Lexi Thompson schedule question.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

The only exception to the law suits that I know about was Casey Martin, who sued, I believe under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Otherwise, the courts usually rule in favor of a private organizations by-laws.

I don't want to start an argument over the Casey Martin case except to say that, IMO, Judge Scalia was correct in his dissenting opinion. You can read it if you wish but the essence of his dissenting opinion is in his opening paragraph.
----------------------------------
[May 29, 2001]

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

In my view today's opinion exercises a benevolent compassion that the law does not place it within our power to impose. The judgment distorts the text of Title III, the structure of the ADA, and common sense. I respectfully dissent.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

[xman5]

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

The only exception to the law suits that I know about was Casey Martin, who sued, I believe under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Otherwise, the courts usually rule in favor of a private organizations by-laws.

Yes that was a very narrow area. Basically he could play the game but because of his leg, walking the course for 18 holes was a big problem.

His narrow contention was that walking between shots was not really part of the game, the PGA said it was. The PGA lost.

But now where do you draw the line.

I don't usually agree with Justice Scalia ( ok never) but he wrote the following which pertains to the idea of making them give women handicapped tees.

In his dissent on the Casey case.

My belief that today's judgment is clearly in error should not be mistaken for a belief that the PGA TOUR clearly ought not allow respondent to use a golf cart. That is a close question, on which even those who compete in the PGA TOUR are apparently divided; but it is a different question from the one before the Court. Just as it is a different question whether the Little League ought to give disabled youngsters a fourth strike, or some other waiver from the rules that makes up for their disabilities. In both cases, whether they ought to do so depends upon (1) how central to the game that they have organized (and over whose rules they are the master) they deem the waived provision to be, and (2) how competitive—how strict a test of raw athletic ability in all aspects of the competition—they want their game to be. But whether Congress has said they must do so depends upon the answers to the legal questions I have discussed above—not upon what this Court sententiously decrees to be "decent, tolerant, [and] progressive," ante, at 13 (quoting Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 375 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring)).

He also wrote one of the funniest dissents with the following:

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf–and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point–then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

I say no he is not.

[NTB]

Originally Posted by xman5

Who would want to see that? Are you really serious or just tryin to rile up people.

How would that rile up anyone?
I said if it went to the highest courts.
They would rule for an unfair advantage.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

How would that rile up anyone?
I said if it went to the highest courts.
They would rule for an unfair advantage.

If you get enough women on the Supreme Court they might even rule that women should have a protected golf tour all their own...Oh wait a minute, they already do.

[NTB]

Originally Posted by gxer

If you get enough women on the Supreme Court they might even rule that women should have a protected golf tour all their own...Oh wait a minute, they already do.

Like I said the PGA could change their name.

[NTB]

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

NTB, since the PGA is a private organization, I doubt any law suit would tell them they have to handicap for females wishing to play.

Hey MP.. It is only private if it funds itself. The public funds it (non-members).
Like I said it will never happen but I think it could happen.
Just knocking around some ideas.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

Like I said the PGA could change their name.

The PGA TOUR doesn't have to do anything and a name change would only rile up the PC morons, so what's the point, just leave things the way they are for now and deal with female golfers on a case by case basis.

By the way, other than the Wie one, who apparently has given up her so-called quest to compete on the PGA TOUR, is there another female in the wings just dying to test her game on the PGA TOUR? I don't think so.

[NTB]

Originally Posted by gxer

The PGA TOUR doesn't have to do anything and a name change would only rile up the PC morons, so what's the point, just leave things the way they are for now and deal with female golfers on a case by case basis.

By the way, other than the Wie one, who apparently has given up her so-called quest to compete on the PGA TOUR, is there another female in the wings just dying to test her game on the PGA TOUR? I don't think so.

There is a big possibility some may test the back tee rule in the future.
The money is so much better on the PGA and the LPGA is losing sponsors.
You just never really know what the future will bring.
So watch out PGA.

[gxer]

Originally Posted by notaxbill

There is a big possibility some may test the back tee rule in the future.
The money is so much better on the PGA and the LPGA is losing sponsors.
You just never really know what the future will bring.
So watch out PGA.

I am tired of this. You don't know what you are talking about, so I am finished trying to discuss this topic with you.

[LoJo]

This was hashed and rehashed, ad nauseum, during the Annika and Wie forays onto PGA Tour events. I don't think there's anymore hashing to be done.

gxer....YOU were the one who opened this can of worms back up with your big idea that Lexi could play on these "lesser" men's events during the off time!

Fuggedabowdit!

Sheesh.