country club cancels speaker due to his belief in God (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is it shameful? Totally disagreement. (0+ / 0-)

    No doubt Dawkins isn't doing this for free, and this is a private organization, they can listen to whom they want. Why piss off their members and have to pay for the privilege? If the Planned Parenthood of your city found out one of the speakers they hired was really a John Bircher, wouldn't they be not only within their rights, but also justified, and maybe even responsible, to not subject their membership to the lecture?

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 03:01:20 PM PDT

    •  Read the article (8+ / 0-)


      America, we can do better than this...

      by Randomfactor on Thu Oct 13, 2011 at 03:19:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Er, not at all what happened. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib

      The club owner wasn't paying anyone.  He was being paid by an organization called CFI, which had hired Dawkins to speak (they definitely want to hear what he has to say).  Read the article.

    •  Under Civil Rights Law... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the question of whether an institution is a "private club" or "public accommodation" largely hinges on how routinely it provides for-profit services to nonmembers. If the club routinely offers meeting and catering services to nonmembers, then those services are a public accommodation and the club cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

      •  Yes, but please remember that religion, race, (0+ / 0-)

        sex, etc. are mentioned in the CR Act in the context of protecting minority rights.  To wit, women have much greater cause (not to mention occasion) for claiming discrimination on the basis of sex than do men, even though there are (according to biology, if not sociology) two sexes.  And blacks more basis for claiming race-based discrimination than whites, and so on.  I suspect that a member of a locally unpopular and thinly populated faith would have much more cause to claim religious harassment, etc. than I would as a Presbyterian.

        Atheism is a best-selling phenomenon, and swipes against faith are very much a part our pop culture, so this is not an issue of the majority culture grievously harassing a powerless subgroup.  Which, of course, won't stop Dawkins, et al. from characterizing it as just that.  That line works, so they use it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site