California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

OK, so you're saying it would be acceptable to open and run a private club that excludes members based on the color of their skin, or their religious affiliation, or even their sexual preference, right?

Ever hear of the Masons? The Boy Scouts?

Neither of them will let atheists join.

A private club is not the same as a public business.

If my husband works hard and saves his money and decides to open his own restaurant (this would be over my dead body btw) why should the government tell him he has to serve anybody he doesn't want to. The business belongs to him. If he decides he doesn't want redheads in his establishment, what right does the government have to tell him he must? He purchased this place....this is the fruit of his labor. The only right the government has to do anything of the kind is the right it has bestowed upon itself. That doesn't make it just.

Then he'd better not open the restaurant to the public.

He can advertise it as an exclusive dining experience by reservation only.

TerryRC wrote:OK, so you're saying it would be acceptable to open and run a private club that excludes members based on the color of their skin, or their religious affiliation, or even their sexual preference, right?

Ever hear of the Masons? The Boy Scouts?

Neither of them will let atheists join.

Now this ought to be interesting.

June 9, 2008

Judge sues W.Va. Masons

An administrative law judge from Brooke County has filed a lawsuit against the West Virginia branch of the Masons, claiming they wrongly expelled him for trying to make the organization more inclusive.

According to the lawsuit filed May 30 in Kanawha Circuit Court, Charlie L. Montgomery and Charles F. Coleman II, both officers of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of West Virginia Inc., summarily threw Frank Joseph Haas out of the Masons for fabricated reasons.

Montgomery and Coleman are named as defendants in the suit, as is the Grand Lodge and several John Does.

Haas' lawsuit offers a glimpse into the world of the Masons, a centuries-old organization that traces its roots back to the United Kingdom. While the society is not exactly secretive, it has often been veiled in mystery, as some of its customs and practices are not revealed to non-members.

Haas joined the Masonic Lodge in Wellsburg in 1986, four years after he earned his law degree from West Virginia University. After years of dedicated service, Haas became the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge in October 2005, the suit maintains.

As Grand Master, Haas tried to make the organization's policies less discriminatory and racist and more in line with the U.S. Constitution and the state's public policy, the suit contends.

"Haas' goal was to make Masonry more tolerant, friendly, decent and accepting of everyone regardless of nationality, race, religion or disability," the suit states.

In October 2006, members of the Grand Lodge voted to adopt the progressive reforms put forward by Haas, the lawsuit alleges.

"These reforms and proposals were intended to rid Masonry in West Virginia of [its] Orwellian, repressive, regressive and unconstitutional practices," the lawsuit states.

In response, Coleman, who succeeded Haas as Grand Master, "almost immediately unilaterally entered various edicts rendering the progressive proposals voted on and adopted by a majority of Defendant Grand Lodge null and void," the suit claims.

Coleman justified his actions by claiming that the vote was invalid because of procedural errors, the suit alleges. But no Masons were punished for the alleged errors, and no further votes on the reforms have been allowed since, according to Haas.

Over the ..........................................
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200806080397

"Haas' goal was to make Masonry more tolerant, friendly, decent and accepting of everyone regardless of nationality, race, religion or disability," the suit states.

Haas' goal was to make Masonry appear intolerant, unfriendly, indecent, and lacking in understanding of many due to nationality, race, religion, or disability. To subject Masonry to the light of scrutiny is to destroy it.

I do not fear any changes being made to Masonry.

By anyone, ...... but the Masons themselves.

.

Steph: OK, so you're saying it would be acceptable to open and run a private club that excludes members based on the color of their skin, or their religious affiliation, or even their sexual preference, right?

Me: Ever hear of the Masons? The Boy Scouts?

Neither of them will let atheists join.

A private club is not the same as a public business.

Cough. Cough.

If you are open to the public, you have to serve the public, regardless of private ownership.

If you want to pick and chose, you have to have a private business.