Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Richard Willey
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wonder whether this might be one of those hidden costs with an ever increasing membership age
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alternative hypothesis: Most people in this day and age aren't clueless enough to brag about such a thing in public…
April 14, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> What does this mean? A surfer dude walks into a fancy restaurant
> with no shirt and his sandy feet? Can I refuse to seat him?

Yes

There are a number of cases in which a public accommodation may chose to refuse service to an individual. Intoxication or rowdiness are prototypical examples. Another classic example is when an individual is violating a neutral dress code requirement and meeting the dress code is under the control of the individual.
April 13, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And yet, somehow people don't object when the organization wastes all sorts of time and effort on “The Longest Day” and other such events that have nothing to do with bridge. Indeed, we seem to consider this type of effort commendable…
April 13, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> I think you misunderstand laws primarily drafted to allow
> people to refuse to participate in rituals that they
> object to.

That's one interpretation of what's going on. Personally, I think that the passage of these laws is much more an expression of tribalism and attempt to display political power.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I doubt that it would be that hard to add, rather there is a mistaken assumption of that the thread authors are competent…
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I heard of this within the last couple years. I am willing to believe that the events took place several years back.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> As far as I know the ACBL has never discriminated against gays;
> certainly they were around since I started playing in 1970, and
> I never saw them asked not to play or denied membership.

I've heard people brag that homosexuals were blocked from working with the ACBL's Junior program based solely on sexual preference.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Fixed the title for you.

Thanks Eugene

(So rare to see these words used seriously)
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Homosexuality is (obviously) not a religious belief.

The reason that religion enters into the picture is that the MS law in questions (along with similar laws in GA, NC, TN, and the like) are broadly referred to “religious freedom” laws. Lawmakers in these states are claiming that their religious beliefs should grant them the right to discriminate.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The precedence regarding attorney fees is one important outcome of Newman v Piggie Park, however, there was another broader decision in the case:

If you are operating a public accommodation, you can't use religion belief as a justification for discrimination.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> But if I were a hotel owner, why cannot I decide how I want to run
> my business? I know there is a public interest argument against that,
> but I would not ignore other people's faith either.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. is a useful place to start
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is rare that I find the opportunity to complement the ACBL for anything, so it would be badly remise for me not to do so now…

Well done, especially wrt the expeditious nature of the decision!
April 12, 2016
Richard Willey edited this comment April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing so exciting, merely a cat on the keyboard
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thought I saw “300” in a different thread…

If it is 300K, that's something real at least
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That your federation is inbred…
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
BTW, the title of meant to read Three Years !!!!
April 11, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I thought that Giovanni was insisting (rather vociferously) that there hadn't been any sentence…
April 10, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
FWIW, I agree that moving the ACBL headquarters is the correct thing to do from a moral perspective. I would prefer to see the ACBL move on this issue (pun intentional).

With this said and done, from a practical perspective, I don't expect that the ACBL to be able to act on such a motion in a timely manner. Between the the need to honor existing leases, the miserable financial shape of the organization, and the groups inability to act on anything quickly, I would be shocked to see the ACBL take any such action. Moreover, by the time the ACBL could do something, I suspect that the MS government will have caved.

I suspect that the best that we can hope for is a statement of the form: “Next time we're renegotiating our lease, if this policy is still in effect, we're outta here”.

This is something that the org might be able to do in a timely enough fashion to have some practical effect.
April 9, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
> Far better if people on a web site decide on guilt or innocence and
> then also decide on sentence. All this hearing witnesses and studying
> written evidence is much overrated.

Comment 1: I would think that we could objectively agree that the system in which a partnership who confesses to cheating receives a significantly more harsh sentence than a pair who did not confess and cheated in many more and more significant events.

Comment 2: The set of information available to the wed forum is most certainly biased. We have not seen the arguments that F+N presented in their defense. At the same time, folks here aren't subject to the same constrains as the Italian apparatchiks who chose the eventual punishment. Who is to say which set of biases are worse.
April 6, 2016
.

Bottom Home Top