BD points out that there have been other civil rights' victories on the golf course, including Casey Martin's victory* over the PGA Tour for an accommodation to use a golf cart during tournament play. I thought about it some last night (I know, lame) and I think there are a few reasons why golf courses are the loci of civil rights litigation:
1. Golf courses/country clubs have many stupid rules, many of which, when challenged, illustrate how unnecessarily self-regulated golf courses and country clubs are.
2. "Golf course" and "country club" are two of the only phrases that evoke a certain class meaning without additional description. They are "white", "old money", "straight", "healthy" and most of all "rich". Thus, in civil rights discourse and litigation, they are an easy stereotypical "villain". Which does not entirely explain why they get sued more.
3. Except it does. Obviously, in litigation, "rich" = "deep pockets", so that might make them even more attractive. But more importantly, the plaintiffs in these suits are golfers, which like "country club" and "golf course" means that they are "white" and "rich". This means they have the means (financial) to litigate, and the sense of entitlement to dream that they should have access to any golf course in America.
Which I guess is why I have a hard time having my heart strings tugged by these folks, notwithstanding the fact that there victories open the door to so many good outcomes.
*Scalia's dissent discusses "Platonic golf", which, although funny to imagine, demonstrates how far afield of reality Scalia will sometimes go to avoid joining an opinion that acknowledges a statutory or Constitutional right.
No comments:
Post a Comment