No Reservations for Singles?

[Herkimer]

If it's a public course, I think single players who get this kind of treatment should sue the course for discrimination.  As I see it, telling a single player that he can't make a reservation is no different from them telling a Black person, "sorry, you can't make a reservation."  If it's a public course, then the public should be treated equally and discrimination against a single player shouldn't be allowed.  Tee times for everyone!

[Buckeyebowman]

I hope that is tongue in cheek! I suspect it is.

[gbogey]

20 hours ago, Herkimer said:

If it's a public course, I think single players who get this kind of treatment should sue the course for discrimination.  As I see it, telling a single player that he can't make a reservation is no different from them telling a Black person, "sorry, you can't make a reservation."  If it's a public course, then the public should be treated equally and discrimination against a single player shouldn't be allowed.  Tee times for everyone!

I think you're joking but at my city's muni's I've actually thought it could happen.

[Buckeyebowman]

SERENITY, NOW!!! 

[Herkimer]

16 hours ago, gbogey said:

I think you're joking but at my city's muni's I've actually thought it could happen.

No, sir.  I'm totally serious.  How is telling a single person that they can't make a reservation not discrimination?

[mcanadiens]

1 minute ago, Herkimer said:

No, sir.  I'm totally serious.  How is telling a single person that they can't make a reservation not discrimination?

Of course it's discrimination. It's just not discrimination based on the things you aren't supposed to discriminate about.

 

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, mcanadiens said:

Of course it's discrimination. It's just not discrimination based on the things you aren't supposed to discriminate about.

I don't consider it discrimination. 

[Jeremie Boop]

19 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I don't consider it discrimination. 

I disagree, I also believe it's discrimination, but in exactly the way Will means it is.

Quote

treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people

In this context they are treating a single differently than they would treat a group. That's not to say they don't have every right, legally or otherwise, to have such a policy in place.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Jeremie Boop

[phillyk]

Any person who is a single at the time of wanting to play and trying to get a tee time won’t have much luck. If the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of who they are, how is it discrimination?

If a player played in a group and got a time yesterday but tried to play solo today and could not get a tee time because of policy, its not discrimination. It happens to every single person. Something that happens or could happen to everyone, is not discriminatory against others because there is no others.  

[Yukari]

I don't think it rises to the level of legal discrimination.  More of a business decision by the courses to generate more revenue.

[gbogey]

12 hours ago, Yukari said:

I don't think it rises to the level of legal discrimination.  More of a business decision by the courses to generate more revenue.

This is a golf website and not a legal one so I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole, but for a privately owned public course my guess is that you are right. However, if a restaurant that doesn't take reservations refused to seat a single patron because it was saving a table for more profitable groups than I would expect someone would fight it. Of the bar seating proposes an alternative for singles.

The rub is for municipal owned courses. In my city, the most popular course is a muni and there are days when you just cannot get on without a tee time. So to deny tee times to singles is basically saying you are not allowed to use a public financed taxpayer supported facility. Imagine the uproar if access to Central Park was denied to any sort of individuals.

Fortunately as I have said their lousy system allows me to book as a twosome but show up as a single without penalty. I feel guilty for doing so but right now have no other option.  Very frustrating.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, gbogey said:

The rub is for municipal owned courses. In my city, the most popular course is a muni and there are days when you just cannot get on without a tee time. So to deny tee times to singles is basically saying you are not allowed to use a public financed taxpayer supported facility. Imagine the uproar if access to Central Park was denied to any sort of individuals.

No, that's not how that works.

Courses - even publicly owned ones - can set and enforce policies like this. They aren't obligated to sell every tee time - or any one tee time - to a single.

Not at all.

[saevel25]

21 hours ago, phillyk said:

Any person who is a single at the time of wanting to play and trying to get a tee time won’t have much luck. If the same rules apply to everyone, regardless of who they are, how is it discrimination?

A person chooses to play golf as a single. This isn't actually a trait of a person. I don't see it as discrimination.

8 minutes ago, gbogey said:

So to deny tee times to singles is basically saying you are not allowed to use a public financed taxpayer supported facility. Imagine the uproar if access to Central Park was denied to any sort of individuals.

Lets look at a hypothetical,

Lets say half of the courses spots were taken up by single golfers. Lets say they average 2.5 golfers with the no singles rule. This means they would lose 30% of their golfers. There is only a limited number of tee times a courses have.

[Groucho Valentine]

I only read the first post in this thread, but IMO you should take your business elsewhere. Ive never heard of a public course not taking a tee time reservation for a single. Matter of fact, single reservations and walk ups are the only way i get on public courses that are usually packed before 11am on the weekends.

[Jeremie Boop]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

A person chooses to play golf as a single. This isn't actually a trait of a person. I don't see it as discrimination.

A person chooses to have long hair, if there were a policy that said nobody could play if they had long hair would you see that as discrimination? Just because something is a choice doesn't mean it can't be a factor for discrimination. You are using a pretty narrow view of discrimination.

[Yukari]

30 minutes ago, gbogey said:

This is a golf website and not a legal one so I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole, but for a privately owned public course my guess is that you are right. However, if a restaurant that doesn't take reservations refused to seat a single patron because it was saving a table for more profitable groups than I would expect someone would fight it. Of the bar seating proposes an alternative for singles.

The rub is for municipal owned courses. In my city, the most popular course is a muni and there are days when you just cannot get on without a tee time. So to deny tee times to singles is basically saying you are not allowed to use a public financed taxpayer supported facility. Imagine the uproar if access to Central Park was denied to any sort of individuals.

Fortunately as I have said their lousy system allows me to book as a twosome but show up as a single without penalty. I feel guilty for doing so but right now have no other option.  Very frustrating.

Your argument here doesn't hold water.  You are comparing a restaurant that does NOT take a reservation to a golf course that does.  This is not the same or even remotely similar scenario.

I agree we should not go down the rabbit hole, but @saevel25 is correct.  The legal basis of discrimination is based on a trait of a person.  Something they can not change or have any control over.

As to the OP's dilema, does the course allow you to make a reservation for a single if only 2-some of 3-some is booked for a tee time?  Courses here allow a single to book a tee time, when a 2-some or a 3-some has booked a particular tee time.  I am surprised that OP's course does not as it seems like they would lose potential revenue source.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

A person chooses to have long hair, if there were a policy that said nobody could play if they had long hair would you see that as discrimination? Just because something is a choice doesn't mean it can't be a factor for discrimination. You are using a pretty narrow view of discrimination.

A person chooses to not wear a shirt or obey the dress code, too: the place in question can refuse them service, whether it's a restaurant or a golf course.

The fact is "single golfers" are not a "protected class."

[gbogey]

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Lets say half of the courses spots were taken up by single golfers. Lets say they average 2.5 golfers with the no singles rule. This means they would lose 30% of their golfers. There is only a limited number of tee times a courses have.

I'm really struggling with the logic here but let me say this - I started playing golf on a well run municipal system of 5 golf courses. The courses made a profit and helped fund other park programs. On Saturday and Sundays EVERY tee time would be reserved from opening (as early as 6 a.m.) to 11 a.m. or later depending on the course. All the courses, including the one where cart fees were included in the green fee, allowed singles to reserve a tee time. But they forced grouped people together to get people out to play. If you were a foursome with a no show, a walk up single would get inserted. No ands, ifs, or buts, or any of the "we just want to play alone" stuff.  I've seen it work and believe me there was no revenue loss at these courses.

The golf industry is struggling and needs to get every player it can out there enjoying themselves.