|
Abolish
Anti-Discrimination Laws
The 216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:rZki8W4OEdQJ:www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications/DFEH%2520250.pdf+unruh+act&hl=en
Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51(b),
stipulates that business establishments must
provide "full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services" and not
discriminate on the basis of "sex, race, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or
medical condition." The businesses in question
include, but are not limited to, hotels, non-profit
organizations, restaurants, theaters, retail
establishments, and beauty shops. Arguably,
California claims control over the customer
policies of every business in the state.
In 1995, the California Supreme Court online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/214CA3d646.htm
decided a case in which a woman demanded entry into
an exclusive men-only golf club. The court ruled
that private clubs operating as businesses were
required to follow state laws against
discrimination.
That's the law in California. But is it just, or
does the law itself constitute a violation of
individual rights?
The facts confronting the Body Central conflict
are not in question.
In 2003, Phillip Kottle was refused membership
at the women-only gym in Santa Rosa on the basis of
his sex. A few months earlier, Kottle had attempted
to gain full membership at the Elan Fitness Center
in nearby Petaluma, which offered only restricted
access to men. (Acting on his complaint, the DFEH
www.fitnessbusiness-pro.com/mag/fitness_womenonly_clubs_face/index.html
also filed a suit against Elan, which was settled
in January 2005 on the condition that men have full
access to classes and facilities, with the
exception of lockers and showers.)
The DFEH concluded that Body Central was in
violation of the Unruh Act and, in 2004, the owner
signed a settlement agreement by which the club was
opened to men. Separate shower facilities were to
be provided; a monetary settlement was offered to
Kottle; women-only advertisements were withdrawn;
the club's staff received anti-discrimination
training. In return, the DFEH ceased its
enforcement action against Body Central.
The DFEH's renewed action against the club
alleges violations of the 2004 agreement and points
to such transgressions as language on the club's
website. For example, Body Central www.bodycentralwomen.com/about_us.htm
states, "We specialize in fitness for women, with a
women only policy you get the privacy of the entire
gym."
The owner may have gambled on the possibility
that California would ultimately ignore a cause as
unpopular as a man forcing his way into a woman's
gym. After all, the cost of compliance is high.
Body Central's equipment and facilities are geared
exclusively for women's specific needs, and other
gyms have gone bankrupt under the financial strain
of expanding to accommodate both sexes. If so, the
gamble lost. A "status conference" on the DFEH
lawsuit is set to be heard in April before the
Superior Court.
The facts may be clear but the appropriateness
of involving law in the customer policies of a
private business is in dispute.
An ideological conflict underlies the attempt by
either sex to force open the doors of 'exclusive'
businesses: individual rights versus
egalitarianism. Under individual rights, every
human being has control over the peaceful use of
his or her own body and property. Under
egalitarianism, access to and use of property is
equally distributed across society, with or without
the consent of owners.
I come down on the side of individual
rights.
In terms of Body Central, I don't believe any
man or woman has a legal 'right' to exercise on
someone else's private property. I do not believe
anyone has a moral obligation to provide another
person with exercise. Freedom of association means
that individuals, including property owners, have a
right to say 'yes' or 'no' at their own front
door.
Unfortunately, an emotional element also
underlies the conflict. Some men applaud the
turn-around as an opportunity to give feminists a
taste of their own medicine. In doing so, they
adopt the very principles they allegedly decry:
egalitarianism, the legal imposition of gender
policy, the use of collective 'gender-think.' In
short, they become feminists.
Body Central may become not only a test case but
also a trial of conscience.
Women who believe in egalitarianism will either
apply that principle to men or be confronted by
their own hypocrisy. Men who believe feminism's
door-busting has been wrong will have to decide
whether they value revenge more highly than
justice.
As for me, I just hope an unjust law will be
extinguished rather than extended.
"For a similar critique of feminists' attempt to
force the Augusta National golf club to open its
male-only doors to women, please see www.wendymcelroy.com/ifeminists/2003/0225.html
©2008, Wendy
McElroy
* * *
Wendy
McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com
and a research fellow for The Independent Institute
in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of
many books and articles, including her latest book,
Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century. She lives with her husband in
Canada. E-Mail.
Also, see her daily blog at www.zetetics.com/mac
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
