I have to point out that you guys are mixing up a lot of different laws and situations that don't actually have much to do with each other in terms of the law.

My analysis is as a matter of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, i.e. federal law. Most states have their own state anti-discrimination law, and even some cities (like NYC) have city-wide anti-discrimination law. So it all depends on the law being used in a particular case, and it is sometimes hard to compare the analysis of Michigan's law to NY's law to federal law. At the same time, some general threads do run through those laws, but it's important to keep in mind that things don't necessarily fit together as neatly as we would like.

For example, you write about university-based groups. A big question is whether the university was public or private, because radically different laws apply, with public universities generally less free to do whatever they want.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, if I can speak generally, men and white people are not barred from forming male-only or white-only clubs. Agusta Golf Club continues its storied existence, as do the Boy Scouts.

The leading case on the matter is from 1987, Board of Directors of Rotary Intern. v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481 U.S. 537.

The Westlaw summary for the holdings is:

Application of California's Unruh Act to require California Rotary Clubs to admit women does not violate the First Amendment; such application does not interfere unduly with club members' freedom of private association; relationship among Rotary Club members does not warrant protection, in light of potentially large size of local clubs, high turnover rate among club members, inclusive nature of each club's membership, public purposes behind club's service activities, and fact that clubs encourage participation of strangers in, and welcome media coverage of, many of their central activities.

Application of California's Unruh Act to California Rotary Clubs to require them to admit women does not violate right of expressive association afforded by the First Amendment; evidence did not demonstrate that admitting women would affect in any significant way ability of clubs to carry out their service activities; moreover, even if Act did work some slight infringement of members' rights, such infringement was justified by state's compelling interest in eliminating discrimination against women and in assuring them equal access to leadership skills and business contacts.

Necessarily, then, had the club been the opposite of its description above, i.e. small size of local clubs, low turnover among members, exclusivee nature of membership, private purposes behind service activities, and not welcoming strangers or the media, it would have passed constitutional muster. And such clubs do exist, and they do pass muster.

Its legality has nothing to do with the jurisprudence regarding these clubs because Curves never denied that it's a public accommodation.

The legality of Curves basically hinges on the perception that a gym where people work out could be viewed as an extension of a bathroom/locker-room, and our courts still view gender separation in locker-rooms and bathrooms as a concern that overrides the interest everyone has in being protected from discrimination on the basis of gender.

Thus, Curves is a public accommodation, anti-discrimination law applies to it, but because of the "bathroom exception," it's still allowed.

The clubs, however, try to defend themselves by saying they aren't public accommodations, thus anti-discrimination law doesn't even apply. What makes something a public accommodation is a couple of factors: does it advertise membership to the general public? is usually the biggest one. That's why many private clubs have such small signage.

Thus, when a particular club is found to be a public accommodation, anti-discrimination law then applies.

However, again, you can fall under a series of exceptions. Ethnic/nationality clubs that seek to promote the heritage of their ethnicity, such as the Ukrainian-American Club, would be allowed to restrict membership to Ukrainians, but only if that restriction helped it pursue its mission. A similar type of reasoning applies to gender, thus discrimination on gender would be okay, but only if that discrimination actually helped the club pursue its mission. So, the Boy Scouts can exclude girls, and that has nothing to do with the existence of a parallel organization. In the case outlined here, the maleness seems to have nothing to do with the mission of the club, thus the club now has to let women in.

And I'm a die-hard liberal.

How many people in this country are going to feel the same way over the course of the next 8 months?...

"President McCain" ... god, that sounds terrible.

LeCastor

Your stance would be that America was wrong to bomb Germany during WWII.

Um, was Germany a US ally during WW2 when the US bombed it?

I wrote: "Ah, ok, I see, so actually BOMBING another sovereign country that is supposed to be an ally is okay with you, but merely calling the leader-in-transition of one "soulless" is not?"

As far as I understand it, Pakistan and Russia are US allies at the moment. No?