CLUB’S DISCRIMINATORY POLICY CITED
S.C. Rep. Beth Bernstein – a Democrat representing Richland County – says she and her husband will not join a Columbia, S.C. country club after it failed to make sufficient progress in diversifying its membership.
Bernstein and her husband Rip Sanders – who received the invitation from the Forest Lake Country Club two weeks ago – believe the organization hasn’t done enough to attract minority members.
They’re right: Forest Lake currently has zero black members, although sources at the club tell The (Columbia, S.C.) State newspaper that an interracial couple has been placed on its waiting list.
Wow … how big of them, right?
Obviously as freedom-loving libertarians we respect the right of private clubs to admit – or refuse admittance – to anyone they please, for whatever reason they please. That’s their prerogative. However in 2014 it strikes us as ridiculous that an organization wishing to be respected or taken seriously would discriminate on the basis of skin color.
Oh, and public figures who join discriminatory organizations – or maintain there memberships in such clubs – need to have their heads examined.
Forest Lake’s “whites only” policy – part of the deed to the property upon which the club sits – made headlines again last week when S.C. Rep. Bakari Sellers (D-Bamberg) challenged his lieutenant gubernatorial opponent, Henry McMaster, to resign his membership.
McMaster’s membership at the Forest Lake Country Club was first exposed by FITS back in 2008 – along with his membership in other “whites only” organizations.
McMaster is one of several prominent “Republican” politicos who belongs to the club – including S.C. Sen. John Courson and former SCGOP chairman Katon Dawson.
Dawson – who followed McMaster as head of the state party – pulled a rope-a-dope related to his membership at the club while he was running for chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) in 2009. First he “resigned” his membership at the club in protest of its policy toward blacks, however it was later revealed that he never left.
The Dawson debacle was the latest in a litany of bad press for the club, which famously refused to invite a commanding general at Fort Jackson due to his Jewish faith. Five Jewish couples now belong to the club. Bernstein and her husband would have been the sixth.
75 comments
The 60’s called…they want their idiots back. That means FITS and the Democrats’ rapture is upon us. Please…FITS, are you hurting for news this bad???..Weekends’ great for Gamecock posts…If you have a brain….
The 60’s called…they want their idiots back.
Need some help packing up, Chief?
You have to steal from me, to even come up with an attempt at an insult. LMAO… And you actually demonstrate how vapid you are, in the process.
Have you EVER originated a thought of your own???
I’m having an original thought right now – what the hell is vapis?
Where do you see “vapis”…you leftwing Dumb@$$???
Is life really that black and white to you? Everyone that disagrees with you, cuts you off in traffic or just plain doesn’t like you (which would be everyone from what I can tell) is a Democrat, Obama loving, Marxist?
Wow.. You are one messed up dude.
Did you vote for Obama? …LMAO…
PS: Where do you see the word “Vapis?”….Dumb@$$…
Its really none of your damn business who I voted for, but no, I didn’t vote for Obama, neither time. Did you?
And WTF are you talking about “vapis”??
Back to drooling in your state supported basement, pig.
Especially since she’s a chick… well female, I doubt anyone would call her a chick… bitch/pig/cunt more likely.
It was there before you corrected it. I was reasonably sure you meant vapid but with you, well, you can’t always be certain.
That’s the danger of you attempting to use typos as a way to prove your intelligence. It’s the mind, and the ability to apply it, that separates us…
I’ve found, in my career, that those who are chained to small correctable issues – and quickly use it – lack creativity, insight and talent to write. You can get a job as a proof reader, but most of the pious ones, are talent-less A-Holes, who eventually get told to shut up by an astute publisher. You’re a dime a dozen.
Apparently you’ve hired a great editor, I’ve noticed a distinct drop in the use of #=)( /=#() and #()!_$ in the place of real words. We’re all adults here, well most of us, you can use “asshole”.
Congress needs to address this IMMEDIATELY!. Make it a NATIONAL crisis issue. And don’t back down to the Racist Black Bullies. Detroit, Miss, Memphis…It’s a RACE HATE epidemic by Blacks. It’s as bad as anything the Klan ever did in ancient history. It’s time to send the NG in, just like they did to integrate schools and lunch counters. This is far worse than the Racists of the 50s and 60s. If we have a government, it is failing to let this keep happening.
Some can use content to draw attention. That said: I TOTALLY understand why you must incorporate shock value.
Have you considered using it on your blog?
I don’t want to attract lock-step, close-minded liberals, w/ cliche fodder. Astute people need something to identify with. I offer them that. You need to stay over here, on the well-worn path, of the common and weak-minded.
So Emily’s blog must be worse off than predicted, she’s spending an awful lot of time over here again rather than working on her “successful” blog.
The 60’s called…they want their idiots back. That means FITS and the Democrats’ rapture is upon us. Please…FITS, are you hurting for news this bad???..Weekends’ great for Gamecock posts…If you have a brain….
Fits,
“However in 2014 it strikes us as
ridiculous that an organization wishing to be respected or taken
seriously would discriminate on the basis of skin color.”
When did FLCC ever say they “wished” to be anything except left alone?
And it seems to me that is the crux of libertarianism is: LEAVE PEOPLE TO FUCK ALONE!
Ahhh, that’s the dirty little secret for most libertarians – they’re in favor of everyone being “left alone” as long as what you do doesn’t bug them personally, it’s not about safety (see Fits position on meth) or about morality (see Fits position on prostitution) or even about ensuring the continued existence of this great experiment (see Fits position on defence). It’s all about what they “feel” about specific issues.
Some of us libertarians don’t like the idea of a Nanny State micromanaging the lives of it’s citizens in the name of Safety (see Fits position on meth), don’t understand why prostitution is immoral (see Fits position on prostitution) and correctly believe the essence of George Washington’s farewell address is paramount to ensuring the continued existence of this great experiment (see Fits position on defence).
I’m sorry, where in Washington’s “Farewell Address” does he advocate not maintaining a credible military? He warns of “foreign entanglements” particularly in Europe but I don’t see anything about the existence of a capable military. In fact, Washington’s Secretary of War, Knox, built the first US Navy at Washington’s behest. Many founders were against standing Annie’s only because of the historical record, that record has been stood on its head in the American experience. If you could eliminate forced participation in the sex trade from “just plain hooking”, I might not be adamantly against it but the truth is, you can’t. You can’t seriously think that unregulated production, distribution and use of substances like meth is a”good idea” libertarian ideals or not.
“You can’t seriously think that unregulated production, distribution and use of substances like meth is a”good idea” libertarian ideals or not.”
Uh…yes, they do. Seriously. I talk to them (a lot). I have several close buds who are over-the-top, tin-foil hat wearing, extremist libertarians, and they really do think that we shouldn’t have a single US troop outside of our borders unless we are directly attacked, that all dangerous dope (heroin, meth, cocaine, etc.) should be 100% legal and mostly unregulated, and that the gov’t should fund precisely zero percent of the education of the masses. Debating with them will make you swim laps in brown liquor because for them it’s not about policy, its about an almost religous fervor and anti-gov’t bent. I spent a few super-fun years on teh continent of Africa in fun spots like Eritrea, Somalia, Uganda, South Sudan , etc. If you want to see what “total freedom from government” looks like (and what a country that does those things looks like after just a few years of “total freedom”) move your folks to one of those spots and enjoy all of that pure liberty to be left alone. You won’t be left alone for long…
Mike (and TBG as well) – my point was that the “rational man” couldn’t justify meth, prostitution etc – the problem with Libertarians is that many of the most vocal of them are just what you describe “tin foil hatters”.
Zackly…
“my point was that the “rational man” couldn’t justify meth, prostitution etc”
and yet the lack of distinction between justification and codification continues…..
How long has the the “war” on drugs and prostitution gone on and how successful has it been?
Just because the law occasionally jails people who use drugs or sell sex doesn’t mean those markets are regulated. In fact, they would be better regulated if they were practiced out in the open instead of in secret. But maybe my tin foil hat is a bit too tight on my head.
” It’s all about what they “feel” about specific issues.”
Yea, you got that exactly backwards, it’s the statists that are complelled to run everyone’s life by fiat.
“Ahhh, that’s the dirty little secret for most libertarians – they’re in
favor of everyone being “left alone” as long as what you do doesn’t bug
them personally”
The above people are called “hypocrites”, they populate every viewpoint in the political landscape in existence…rest assured that the largest percentage of them happen to run in circles surrounded elected “leadership”.
I know libertarians think that it’s just the “statists” who follow their “feelings” in legislative actions but it simply isn’t true.
Well on the truth-o-meter my score is much higher than yours, subjectively of course.
I try to never lie. I get the facts wrong occasionally but I make every effort to never lie, I’d like to think it is a reflection of my moral condition but the truth is it’s just too easy to get caught.
Well, we each think we are closer to the truth than the other. I never suggested you are lying, I’m suggesting that you are wrong.
That was my left handed way of saying I might be wrong…
lol…fair enough… I might be too(but obviously I don’t think so and I probably spend more time around libertarians than you…the hardcore variety).
When you tell the truth, you don’t have to have such a good memory.
True dat! Now what were we talking about?
Unless it involves abortion or two gheys getting hitched; then the Repubs seem to like to get involved as well.
It is about being left alone by the Gubment.. We can fight it out over issues all day long, but to quote GT SC Political Digest with a caps lock on the numeral line, the F&^#$^&#^ing Gubment needs to stay out of it. As someone with Libertarian views NO it is not alright for the Gubment to punish people for victimless crimes, it is not right for the Gubment to try to take a private club to task over their admittance policies, you get the picture. So before you go blasting people with libertarian ideals make sure you differentiate between what we think the Gubment should do vs what we as individuals are free to do.
victimless crimes…therein lies the weakness to your position.
If I wish to make myself a victim that is my and no one’s but my business so exactly how is that weak? Victimless crimes laws are nothing more than the gubment being the morality police ie… prostitution, drugging, gambling, smoking, drinking etc.. They can’t stop it and the amount of money circling the hamster wheel over it is unfathomable. So take your high moral horse and ride on out bud..
This isn’t Bio-Dome “bud.” While you are free to hold dear to your beliefs that you are able to live life in a vacuum, I will strongly disagree.
Does this mean that we all should trade in freedoms for the sake of the butterfly effect? Not at all. But the mere foolishness and banter of suggesting that I can partake in “prostitution, drugging, gambling, smoking, drinking etc..” and that this has absolutely no effect on anyone else is downright ludicrous.
You clearly have never lost a child because another passenger in your child’s car wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and consequently, because a human projectile and killed your child (who was wearing a seatbelt).
So, can someone partake in these things and possibly have little to no negative effect on someone else? Sure, I imagine it is quite possible. But should some form of regulation limit (or deter) those who clearly lack the responsibility to stay within the lines? I think so.
If, by your statement, you lost a child based on that I am sorry. But it is free will. If the occupants of a car choose to not wear a seat belt, that is a personal choice and for the owners of said vehicle and the insurance company to sort out. One could have worn and the other not. It is not for big Gub to make the determination of how I protect myself. I can see you are a shill for Government intervention and morality control at every turn and no matter how logical my thoughts you will never hear it. So I am ending this.
The reason insurance companies can be left to “sort out” the aftermath is because gov requires/regulates people to have insurance. By your thought process, we would not need to have insurance (it’s my choice) and, therefore, there is no insurance company to sort it out.
The self-defeating logic of the extreme libertarians is utterly ridiculous.
And Dave, if your scenario is true, I am truly sorry.
Never said I was extreme. I am one of the few who believe without order there is chaos. Just keep the order to a minimum. Insurance protects us from each other and protects us as well and I am ok with that Forcing me to wear a seat belt or forcing me not to gamble just makes me angry or criminalizing me if I choose to engage in a little barter for sex is utterly ridiculous. .
God, what beautiful hair !!!
I’d start a country club that only allowed membership by me and all female Jewish SC state legislators with long blond hair if I thought she would join it.
Damn straight!!!!! Looking at her pic, I couldn’t help but wonder why her old man would want to join any club when he had that at home.
Yeah, I know, steak and lobster for dinner every night would get old after a while.
I beg to differ, my good man! Neither steak, lobster, nor good looking ass EVER gets old.
That frizz?? Dude…she needs a conditioner, and a color..stat.
God y’all are some hard up MF’ers for anything in a skirt.
come off it. you know you would hit it, too…
My decision on whether I would “hit it” or not is hardly based on how frizzy her hair is.
I was just pointing out the obvious. Her hair ain’t that great.
so how hard would you hit it?
Again, the decision on whether I would engage in copious amounts of sex with her would not be mine to make.
But she still needs to trim some split ends.
To answer your question,
Very. Hard. For at least 15 seconds.
I’m sure Will will agree with this, Beth’s best feature is her feet in a pair of heels
I can think of a few other organizations. That public and elected officials maintain questionable memberships with. Some with way more sway than a private country club.
Oh, and public figures who join discriminatory organizations – or maintain there memberships in such clubs – need to have their heads examined.
Their, their.
Heir, heir!
Oh mai goodness…
hes a looser
which wich is witch?
I think the Congressional Black Caucus should be intergrated. They get Federal Money!
As usual the racists have to chime in whenever race is mentioned.
Actually, the Congressional Black Caucus does not get federal money. It is just a group of minority congressmen who meet to discuss how issues before congress affect minorities, and formulate ideas to improve the lives of minorities. Its members get federal money just like every white Congressman.
Rich white men have the same thing. They call their caucus the GOP. That Caucus meets to discuss how issues before Congress affect rich white people and formulate ideas to improve the lives of rich white men.
“formulate ideas to improve the lives of minorities.”
That seems to be working out famously (tongue planted firmly in cheek).
Not sure why pointing out that the Congressional Black Caucus is an exclusionary organization could remotely be perceived as “racist”. The word “racist” has been tossed around and applied to so many things that it ceases to have any real meaning. It’s the go to label for the left to hurl at anyone on the right that they disagree with.
TBG, also, has no intention of joining the FLCC.
As if they’d have you, or me, or 99% of the regulars here.
So let me get this straight:
The FLCC is supposed to feel bad that a Jew isn’t joining the ranks because there’s no blacks in their organization?
lol…is this some joke that’s missing it’s punchline?
Who gives a fuck, are Jews even allowed in that club?
Who gives a fuck. I don’t even know any jews. At least I can recognize a black guy.
It’s always amusing to me to see extremist libertarians (pro-legalization of all dangerous addictive dope, militarily isolationist, anti-public education, etc.) pick and choose their way through issues like this. Although I personally wouldn’t join an organization that didn’t allow non-white persons as a matter of policy, I certainly don’t give a shit if you do. The purist libertarian response to this kerfuffle (or any like it) would have been one line, to wit: “Organization X is a private group not subject to government regulation, and therefore their membership and other activities are none of our freaking business.”
They wouldn’t stop at justifying a private group’s open discrimination in who it allows to join. Allowing all forms of discrimination under any circumstance is key for liberty. Discrimination in who you hire, who you allow to shop at your store, eat at your restaurant, etc.
Hrmm, I wonder why there aren’t more minorities amongst the Libertarian ranks…
Ask T-Rav about his membership at the charleston yacht club. it has plenty of black people….waiting tables
First, how is this news, even for Fits? A wealthy democratic Jew in Columbia won’t join Forest Lake? How noble of her and her husband. This is the type of woman who is a liberal democrat, got a job with her daddy, got a job for her husband working for her daddy, and didn’t take her husband’s name. Are we really shocked they (she) decided not to join Forest Lake? Second, I’m sure ZERO fu#&s were given by Forest Lake that the Bernstein’s weren’t added to their roster…I’m just shocked they were stupid enough to offer them a membership (they kinda walked into that one).
Who cares what Beth and her hubby do?
Wait. Forest Lake Club “invited” these people to join? I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s exactly how it works. I’m just guessing that they applied for membership. I’m also guessing that with Bakari Sellers trying to dredge up this old issue she figured it wouldn’t be good politics for her to join. I’m also guessing that she would have been glad to slip quietly into the club, but that the timing was inauspicious.