Muirfield Not Hosting Any Future Opens

[wobgon]

Its really sad when you have blatant discrimination such as this. 65% of the people there want this changed and the elite all white men are so discriminatory, they turn a blind eye to it.

 

In case anyone needs a definition

 

discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

 

This is the classic definition of discrimination. Sorry Muirfield, you lose in more ways than 1.

 

sad sad sad

So there is discrimination.........There always will be.........If you want to talk about things being sad,sad,sad, a golf course should be very low on the list as far as your sadness.....Why would anyone want to be a member of a club that does not want them......So according to your definition, do you think if any club, team, or organization excludes people based on race age or sex, is guilty of discrimination?.......As the poster above, I am awaiting an answer.

[nichho]

Who really cares when the UK will be ruled by sharia law in the near future perpetuated by the fear of possibly offending someone.

 

What the hell kind of comment is that?

 

Village idiot's lose.

[J-Blade]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

[rawdog]

Search "Muirfield" and you can see everyone's thoughts.

[jplrk]

A good question would be if all men's clubs allowed women, would there still be women's only clubs?

 

Honestly I don't believe there would be.

 

Honestly, I believe there would be. Many of my female friends & associates are insistent that women's only organizations are a necessary & vital part of our society. They don't see it as a response to male only organizations, but as a separate good. (I'm female and don't necessarily share their opinion, btw.)

 

Just checked and I do have male genitalia. Women shouldn't be allowed to play golf. So f*****g slow. Unless they look like models then that would be great. But since most of them look like Laura Davis they should be banned

 

I'll bet you check often. Yes, in my ideal world, all guys playing golf would look...um, better than most of them do.

[hogans71]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

Would it be different for an Jewish golf club to deny others who do not practice the same faith?

[hogans71]

Any of you played behind a group of ladies? I see why they won't let them play. Before you think I'm being sexist......my girlfriend is a female woman with a v*****

 

Is that one of those passive brag things I've heard about? (BTW, you're a lucky man)(you are man, right?)

 

Just checked and I do have male genitalia. Women shouldn't be allowed to play golf. So f*****g slow. Unless they look like models then that would be great. But since most of them look like Laura Davis they should be banned

 

Is this real?

[Shilgy]

Its really sad when you have blatant discrimination such as this. 65% of the people there want this changed and the elite all white men are so discriminatory, they turn a blind eye to it.

 

In case anyone needs a definition

 

discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

 

This is the classic definition of discrimination. Sorry Muirfield, you lose in more ways than 1.

 

sad sad sad

So there is discrimination.........There always will be.........If you want to talk about things being sad,sad,sad, a golf course should be very low on the list as far as your sadness.....Why would anyone want to be a member of a club that does not want them......So according to your definition, do you think if any club, team, or organization excludes people based on race age or sex, is guilty of discrimination?

No just the rich white men are wrong. You have to remember this is the same poster that feels the LPGA should be playing for the same amount of money as the PGA and would be if they had the same promotion 50+ years ago. But then that is another subject that was was locked a while back.

Clubs have the right to let in whom they wish. Isn't it Curves fitness that only allows women? That seems to be ok but if LA Fitness or someone wanted a mens only it becomes discriminatory. There are womens golf clubs in the UK and Canada. No outcry that I have ever seen on either. Muirfield has made their decision, for now, and perhaps in time they will decide to change but not for now. The crying about the 65% and not a simple majority is silly imo. Those are the clubs bylaws and are not just to keep women out. The baseball hall of fame needs 75% of voters to get a player in. IS that wrong as well?

[wobgon]

Private clubs should be able to allow who they want. Period.

 

Good on Muirfield for standing up for what they want in their club, and for not relenting to the R&A pressure of taking a tournament away from them if they didnt change to the way the R&A wanted.

 

I cant wait for the R&A reaction when a journalist gets by the faux outrage to ask why they didnt do the same to Royal Troon, which is an all male golf club.

 

The problems with that statement are that i) Muirfield did not actually vote for the status quo though. 65% of them actually voted for women to be allowed. Their form of Democracy of course, but odd to anyone else with more than one brain cell nonetheless. and ii) If it's seen as cutting your nose off to spite your face as being a positive, then the fact still remains that the only losers from this is the Honourable company of Edinburgh Golfers, not the R&A or The Open Championship.

 

Personally, if people want to live in the Victorian past, then that is their right, but it may come with consequences, and if they are able to suck it up, then fine. But in the end, when all is said and done, these 'fossils' will not win. Ladies will become member at Muirfield. maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but it will happen eventually. So what the 35% of members that did vote against women members are scared of..................I suppose only they can tell us.

Sorry my good friend Jay, I am back to disagreeing with you on this one.......As it may be wrong for folks to want to exclude women from their club, it is certainly their right, as it is the right of the r&a to make their decision.........On the list of wrongs being done in this world, this is at the bottom of the list.

[Shilgy]

It would not surprise me a great deal if the membership did not want the hassle of hosting the Open every 7 years or so and this was the easy way to tell the R&A no more.

[HighSpeedScene]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

Morality is a slippery slope my friend. Best not to judge right and wrong...my faithful friends tell me that there is only one qualified party for that.

[J-Blade]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

Would it be different for an Jewish golf club to deny others who do not practice the same faith?

 

It would be wrong in both cases..

 

As a result of this practice here in L.A. back in the day, (I remember my dad telling me the main culprits were Wilshire, Lakeside and Los Angeles CC), Hillcrest CC was started as a primarily Jewish club with membership open to all.

[Shilgy]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

Would it be different for an Jewish golf club to deny others who do not practice the same faith?

 

It would be wrong in both cases..

 

As a result of this practice here in L.A. back in the day, (I remember my dad telling me the main culprits were Wilshire, Lakeside and Los Angeles CC), Hillcrest CC was started as a primarily Jewish club with membership open to all.

No. They were Jewish only for years. Now...they may have said they were open but some did not "qualify"...who knows . Danny Thomas was the first non Jew from what I can find and he was 8 years old when Hillcrest opened.

[jmck]

Muirfield is a great course. Sad we won't see the Open there for at least a little while. Their choice though.

 

1000 apologies for even obliquely mentioning He Who Must Not Be Named, but does anyone have any sense of what in the world they're going to do about Turnberry? It's ownership situation is much more of a grey area than allowing women or not.

[rsj1360]

What's wrong with "ladies".......By the way, there are other threads on this topic.

Women is what they are. "Ladies" is a value judgement. Same as men vs "Gentlemen".

 

Plus it just sounds smarmy and icky.

[adam667220]

http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/topic/1336378-muirfield-not-hosting-any-future-opens/

 

Separate threads like this have already been shut down by mods. Might as well save yourself the trouble and post over there.

[dlygrisse]

Muirfield is a great course. Sad we won't see the Open there for at least a little while. Their choice though.

 

1000 apologies for even obliquely mentioning He Who Must Not Be Named, but does anyone have any sense of what in the world they're going to do about Turnberry? It's ownership situation is much more of a grey area than allowing women or not.

 

Why is that?

[J-Blade]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

Morality is a slippery slope my friend. Best not to judge right and wrong...my faithful friends tell me that there is only one qualified party for that.

 

I agree with you. He is the only one qualified to judge and I believe he will judge us all one day. That said, where do we draw the line on what we feel is moral and what is not? I think we all judge a bit, right or wrong. For instance, I think Muirfield's policy is wrong, but it doesn't upset my moral compass as much as say, child abuse, or something like that.

[homeontherange]

Muirfield is a great course. Sad we won't see the Open there for at least a little while. Their choice though.

 

1000 apologies for even obliquely mentioning He Who Must Not Be Named, but does anyone have any sense of what in the world they're going to do about Turnberry? It's ownership situation is much more of a grey area than allowing women or not.

 

Why wouldn't they want to host a tourney at a course owned by the next President of the United States?

[J-Blade]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

Would it be different for an Jewish golf club to deny others who do not practice the same faith?

 

It would be wrong in both cases..

 

As a result of this practice here in L.A. back in the day, (I remember my dad telling me the main culprits were Wilshire, Lakeside and Los Angeles CC), Hillcrest CC was started as a primarily Jewish club with membership open to all.

No. They were Jewish only for years. Now...they may have said they were open but some did not "qualify"...who knows . Danny Thomas was the first non Jew from what I can find and he was 8 years old when Hillcrest opened.

 

That could very well be... I'm going on what my father told me and he's been gone for many years now. In any case, I don't think I would have agreed with them if they were barring other groups. That's not fair either.

[mocokid]

Is Muirfield one of those all male clubs where the members can prance around anywhere in the nude ? All those corpulent soft middle age men no longer able to eat fish n chips in grill room in the buff? fugetabutit !!

[homeontherange]

Who really cares when the UK will be ruled by sharia law in the near future perpetuated by the fear of possibly offending someone.

 

What the hell kind of comment is that?

 

Village idiot's lose.

 

I really hate being a grammar nazi but this one I can't help.

 

*loose

[knock it close]

Soooo this is a win-win then for The Honorable Company of Edinburgh Golfers right??

[Kevinx]

All the courses in the open rotation should tell the R &A to stick it. They are a private course. The R&A should stay out of it business. Without them their would be no open

[HighSpeedScene]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

Morality is a slippery slope my friend. Best not to judge right and wrong...my faithful friends tell me that there is only one qualified party for that.

 

I agree with you. He is the only one qualified to judge and I believe he will judge us all one day. That said, where do we draw the line on what we feel is moral and what is not? I think we all judge a bit, right or wrong. For instance, I think Muirfield's policy is wrong, but it doesn't upset my moral compass as much as say, child abuse, or something like that.

 

Different strokes - I guess I don't feel I've earned the privilege of passing judgement on muirfield. None of my business.

[JaNelson38]

Private clubs should be able to allow who they want. Period.

 

Good on Muirfield for standing up for what they want in their club, and for not relenting to the R&A pressure of taking a tournament away from them if they didnt change to the way the R&A wanted.

 

I cant wait for the R&A reaction when a journalist gets by the faux outrage to ask why they didnt do the same to Royal Troon, which is an all male golf club.

 

The problems with that statement are that i) Muirfield did not actually vote for the status quo though. 65% of them actually voted for women to be allowed. Their form of Democracy of course, but odd to anyone else with more than one brain cell nonetheless. and ii) If it's seen as cutting your nose off to spite your face as being a positive, then the fact still remains that the only losers from this is the Honourable company of Edinburgh Golfers, not the R&A or The Open Championship.

 

Personally, if people want to live in the Victorian past, then that is their right, but it may come with consequences, and if they are able to suck it up, then fine. But in the end, when all is said and done, these 'fossils' will not win. Ladies will become member at Muirfield. maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but it will happen eventually. So what the 35% of members that did vote against women members are scared of..................I suppose only they can tell us.

 

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

[Gem]

Guess the masters should relocate as well...oh wait, they have a token black/female member so they're covered. What a crock.

 

Nobody is forcing anyone to play at Augusta- it's an invitational. No golf ruling body's have any say on the who, what, why and where of this event.

 

Muirfield should have every right to allow for their membership to consist of whomever they want. The R&A should be allowed to make the very decision they're making right now. I cannot believe people have an issue with either side...

 

 

My issue is we have lost a fantastic course from the rota with potentially Troon and Turnberry as well.

 

I am saddened that the R&A have been pressured into taking this stance.

I do think they had to make their own membership open to all but I strongly disagree they should take in to account how a private club decides to go about it's business.

The choice for the Open should be solely on the strength of the courses available ond not for any political reason.

[jmck]

 

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

 

False equivalencies are false.

[homeontherange]

And just one more thing before I ban myself from this thread..

 

Any female can play Murfield on their public days. They do not ban women from playing, and they've hosted women's tournaments there for nearly 100 years.

 

But please, back to the PATRIARCHY!!!

[JaNelson38]

 

The choice for the Open should be solely on the strength of the courses available ond not for any political reason.

 

Bingo.