Richard Dawkins Event Banned by Michigan Country Club

[AnCap Dave]

Source

Prejudice against atheists manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins's views on religion. The event had been arranged by the Center for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

Richard DawkinsThe Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O'Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate's representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, "open to the public" means "all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

After learning of the owner's last-minute refusal to allow Dawkins to speak, CFI–Michigan asked the owner to reconsider his position, but this attempt to resolve the issue amicably was met with silence. The event, scheduled for Wednesday, October 12, will now be held at a different venue.

"It's important to understand that discrimination based on a person's religion—or lack thereof—is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race," said Jeff Seaver, executive director of CFI–Michigan. "This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time. It's exactly why organizations like CFI and the Richard Dawkins Foundation are needed: to help end the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever."

I wouldn't be surprised if we hear some kind of outcry for government to step in and force the club to let Dawkins have his little meeting here. While I understand the bias and bigotry that atheists get, we still need to remember that people have the right to associate with whomever they want and they have the right to allow or not allow anyone they want on their property.

[Ibrahim90]

Source

I wouldn't be surprised if we hear some kind of outcry for government to step in and force the club to let Dawkins have his little meeting here. While I understand the bias and bigotry that atheists get, we still need to remember that people have the right to associate with whomever they want and they have the right to allow or not allow anyone they want on their property.

you are absolutely right here; it is a private institution, non-governmental by definition, and thus not covered by the constitution. they could do whatever they want-even if it is stupid, like this one is.

but knowing history, I'm sure some guy will blow this, or a similar event, out of proportions and go to court over it.

[Gumba Masta]

So wait... they only realised that Richard Dawkins was an atheist after, what, last week?

[MrBogosity]

So wait... they only realised that Richard Dawkins was an atheist after, what, last week?

I know, right? Have they been living under a rock?

We have the first amendment right to free association, so they're free to not have him speak at their club for whatever reason they want. His supporters also have freedom of speech and of association, so they can engage in protests and boycotts all they want. They just can't go whining to the government to MAKE them let Dawkins speak.

[Gumba Masta]

Maybe you can get them to court over breach of contract at the most?
I mean Dawkins doesn't keep his atheism a secret right? They had more than enough time to inform themself even before agreeing to host this event with him. So it's a shortcoming on their part I presume?

[Virgil0211]

Maybe you can get them to court over breach of contract at the most?
I mean Dawkins doesn't keep his atheism a secret right? They had more than enough time to inform themself even before agreeing to host this event with him. So it's a shortcoming on their part I presume?

That would only be if the contract had a guarantee of some kind. If the contract stated that the establishment could drop the reservation at their leisure, then no.

[MrBogosity]

Even then, I think all contract law would say is that they have to pay him his fee; they would still be under no obligation to let him speak.

[Gumba Masta]

Well that's what I ment. At the most they would have pay fees. If anything.

[evensgrey]

Well that's what I ment. At the most they would have pay fees. If anything.

I hope that he adds such a clause to the contracts in future if he doesn't already have it in there.

As to when they noticed he's an atheist, it was most likely that some of their regular, dues-paying members made a stink once they noticed he was going to come.  That's their right, too, no matter how stupid it is to do.  (After all, the law has never been pretended to deny the right of private organizations to deny membership or patronage on stupid, arbitrary, and sometimes insane grounds.  EMPLOYMENT, yes, the law claims to limit the reasons you can refuse to hire people [which is itself an idiotic claim to make, but anyway...], but you don't have to accept the custom or membership of anyone you don't want to for any reason.)