Opensource | All Kinds of Golf Equipment 4u

Precedent Club

September 8th, 2010 admin No comments

Precedent Club
does this break the 14th amendment?

Irvis, an African American, was refused service at a Moose Lodge (a private club) solely on the basis of his race. He sued for relief in Federal Court asserting that this constituted discrimination by the state of Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania had granted the club a liquor license.

Questions to consider before making your decision:

Should a private organization be held accountable to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Is the granting of a liquor license an action taken by the state?

Should a private organization be held to the same standards that a state should be held to if it seeks out a privilege (a liquor license, a business license, or a building permit for example) that is granted by the state?

When the Supreme Court makes a decision, it sets a precedent (an example for the lower courts to follow in similar situations). What consequences might occur for a decision for either side?

I think it would depend on what type of liquor license the Moose Lodge held. The state of Pennsylvania has different classes of liquor licenses for organizations for which liquor is "secondary to the actual reason for the club's existence". I think that would be the case here.

If the Lodge holds a "C" class license:

"The club must possess an original charter and must hold regular meetings open to its members, conduct legitimate business through elected officers, admit members by written application, investigation and ballot, charge and collect dues and maintain required records. A club is not an organization used to accommodate a private bar operation. Additionally, no individual is allowed to own a club."

Since everything in this paragraph talks about clubs and membership, I don't think that the 14th Amendment is a valid argument. The club does not exist to sell liquor, the club exists to be a fraternal order, and the rules of membership in that fraternal order dictate who may or may not be served.

Was the refusal of service based on his race, or based on his membership (or lack thereof) in the Lodge?

If the Lodge holds an "H" or an "R" license (defined as "The primary purpose of the "R" licensed establishment is to habitually and principally provide food service to the public."), then they are, by definition, supposed to be serving the public and IMHO may not refuse service based on race.

http://www.psp.state.pa.us/blce/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=125121

(I didn't realize this was a historical case from 1972 - details on the outcome of the case can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0407_0163_ZO.html )