I am in favor of anti-discrimination legislation as far as it affects employment, access to public banking, the purchase of property, and the excersize of government. These are all public activities, taking place in the public marketplace or political sphere.
If you click on the link to the decision in this case, the very first thing you will see is
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin
This should be your first clue that the case refers to a business operating in the public, for the public, using the public's freedom to consume that business' product.
You have a constitutional right to life and liberty.
However, there are no Constitutional business or property rights, there is a right to pursue happiness. Disabled people have the right to pursue happiness in the same society which has *given* PGA Tour Inc. the *privilege* of conducting a successful business in the public, according to public rules.
You do not have a constitutional right to attend a private party I am hosting, nor be a member of a private club I choose to form. I, on the other hand, do have a right to freely associate with whomever I desire, and to exclude those I do not like, for whatever reasons, from my social life.
Be that as it may, a *business* operating in public is subject to all sorts of rules and regulations including but not limited to the rules of legal accounting and the ADA.
The right to associate freely isnt applicable since PGA Tour Inc. exercised that right when it associated itself into existence. What counts here is their public activity which reduces, in this case, to asking permission to discriminate unfairly against a disabled employee. PGA Tour Inc. will be the first to tell you that they operate in public, for the public, using the public's freedom to buy the Tour.
I am very opposed to legislation which invades the private sphere any more than absolutely necessary to protect basic constitutional rights
PGA Tour Inc. never made the Constitutional arguement you are making because that arguement is false. Indeed, if you read the decision, you will not find any Constitutional language evoking your arguement. Instructively, nor is there any such language or arguement in the *dissent*.
While I like the result (the guy should be able to play golf, with a cart if necessary), I detest the means.
Indeed, one half of the dissent amounts to an opinion stating that the SCOTUS should have declined to hear this quote silly unquote case. The other half of the dissent differs on an interpretation of the ADA. Three points: (1) the PGA decided to exercise their legal rights fatuosly when they decided to pursue the case as far as the SCOTUS; (2) had the Court declined to hear the case, Martin's victory would have stood on a lower ruling; (3) dissent is not rare and a 7-2 decision is very compelling, particularly since one judge and one judge alone saw the case as an attempt to rewrite arbitrary rules of sport. No judge confused PGA Tour, Inc. with a legal entity that is above ADA. Finally, the rules of the game of golf have not been rewritten since, according to every governing body of golf, there is no walking rule.
[ Parent ]