Muirfield Votes to Allow Female Members, Back on Open Rota

[hcopenhagenh]

6 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

You can say that people have the right. But how is that different than white only, or clubs that exclude specific religions. Just because they have the right to choose doesn't make it right.
Privately you can choose to associate with whomever you want, and exclude any and all that you choose not to interact with. But the minute you do this as a business  it is wrong, Again just because history allowed all men's clubs doesn't make them right, and your examples (though some are extreme), I agree that they are not the right way to go about it either.
But don't kid yourself that these golf clubs are places of leisure, it is a place that people go to make social and business dealings and exclusions of large (or small) groups of the population based on race, creed, color or gender is discrimination any way you want to paint it. And almost all of these clubs allow women into their clubs, not as members but as spouses, or children or employees. So it is just that they won't recognize them as equal humans.

IMO, for too long discrimination has tried to hide its ugliness behind other names like exclusive or private instead of what they really mean restricted, segregated, and exclusionary.

 

Doesn't make it right to whom?

This has nothing to do with discrimination.  Discrimination is alive every day in everything anyone does.  Terms like discrimination, sexist, racist, etc. etc. are why Donald Trump is the President of the USA.  People do not understand the consequences or what it is to truly be discriminated against.  I am discriminated against because I am a XXXL and have to pay more for my clothing.  Nonsense.  Lose weight.  If you are going to call all male clubs our for discriminating, you need to call All Female Gyms out for being sexist as well, but you won't.

 

Let's talk about true discrimination against women.  True Discrimination against women is allowing men (transgenders) to use female restrooms.  If you are born with a Johnson, then you are a male.  The NCAA, ACC, and other organizations are discriminating against women in North Carolina by moving their games and championships out of the state.  Trying to force them to allow transgenders to use female restrooms.  They are impeding on the rights of women, meanwhile being hypocrites.  When are they going to allow males to play on female volleyball teams, why don't the cheerleaders use the same locker rooms as the football players?  It is never going to happen and it clearly shows their hypocrisy and discrimination against women.

18 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

Rory is a professional golfer, I think it's fair if he keeps quiet on things other than the world of golf. He recognized the male only rule was an issue, and spoke his opinion on it. If he feels it was about time and that he wouldn't mind not playing there if it meant they kept the male only rule then that's within his rights as a human to do so. He's a younger golfer and he's in the middle of the worlds movement for change, it's no shock he feels the way he does. 

Not to mention, after the heat he got from playing golf with the President, it's no shock he's trying to make himself look better.

This is where you are wrong.  The world is changing.  They are eliminating the political correct BS.  That is why Donald Trump is President and will end up going down as one of the best President's the US has ever seen.  Socialism, as in Europe, will be a failure to their society as they know it.  Thank Goodness the course of our country is changing.

[BuckeyeGolf]

11 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

You can say that people have the right. But how is that different than white only, or clubs that exclude specific religions. Just because they have the right to choose doesn't make it right.
Privately you can choose to associate with whomever you want, and exclude any and all that you choose not to interact with. But the minute you do this as a business  it is wrong, Again just because history allowed all men's clubs doesn't make them right, and your examples (though some are extreme), I agree that they are not the right way to go about it either.
But don't kid yourself that these golf clubs are places of leisure, it is a place that people go to make social and business dealings and exclusions of large (or small) groups of the population based on race, creed, color or gender is discrimination any way you want to paint it. And almost all of these clubs allow women into their clubs, not as members but as spouses, or children or employees. So it is just that they won't recognize them as equal humans.

IMO, for too long discrimination has tried to hide its ugliness behind other names like exclusive or private instead of what they really mean restricted, segregated, and exclusionary.

 

I don't agree with your premise that these clubs are places for business deals to be made by leaders at the exclusion of others. Perhaps they strike deals that benefit the marketplace and people of all backgrounds that work in those industries? 

7 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Doesn't make it right to whom?

This has nothing to do with discrimination.  Discrimination is alive every day in everything anyone does.  Terms like discrimination, sexist, racist, etc. etc. are why Donald Trump is the President of the USA.  People do not understand the consequences or what it is to truly be discriminated against.  I am discriminated against because I am a XXXL and have to pay more for my clothing.  Nonsense.  Lose weight.  If you are going to call all male clubs our for discriminating, you need to call All Female Gyms out for being sexist as well, but you won't.

 

Let's talk about true discrimination against women.  True Discrimination against women is allowing men (transgenders) to use female restrooms.  If you are born with a Johnson, then you are a male.  The NCAA, ACC, and other organizations are discriminating against women in North Carolina by moving their games and championships out of the state.  Trying to force them to allow transgenders to use female restrooms.  They are impeding on the rights of women, meanwhile being hypocrites.  When are they going to allow males to play on female volleyball teams, why don't the cheerleaders use the same locker rooms as the football players?  It is never going to happen and it clearly shows their hypocrisy and discrimination against women.

This is where you are wrong.  The world is changing.  They are eliminating the political correct BS.  That is why Donald Trump is President and will end up going down as one of the best President's the US has ever seen.  Socialism, as in Europe, will be a failure to their society as they know it.  Thank Goodness the course of our country is changing.

Hcopenhagenh, your very astute at recognizing the threat to individual liberty. I'm glad you joined the debate.  

[woodzie264]

29 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

 I am discriminated against because I am a XXXL and have to pay more for my clothing.  Nonsense.

You pay more for your clothing because it cost more for materials.  simple economics

I mean, I don't feel discriminated against because kids' clothes are cheaper...that's absurd

[iacas]

1 hour ago, hcopenhagenh said:

You can argue this point until you are blue in the face and you would be wrong 100% of the time.  Spooky and Buckeye are right on point.

They're not, because not a one of you can tell me what freedoms were taken away.

Go ahead. Name one.

The club had the freedom to do as it wished. It had the freedom to vote as it saw fit. Each member has the freedom to remain a part of the club, withdraw, vote how they wanted, etc.

It did not have the freedom to do so without consequences.

Again, I cannot be more clear about this: absolutely no "freedoms" were stepped on. You can't name a one.

1 hour ago, hcopenhagenh said:

His comments made no sense.

To you.

So if we hold you to his standard, you would have to type for days to give equal weight and treatment to every other topic out there.

Rather, how about this: Rory was asked about Muirfield, so he replied about Muirfield. Just because he didn't mention trans-gender bathrooms or all-Muslim mosques or whatever else you went on about doesn't mean he doesn't have similar feelings for them… just that he wasn't asked about that, and he answered the question he was asked.

1 hour ago, hcopenhagenh said:

This issue is about rights.

No rights were stepped on. Not a one.

1 hour ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Muirfield is a private organization that has the right to not allow women to become members.

They still have that right. They could hold another vote today and say "oops, that was a mistake, we don't want women to become members."

1 hour ago, hcopenhagenh said:

How many years did the R&A not have a problem with playing the British Open Championship there without them having a problem with how they chose to run their club?

Times change.

Still doesn't change the fact that no rights were impeded, no freedoms trampled upon.

1 hour ago, hcopenhagenh said:

That is impeding on the rights of those members freedoms.

It isn't. You have a ****ed up definition of "freedom."

"Freedom" is not "the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any negative consequences."

You're free to punch someone (until you do it so often that you're no longer free to do it), but that doesn't mean you will just get to go about your life like nothing happened. If you're not a boxer, you may be arrested, fined, or even jailed.

1 hour ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Personally, I would never be a member at an all male club.  Not my cup of tea.  However, if they don't want women in, then that is their right.

They still have that right.

That's what you're not understanding.

52 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

We will never know if this vote would've surfaced if it were not for the attack forces outside the club.

We don't. So what?

44 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

That is impeding on a freedom.

It isn't.

Again, freedom is not the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any consequences. That's not freedom. That's not how freedom works.

44 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

If you give someone an ultimatum, which is what the R&A did, then you are impeding on someones freedom when they have the right to allow whatever type a member that they want.

The R&A has the freedom to not host events at courses that will sour the reputation of the R&A. Muirfield forcing the R&A to host a tournament at their course would be impeding the freedom of the R&A to host their tournaments wherever they please.

The R&A gave Muirfield a choice. The members considered their options and voted, freely, the way they wished.

Freedom is not the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any consequences.

44 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

By the very definition of Freedom, the members lost the right to act how they want.

They didn't lose the right to vote. They made a free choice to vote the way they did. The way they wanted to.

44 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

That is loss of freedom.  It is honestly pretty simple.

Freedom is not the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any consequences.

---

@BuckeyeGolf, find an avatar and when you quote, type your text outside the quote, not inside it. And you don't have to post the same thing three+ different times.

And, as a warning to all, though this thread is somewhat political, we do not need to involve "politics" as a whole in it. Mentioning the POTUS, Parliament, South Africa, Muslims… etc. is probably well across the line into discussing actual politics. The discussion of actual politics is not allowed here - this is a golf forum, first and foremost.

[hcopenhagenh]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

They're not, because not a one of you can tell me what freedoms were taken away.

Go ahead. Name one.

The club had the freedom to do as it wished. It had the freedom to vote as it saw fit. Each member has the freedom to remain a part of the club, withdraw, vote how they wanted, etc.

It did not have the freedom to do so without consequences.

Again, I cannot be more clear about this: absolutely no "freedoms" were stepped on. You can't name a one.

To you.

So if we hold you to his standard, you would have to type for days to give equal weight and treatment to every other topic out there.

Rather, how about this: Rory was asked about Muirfield, so he replied about Muirfield. Just because he didn't mention trans-gender bathrooms or all-Muslim mosques or whatever else you went on about doesn't mean he doesn't have similar feelings for them… just that he wasn't asked about that, and he answered the question he was asked.

No rights were stepped on. Not a one.

They still have that right. They could hold another vote today and say "oops, that was a mistake, we don't want women to become members."

Times change.

Still doesn't change the fact that no rights were impeded, no freedoms trampled upon.

It isn't. You have a ****ed up definition of "freedom."

"Freedom" is not "the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any negative consequences."

You're free to punch someone (until you do it so often that you're no longer free to do it), but that doesn't mean you will just get to go about your life like nothing happened. If you're not a boxer, you may be arrested, fined, or even jailed.

They still have that right.

That's what you're not understanding.

We don't. So what?

It isn't.

Again, freedom is not the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any consequences. That's not freedom. That's not how freedom works.

The R&A has the freedom to not host events at courses that will sour the reputation of the R&A. Muirfield forcing the R&A to host a tournament at their course would be impeding the freedom of the R&A to host their tournaments wherever they please.

The R&A gave Muirfield a choice. The members considered their options and voted, freely, the way they wished.

Freedom is not the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any consequences.

They didn't lose the right to vote. They made a free choice to vote the way they did. The way they wanted to.

Freedom is not the right to do whatever you want and not suffer any consequences.

---

@BuckeyeGolf, find an avatar and when you quote, type your text outside the quote, not inside it. And you don't have to post the same thing three+ different times.

I said in my first post, you can argue until you are blue in the face, and you will still be 100% wrong.  

Times change is an excuse.

Freedom: 

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

 

By the very definition, the R&A impeded on the rights and freedoms of Muirfield.  For over 100 years the British Open has been played at Muirfield.  There was no problem until those now in power at the R&A decided it was a problem for this private club to hold the Championship only if it allowed women into their membership.  That is denying them the power to act without hindrance or restraint unless they did it the R&A's way.

 

It is a novice concept that you aren't getting.

 

Freedom is the right to do what you want under law.  The law says Muifield is legally abiding by laws.  So yes, Freedom is being able to do what you want under the laws.  Pretty simple concept.

 

You have done a good job of spinning many things.  Good for you.

 

I will say it one last time.  Your train of thought on this matter is 100% wrong 100% of the time.

[Spooky]

Ok....My email alerts are beginning to sound like Star Wars, so I figured I'd make one last point before moving on and severing ties with this thread. Firstly, I don't believe anyone on this thread is a sexist. We all seem to agree (if we take the time to sincerely read each others responses) that women belong in the game and shouldn't be excluded based on their gender. Period. Our sticking point is that we disagree on how to go about making that a reality. Some of us don't like the thought of having others (whose true agenda we feel is suspect) exercise control over us. Because we know that once that ball starts rolling, we're ALL in the way of it, eventually. The lowest common denominator in any equation involving a human being is control. We all want as much of it as possible, in every facet of our lives. The problems start when we try to exert that control over other people to gain more of it for ourselves. A previous poster made the observation that change rarely happens without a catalyst. I would agree with that statement....if It were 1917 and not 2017. The world has shrunk considerably in the last 30 years. We don't need to "attack" people to elicit change. Information is shared instantaneously. This is part of the reason there is so much strife in the world....because differing opinions are at odds immediately. As another poster stated, these old men are dying off and being replaced by younger, more forward thinking people.... Hence the very close vote the first time. So, these days, change occurs rapidly.... It has to.....and as my last point, to the forum monitor who didn't consider the term "Red Piller" to be derogatory....The litmus test as to whether a term is acceptable is if the intended recipient would call THEMSELVES that term.... Peace out folks.....

[hcopenhagenh]

36 minutes ago, woodzie264 said:

You pay more for your clothing because it cost more for materials.  simple economics

I mean, I don't feel discriminated against because kids' clothes are cheaper...that's absurd

If you go back and read my post, I said it was nonsense.  Thanks for confirming the obvious.

59 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

I don't agree with your premise that these clubs are places for business deals to be made by leaders at the exclusion of others. Perhaps they strike deals that benefit the marketplace and people of all backgrounds that work in those industries? 

Hcopenhagenh, your very astute at recognizing the threat to individual liberty. I'm glad you joined the debate.  

I honestly don't like political correctness.  It is a detriment to society.  No matter where you are and what you do, someones feelings are going to be hurt.  Grow up and get over it.

 

Freedom and Liberty is all we have.  Too many people give it up way too easily.  Not me.  I say what I will and what I want.  I am not always right, but in this case, I am.  If you give up this freedom to undue pressure, what is next? 

Eff the R&A and Eff Muirfield honestly.  They just made a mockery of the British Open.  Progressive ideology never works. 

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

I said in my first post, you can argue until you are blue in the face, and you will still be 100% wrong.  

Repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong.

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

That freedom wasn't hindered. They were free to vote "no" on allowing female members.

They chose not to vote that way, 80% of them anyway, because of the consequences of doing so. They chose to allow women because they value hosting British Opens more so than they value continuing to exclude women by rule.

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

By the very definition, the R&A impeded on the rights and freedoms of Muirfield.

Nope. You can repeat it until you're blue in the face but that didn't happen. They simply told Muirfield what the consequences would be.

I get that it may take you a little extra effort to see the difference, but keep at it. I have faith in you.

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

For over 100 years the British Open has been played at Muirfield.

The R&A no longer wanted to take a hit to their own reputation by hosting their tournament at a club that excludes women by rule.

We had slaves in the U.S. until some dude in a top hat decided that wasn't right. Just because they've been doing something for 100 years doesn't mean they have to keep doing it. Seriously, what kind of stupid argument is that?

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

That is denying them the power to act without hindrance or restraint unless they did it the R&A's way.

No. It really isn't.

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

It is a novice concept that you aren't getting.

Yeah. It's me who's not getting it here…

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Freedom is the right to do what you want under law.

What law says they're guaranteed the right to host another private organization's tournament?

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

The law says Muifield is legally abiding by laws.

See the above bold and tell me what law forces the R&A to hold the British Open where they don't want to hold it?

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Freedom is being able to do what you want under the laws.

Under the laws, Muirfield was free to say "no, no females, sorry." The government did not make them do anything.

Pretty simple concept.

[DaveP043]

4 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Freedom: 

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

 

By the very definition, the R&A impeded on the rights and freedoms of Muirfield.  

Here's where I differ.  Muirfield (or the HCEG) has the right to make their own policies, within the law.  However, the R&A has the freedom to do business, and to refrain or terminate business dealings, as THEY choose.  Each party has certain freedoms.  For a party to say "I'll only do business with you if you....." is a part of any normal business negotiation.  For the R&A to make a choice, based on the previous choices by the HCEG, is simply the R&A exercising their own FREEDOM. Would you deny the R&A their freedom to do business with only the clubs that they choose?

[hcopenhagenh]

19 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Here's where I differ.  Muirfield (or the HCEG) has the right to make their own policies, within the law.  However, the R&A has the freedom to do business, and to refrain or terminate business dealings, as THEY choose.  Each party has certain freedoms.  For a party to say "I'll only do business with you if you....." is a part of any normal business negotiation.  For the R&A to make a choice, based on the previous choices by the HCEG, is simply the R&A exercising their own FREEDOM. Would you deny the R&A their freedom to do business with only the clubs that they choose?

I will talk to you.  iacas is a little offended and doesn't seem very understanding of the situation.  He likes to spin things.

 

The R&A has done business with Muirfield for 100 years.  For new people to come into the R&A and destroy the tradition of that Club by giving them an ultimatum is not only wrong, it is impeding their freedom to conduct business how Muifield wants to.  The R&A didn't have a problem with it 2 years ago.  They didn't have a problem with it 100 years ago.  It impedes on Muirfield to do their business as they see fit.

 

You are right that the R&A has the right to do that.  I 100% agree with you.  Not saying they don't.  It also is impeding on Muirfield's freedoms to conduct business how they want.  That part is wrong, especially when Muirfield has been part of the British Open for over 100 years.

 

This is all based on the assumption that Muifield is doing something wrong, which they are not.  They are not discriminating against anyone.  If it were discrimination, I may agree with you, but it isn't.

 

 

[Rulesman]

I don't remember seeing a thread like this when Royal Troon and Royal St Georges changed their policy within the last couple years.

They all need the Open more than the Open needs them.

There are plenty of other single gender clubs around who have no intention of changing. 

Of course Royal Troon had separate men's and women's clubs

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by Rulesman

[hcopenhagenh]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

Repeating yourself doesn't make you any less wrong.

That freedom wasn't hindered. They were free to vote "no" on allowing female members.

They chose not to vote that way, 80% of them anyway, because of the consequences of doing so. They chose to allow women because they value hosting British Opens more so than they value continuing to exclude women by rule.

Nope. You can repeat it until you're blue in the face but that didn't happen. They simply told Muirfield what the consequences would be.

I get that it may take you a little extra effort to see the difference, but keep at it. I have faith in you.

The R&A no longer wanted to take a hit to their own reputation by hosting their tournament at a club that excludes women by rule.

We had slaves in the U.S. until some dude in a top hat decided that wasn't right. Just because they've been doing something for 100 years doesn't mean they have to keep doing it. Seriously, what kind of stupid argument is that?

No. It really isn't.

Yeah. It's me who's not getting it here…

What law says they're guaranteed the right to host another private organization's tournament?

See the above bold and tell me what law forces the R&A to hold the British Open where they don't want to hold it?

Under the laws, Muirfield was free to say "no, no females, sorry." The government did not make them do anything.

Pretty simple concept.

Comparing this to slaves many year ago?  Come on man.  That is out there.

 

I will give you this food for thought.  There is modern day slavery.  It is slavery to the Government.  Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, are all forms of being slaved by the government.  If you are dependent on Government, you are a slave.

 

As for the rest of your post, you are spinning everything I have said.  Great job.  That in itself shows that you don't get it.

[DaveP043]

15 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

The R&A has done business with Muirfield for 100 years.  For new people to come into the R&A and destroy the tradition of that Club by giving them an ultimatum is not only wrong, it is impeding their freedom to conduct business how Muifield wants to.  The R&A didn't have a problem with it 2 years ago.  They didn't have a problem with it 100 years ago.  It impedes on Muirfield to do their business as they see fit.

You are right that the R&A has the right to do that.  I 100% agree with you.  Not saying they don't.  It also is impeding on Muirfield's freedoms to conduct business how they want.  That part is wrong, especially when Muirfield has been part of the British Open for over 100 years.

So we have two entities, each has the freedom to do as they choose, and they're interested in doing business with each other.  One of them puts a condition on its willingness to do business with the other.  The second entity has the freedom to choose whether to accept that condition or not, whether to accept the condition.  Would you force entity #1 to give up on its condition, in order to preserve the "freedom" of entity #2?  It seems that you'd give priority to the freedom on one side of the "deal", and are considering the other side an "oppressor" for sticking to its OWN freedom.  I just don't see it that way.  Again, the HREG has always had the freedom to follow the path that other private clubs have followed.  

Oh, and just one little thing, you don't need to hit ENTER twice to paragraph, the system already double-spaces on a single ENTER.

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

I will talk to you.  iacas is a little offended and doesn't seem very understanding of the situation.  He likes to spin things.

What you call spin, I call you asking questions you cannot answer.

No freedoms were trampled upon here. The R&A is not the government.

7 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

The R&A has done business with Muirfield for 100 years.

So in your opinion that obligates them to continue to do business with them?

Guess what… I had my hair cut by the same guy for like 20 years. Then the situation changed and I stopped going to him. Was I likewise obligated to continue doing business with him just because I had for 20 years?

7 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

For new people to come into the R&A and destroy the tradition of that Club by giving them an ultimatum is not only wrong, it is impeding their freedom to conduct business how Muifield wants to.

This is where you're wrong. Muirfield was and is free to continue to exclude women. The R&A can't force them to do it at all.

7 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

They didn't have a problem with it 100 years ago.

And you wonder why I mentioned slavery. Shit changes, dude.

7 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

It also is impeding on Muirfield's freedoms to conduct business how they want.

It isn't. Not at all. Muirfield is free to allow women, disallow women, or do whatever else their bylaws and the laws of their country allow.

1 minute ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Comparing this to slaves many year ago?  Come on man.  That is out there.

You're the one suggesting that because they did it 100 years ago they're obligated to do it now. Shit changes.

1 minute ago, hcopenhagenh said:

I will give you this food for thought.  There is modern day slavery.  It is slavery to the Government.  Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, are all forms of being slaved by the government.  If you are dependent on Government, you are a slave.

Got nothing to do with this discussion, dude.

The R&A is not the government.

1 minute ago, hcopenhagenh said:

As for the rest of your post, you are spinning everything I have said.  Great job.  That in itself shows that you don't get it.

Sorry, dude, but you're quickly running out of track.

[Jeremie Boop]

6 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

I will talk to you.  iacas is a little offended and doesn't seem very understanding of the situation.  He likes to spin things.

 

The R&A has done business with Muirfield for 100 years.  For new people to come into the R&A and destroy the tradition of that Club by giving them an ultimatum is not only wrong, it is impeding their freedom to conduct business how Muifield wants to.  The R&A didn't have a problem with it 2 years ago.  They didn't have a problem with it 100 years ago.  It impedes on Muirfield to do their business as they see fit.

 

You are right that the R&A has the right to do that.  I 100% agree with you.  Not saying they don't.  It also is impeding on Muirfield's freedoms to conduct business how they want.  That part is wrong, especially when Muirfield has been part of the British Open for over 100 years.

 

This is all based on the assumption that Muifield is doing something wrong, which they are not.  They are not discriminating against anyone.  If it were discrimination, I may agree with you, but it isn't.

 

 

Your assumption that @iacas is offended is almost certainly wrong from what I know of him. Also, he isn't spinning things, he's putting forward very simple facts.Nobody forced  them to change, they changed voluntarily in order to not lose money/prestige generated by being invited to be a host for a very well known golf tournament. They could very well have retained their policy of not allowing women indefinitely if they so chose, but the R&A can't be forced to continue inviting them to be a host if it would have a negative impact on them or if they did not share the same view. Freedom of association, as you've mentioned, goes both ways. The R&A was free to no longer associate with the club because of their membership policies.

 

5 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Comparing this to slaves many year ago?  Come on man.  That is out there.

 

I will give you this food for thought.  There is modern day slavery.  It is slavery to the Government.  Food Stamps, Welfare, Medicaid, are all forms of being slaved by the government.  If you are dependent on Government, you are a slave.

 

As for the rest of your post, you are spinning everything I have said.  Great job.  That in itself shows that you don't get it.

Foodstamps, medicaid, welfare, etc are all voluntarily programs. People are free to accept/apply for them or not. I have been a recipient of these types of programs and have moved beyond needing them. I was never a slave to the Government because I was a part of these programs.

[Rulesman]

The Ladies Golf Club, Troon remains single gender

[Groucho Valentine]

I feel like the UK definition of private club differs from ours when it comes to golf. When i was over in the UK, i found that the "golf club" and the physical property of the golf course were often two different entities. Im having a problem explaining it better than that. Is it the same at Murfield? If so, i think they should be able to do whatever they want. 

[Chilli Dipper]

13 minutes ago, Groucho Valentine said:

I feel like the UK definition of private club differs from ours when it comes to golf. When i was over in the UK, i found that the "golf club" and the physical property of the golf course were often two different entities. Im having a problem explaining it better than that. Is it the same at Murfield? If so, i think they should be able to do whatever they want. 

What you described is the case at St. Andrews and Troon (and possibly others), but Muirfield is wholly owned by its club (the Honourable Club of Edinburgh Golfers).