R&A has decided Trump Turnberry won’t host British Open

[ghalfaire]

22 hours ago, jamo said:

I guess I see it completely the opposite. There are a dozen of golf courses that could host the Open as well or better than Turnberry. It's a nice courses, but I wouldn't miss it. But there's only one Open. It would be big for Turnberry to lose that.

Certainly is significant for Turnberry to lose the Open.  But I do doubt Trump will be the one to feel the pain.  More likely it will be the local businesses and fans that will be hurt by this.  Trump will just keep being the Donald and trucking on and I doubt green fees or business will drop off at the course.

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

There's ambiguity in all of life, and I'm sure there's some inconsistency in my views on a number of subjects.  I do support Mr. Trump's right to say what he wants to say.  All the 1st Amendment says is that the US government won't restrict your right to say what you want.  However, freedom to say it doesn't mean there aren't consequences.  One consequence that Mr. Trump is hoping for is that he'll be elected President.  He chose to put his opinions out there, he has to accept the consequences, for good or bad.  Nobody is choosing not to do business with him based on his religion, or the color of his skin.  The decision by the R&A is based on what Mr. Trump has chosen to say. Its also based on their estimation of potential consequences if they DO award an Open to Trump's Turnberry.  The decision may also be based on principles, but I'm guessing that principles come second to business.

So then would you support a business owner from refusing to provide service to someone wearing a "Black Lives Matter" or "Pro NRA" t-shirt given that we now support the application of consequences to ones decision to vocalize or showcase their personal and political views?

[DaveP043]

I don't pretend to be a legal expert, but I can see legal issues involved in refusing service in that way.   As I understand the retail business, a retailer makes a blanket offer to provide his product in exchange for a specific sum of money.  If someone comes in and accepts that offer, and has the money with which to pay, the business owner doesn't have a valid basis for withdrawing his offer.  If he chooses to qualify his offer from the start, I imagine he'd be within his rights to deal with only those who fit his criteria.  However, he also puts his business at risk of losing significant money due to negative publicity.  I think a business owner would be foolish to take that risk.  As for my support, or lack of support, I only expect the business owner to operate within the law.  As long as he does that, he can do whatever he wants, whether I agree with his opinions or not.  His public position on an issue may encourage me to use him, or may push me away. 

In this case, the R&A accepts offers from golf clubs and courses to host the Open, and evaluates those offers based on criteria of their choosing.  They are completely within their rights to use the image of the course owner as one of their criteria.  If their choice turns some people away from the Open, they have to live with it.

 

[boogielicious]

23 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

So then would you support a business owner from refusing to provide service to someone wearing a "Black Lives Matter" or "Pro NRA" t-shirt given that we now support the application of consequences to ones decision to vocalize or showcase their personal and political views?

They are already doing that here. It is not illegal.

But I see this as more of a situation like when an athlete or entertainer loses their sponsorship deal because of something they did. The former example is a business denying service to an individual. Trump's case is more a business losing and agreement with another business.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

Trump's case is more a business losing and agreement with another business.

From what I've read, there never WAS an agreement, only preliminary discussions, so he merely lost a business opportunity.

[Golfingdad]

33 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

So then would you support a business owner from refusing to provide service to someone wearing a "Black Lives Matter" or "Pro NRA" t-shirt given that we now support the application of consequences to ones decision to vocalize or showcase their personal and political views?

When didn't we support the application of consequences to that decision?

[ev780]

22 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

No it doesn't because the history is already there with the Opens in its past and there is always room for it making its way back into the Open rotation in the future, I'm sure, if Trump sells it or whatever.  Plus, it's not like there were only 4 amazing courses in the entirety of Great Britain and now there is going to be this big black hole where its played on a goat track every time Turnberrys turn comes up.  It's going to continue to rotate at all of the other amazing venues and maybe they'll add some new amazing venue to spice it up.

 

No idea, but I did find this regarding the host city of last years US Open: http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article45002841.html

I disagree but, so what.

 

More importantly to me is the social engineering being shoved on the world by people who should just stick to sports, entertainment, music or whatever.  R&A can certainly do as they please but I don't have to like the fact that they should just mind their own business.  If I don't like Trump I certainly do not have to  vote for him or play his courses.  But that is my decision not anyone else's.  I don't like the treatment of women in the middle east should we not play tournaments there? There is a rumor that the LPGA will not come back to Vegas because the commish is against gambling. Where does it stop?

I am pretty sure that if we dug into the ownership of many courses on the PGA tour we  would find something to offend our fragile sensibilities.  Don't even start with sponsors!!! I refuse to frequent a lot of businesses big and small because of things I believe or disagree with.  But I do that for my own beliefs not because some stuffed suit or sandal wearing cruncher tells me I should.

[rkim291968]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

There's ambiguity in all of life, and I'm sure there's some inconsistency in my views on a number of subjects.  I do support Mr. Trump's right to say what he wants to say.  All the 1st Amendment says is that the US government won't restrict your right to say what you want.  However, freedom to say it doesn't mean there aren't consequences.  One consequence that Mr. Trump is hoping for is that he'll be elected President.  He chose to put his opinions out there, he has to accept the consequences, for good or bad.  Nobody is choosing not to do business with him based on his religion, or the color of his skin.  The decision by the R&A is based on what Mr. Trump has chosen to say. Its also based on their estimation of potential consequences if they DO award an Open to Trump's Turnberry.  The decision may also be based on principles, but I'm guessing that principles come second to business.

Well put.   Many has turned away from doing business with Trump, not just this.  That's the price he paid for being openly bigot.  But being fabulously rich has its merits.   He will survive.  

[GolfLug]

11 minutes ago, ev780 said:

I disagree but, so what.

 

More importantly to me is the social engineering being shoved on the world by people who should just stick to sports, entertainment, music or whatever.  R&A can certainly do as they please but I don't have to like the fact that they should just mind their own business.  If I don't like Trump I certainly do not have to  vote for him or play his courses.  But that is my decision not anyone else's.  I don't like the treatment of women in the middle east should we not play tournaments there? There is a rumor that the LPGA will not come back to Vegas because the commish is against gambling. Where does it stop?

I am pretty sure that if we dug into the ownership of many courses on the PGA tour we  would find something to offend our fragile sensibilities.  Don't even start with sponsors!!! I refuse to frequent a lot of businesses big and small because of things I believe or disagree with.  But I do that for my own beliefs not because some stuffed suit or sandal wearing cruncher tells me I should.

It stops when/where it hurts the pocket in a larger frame. I am sure of it.

[DaveP043]

Just now, GolfLug said:

It stops when/where it hurts the pocket. I am sure of it.

And as I said before, I'm betting that the R&A made their choice based on expectation of the consequences of entering into a contract with Mr. Trump.  Advertisers could choose not to be associated with him, causing advertising revenue to go down.  Sure, they may dislike what Mr. Trump said, but its the economics that really determine the course of action.

[rkim291968]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

So then would you support a business owner from refusing to provide service to someone wearing a "Black Lives Matter" or "Pro NRA" t-shirt given that we now support the application of consequences to ones decision to vocalize or showcase their personal and political views?

I don't think anyone should refuse service to people for their political views.  In case of Trump, he has vocalized a lot more than what are viewed as political views.   "Mexicans coming to US illegally are all rapists, except for some" IS not a political view.   I.e, offending people are not necessarily political views.   Sometimes, they are just offensive.

3 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

And as I said before, I'm betting that the R&A made their choice based on expectation of the consequences of entering into a contract with Mr. Trump.  Advertisers could choose not to be associated with him, causing advertising revenue to go down.  Sure, they may dislike what Mr. Trump said, but its the economics that really determine the course of action.

IMO, it was more of a business decision than a political one.  

[Golfingdad]

25 minutes ago, ev780 said:

I am pretty sure that if we dug into the ownership of many courses on the PGA tour we  would find something to offend our fragile sensibilities.

I agree with you here ... and this is why I don't get all bent out of shape when I find out that Tiger Woods cheats on his wife or Phil Mickelson gambles or Dustin Johnson does drugs.  I don't know enough about the rest of them to say or think things like "They should all be more like that class act Jordan Spieth" because then what happens when we find out that Spieth kicks kittens in his spare time?

[dkolo]

5 hours ago, newtogolf said:

 

I see some ambiguity there.  Trump is being penalized for statements and ideas he's made, he's not POTUS or in the position to build a wall or to prevent Muslims from entering the country, aren't his words and ideas protected under the 1st Amendment?   If you support the actions of the R&A and PGA Tour will you also support business owners that decide to turn away people who publicly support "Black Lives Matter" or the NRA?

This isn't about Trump, this is about establishing precedents that I believe many of you will take issue with when the people or groups you associate with are targeted.

 

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

So then would you support a business owner from refusing to provide service to someone wearing a "Black Lives Matter" or "Pro NRA" t-shirt given that we now support the application of consequences to ones decision to vocalize or showcase their personal and political views?

@DaveP043 has answered this very accurately, but just for the sake of completeness, there's no 1st Amendment concerns here because the R&A is a British organization and everything related to this transaction is occurring abroad. Moreover, the first Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences for your expression. It just says that the government can't stop you from expressing yourself (prior restraint) or throw your in jail or otherwise penalize you for your expression (with some very narrow exceptions, like defamation or malicious statements to incite danger or promote criminal activity). Private citizens like you, me, and groups of those citizens, like the PGA Tour, the R&A (ignoring them being British here for a second), etc., can absolutely cause repercussions to you for speech they don't like. If you tell your boss to shove it, you'll be fired. If your boss finds out you're advocating racist beliefs, you'll be fired. None of this implicates the first amendment because the government isn't involved here. Free speech means freedom to express it, but not be free of any consequences. Similarly to what I posted yesterday, part of the first amendment is a freedom of association. Individuals and companies have the ability to do or not do business with others based on whether they approve of the other party's views and beliefs. Suggesting otherwise would violate those people's first amendment rights. The only time the government steps in to say you can't do that is if there's a specific protected characteristic about the other party, like their religion, their race, their orientation, etc. that the government has decided it won't allow private citizens to exercise their free association rights against because doing so would chill the protect class's expression rights. In other words, an anti-Catholic pizza parlor owner can'd deny pizza to a Catholic because the government has decided the burden the Catholic would face by being denied service is greater than the burden that the pizza maker would face for serving someone they hate. Outside of these protected classes, the government is hands off and lets the free market sort it out. If a pizza parlor owner doesn't want to serve Star Wars fans, that's his right, but he's going to go out of business as the community expresses its displeasure at him. Everyone's first amendment rights are fully protected in that scenario.

NB: Any usage of the word "you" there that might sound accusatory was just meant as the "royal you" and was just for sake of rhetorical demonstration. 

 

20 minutes ago, ev780 said:

I disagree but, so what.

 

More importantly to me is the social engineering being shoved on the world by people who should just stick to sports, entertainment, music or whatever.  R&A can certainly do as they please but I don't have to like the fact that they should just mind their own business.  If I don't like Trump I certainly do not have to  vote for him or play his courses.  But that is my decision not anyone else's.  I don't like the treatment of women in the middle east should we not play tournaments there? There is a rumor that the LPGA will not come back to Vegas because the commish is against gambling. Where does it stop?

I am pretty sure that if we dug into the ownership of many courses on the PGA tour we  would find something to offend our fragile sensibilities.  Don't even start with sponsors!!! I refuse to frequent a lot of businesses big and small because of things I believe or disagree with.  But I do that for my own beliefs not because some stuffed suit or sandal wearing cruncher tells me I should.

Yeah, but in this case the R&A is doing what they like and they don't care that you like or don't like it. They did what they either thought was right or made the best business sense (which, in all likelihood, was the same thing in this case). They can't force Trump to shut up, but they can vote with their checkbook. Their prerogative.

Also, yes, there's other instances where the Tours and organizations do business with undesirables. Trump used to be one of them. You have to start somewhere and make progress from there.

[Golfingdad]

12 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

And as I said before, I'm betting that the R&A made their choice based on expectation of the consequences of entering into a contract with Mr. Trump.  Advertisers could choose not to be associated with him, causing advertising revenue to go down.  Sure, they may dislike what Mr. Trump said, but its the economics that really determine the course of action.

 

10 minutes ago, rkim291968 said:

IMO, it was more of a business decision than a political one.  

I agree with you both.  Like I said in a previous post ... out of sight, out of mind.  After we stop talking about this in the next couple of days, it's all going to go away.  It'll be nothing more than nostalgia.  "Remember back when Turnberry used to hold Opens?  Those were the days."  That's going to be the extent of it.  There is going to be almost zero backlash because of this decision.

However, if they chose to continue doing business with him, then it's very easy to see the possibility of a lot of backlash in different forms.

---

An extra bonus of not having Turnberry as a site is that there's less of a chance of Tom Watson making another crazy run.  Yeah, I said it.

[newtogolf]

37 minutes ago, ev780 said:

I disagree but, so what.

 

More importantly to me is the social engineering being shoved on the world by people who should just stick to sports, entertainment, music or whatever.  R&A can certainly do as they please but I don't have to like the fact that they should just mind their own business.  If I don't like Trump I certainly do not have to  vote for him or play his courses.  But that is my decision not anyone else's.  I don't like the treatment of women in the middle east should we not play tournaments there? There is a rumor that the LPGA will not come back to Vegas because the commish is against gambling. Where does it stop?

I am pretty sure that if we dug into the ownership of many courses on the PGA tour we  would find something to offend our fragile sensibilities.  Don't even start with sponsors!!! I refuse to frequent a lot of businesses big and small because of things I believe or disagree with.  But I do that for my own beliefs not because some stuffed suit or sandal wearing cruncher tells me I should.

Well stated!  When organizations and businesses start deciding for consumers and fans what is and isn't acceptable then we've lost the value of the 1st Amendment.  Passive censorship is as dangerous as active censorship. 
 

51 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

When didn't we support the application of consequences to that decision?

I never said you didn't support them but some seem to be blinded to the bigger picture here because it's Trump who is suffering the consequences.  I'm just making sure the precedents we're setting and supporting against Trump will apply equally to all sides.

[rkim291968]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Well stated!  When organizations and businesses start deciding for consumers and fans what is and isn't acceptable then we've lost the value of the 1st Amendment.  Passive censorship is as dangerous as active censorship. 

I seriously doubt orgs & businesses are making decisions based on what they believe are right.   They are doing this b/e it will benefit their org & business (image, $$$) over the long run.   1st Amendment, censorship have little to do with what is going on, IMHO.

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

  "Remember back when Turnberry used to hold Opens?  Those were the days."  That's going to be the extent of it. 

Just for the fun of it, I looked up weekend greens fees at a number of courses that once held Open Championships.

Musselburgh, 9 holes just east of Edinburgh   14 pounds

Royal Cinque Ports (deal)        185

Princes (Sandwich)       160

Royal Portrush (Northern Ireland)     180

Prestwick    190

At the moment, Turnberry is asking 275 pounds for non-guests of the hotel.  Does anyone think the demand, and the price, won't drop as it fades from our collective memory of the Open?

[newtogolf]

21 minutes ago, dkolo said:

 

@DaveP043 has answered this very accurately, but just for the sake of completeness, there's no 1st Amendment concerns here because the R&A is a British organization and everything related to this transaction is occurring abroad. Moreover, the first Amendment doesn't protect you from consequences for your expression. It just says that the government can't stop you from expressing yourself (prior restraint) or throw your in jail or otherwise penalize you for your expression (with some very narrow exceptions, like defamation or malicious statements to incite danger or promote criminal activity). Private citizens like you, me, and groups of those citizens, like the PGA Tour, the R&A (ignoring them being British here for a second), etc., can absolutely cause repercussions to you for speech they don't like. If you tell your boss to shove it, you'll be fired. If your boss finds out you're advocating racist beliefs, you'll be fired. None of this implicates the first amendment because the government isn't involved here. Free speech means freedom to express it, but not be free of any consequences. Similarly to what I posted yesterday, part of the first amendment is a freedom of association. Individuals and companies have the ability to do or not do business with others based on whether they approve of the other party's views and beliefs. Suggesting otherwise would violate those people's first amendment rights. The only time the government steps in to say you can't do that is if there's a specific protected characteristic about the other party, like their religion, their race, their orientation, etc. that the government has decided it won't allow private citizens to exercise their free association rights against because doing so would chill the protect class's expression rights. In other words, an anti-Catholic pizza parlor owner can'd deny pizza to a Catholic because the government has decided the burden the Catholic would face by being denied service is greater than the burden that the pizza maker would face for serving someone they hate. Outside of these protected classes, the government is hands off and lets the free market sort it out. If a pizza parlor owner doesn't want to serve Star Wars fans, that's his right, but he's going to go out of business as the community expresses its displeasure at him. Everyone's first amendment rights are fully protected in that scenario.

NB: Any usage of the word "you" there that might sound accusatory was just meant as the "royal you" and was just for sake of rhetorical demonstration.

 

Yeah, but in this case the R&A is doing what they like and they don't care that you like or don't like it. They did what they either thought was right or made the best business sense (which, in all likelihood, was the same thing in this case). They can't force Trump to shut up, but they can vote with their checkbook. Their prerogative.

Also, yes, there's other instances where the Tours and organizations do business with undesirables. Trump used to be one of them. You have to start somewhere and make progress from there.

I realize the 1st Amendment means nothing to the R&A which is why I also included the PGA Tour.  My interest in the topic is not because I believe any of Trump's courses are so incredible we as golf fans would be cheated if they were excluded but because I see the potential for this to become a precedent that scares me.

The PGA Tour has been very righteous against Trump, but where was all this righteousness when it continued to support, promote and recognize the Masters as a Major Tournament when Augusta National was thought to be racist and misogynistic and still is by some? 

IMO When an organization or business can decide it will no longer serve or work with those who publicly support an opinion or political position that is contrary to their own we're on the verge of censorship.