Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

His civil rights? What on earth are you talking about. Explain a theory under which Jon Rahms 'civil rights" were violated.

---

I didn't say his civil rights were violated... but just because an club or organization established a rule doesn't mean it can't run afoul of law.

He'll get his day in court and the court will decided if the organization operated in bad faith.

But just for the record, I believe that private business or private club or organization should establish whatever policies they wish without interference from gov't.

If I want to start a club for vaxxers I should have that right. Likewise, I should be able to start a club for straight men only or gay men only or no transgenders or transgenders only, etc....

---

People who are not vaccinated are not a protected class.

---

This sentence sums up the problem. More targeting and punishment coming for the unwashed masses. If you don't do as WE say, you will be punished.

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

His civil rights? What on earth are you talking about. Explain a theory under which Jon Rahms 'civil rights" were violated.

---

I didn't say his civil rights were violated... but just because an club or organization established a rule doesn't mean it can't run afoul of law.

He'll get his day in court and the court will decided if the organization operated in bad faith.

But just for the record, I believe that private business or private club or organization should establish whatever policies they wish without interference from gov't.

If I want to start a club for vaxxers I should have that right. Likewise, I should be able to start a club for straight men only or gay men only or no transgenders or transgenders only, etc....

---

People who are not vaccinated are not a protected class.

---

This sentence sums up the problem. More targeting and punishment coming for the unwashed masses. If you don't do as WE say, you will be punished.

---

While I don't agree with the concept of protected classes (as private entities should be allowed to have whatever policies they wish)....

if we are going to have them, it seems odd that a private club can't prohibit gay people from joining but allowed to prohibit a young healthy individual (that is not sick) that has chosen not to get a vaccine for a virus that has a 99% survival rate.

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

No. He agreed to the terms of the PGA in order to play

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

Applying HIPAA to employers wouldn't accomplish what you have in mind. It would only prohibit them from disclosing information to third parties, not from requesting it in the first place.

Osodecentx said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

No. He agreed to the terms of the PGA in order to play

---

So, it's never happened that someone signed a contract, then later filed a lawsuit over that contract and won?

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

No. He agreed to the terms of the PGA in order to play

---

So, it's never happened that someone signed a contract, then later filed a lawsuit over that contract and won?

---

Over not being vaccinated and then DQed by the PGA? Nobody has won a lawsuit.
The PGA can not require a player to be vaccinated, but they can require quarantine and contact tracing for the unvaccinated.
I just don't see the civil rights implication for disqualification of an unvaccinated professional golfer.

Entities that have required disqualification/forfeit of parties in athletic venues:
NCAA football & basketball
NBA
WNBA
PGA

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

---

So are you saying that America's history no laws have been changed or written as the result of lawsuis?

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

---

More to the point, HIPAA was written specifically to address healthcare providers. It would be an entirely new law to address private health information with regard to employers, one the Democrat-led Congress will have zero interest in pursuing.

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

---

So are you saying that America's history no laws have been changed or written as the result of lawsuis?

---

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you must have a legal basis to file a lawsuit. You have not offered any legal basis on which Jon Rahm could build a lawsuit.

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

---

So are you saying that America's history no laws have been changed or written as the result of lawsuis?

---

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you must have a legal basis to file a lawsuit. You have not offered any legal basis on which Jon Rahm could build a lawsuit.

---

I'd argue they've exposed his health records by saying he's not received the jab

That's certainly an arguable legal basis to file suit and get it started as a HIPPA violation they're indirectly exposing his medical info especially if he didn't volunteer it publicly! More legal reasons could easily come to fruition between filing and court hearing as things are turning south on the COVID scam and all that goes along with it too!

Are you getting you legal jargon online? I'd never hire someone so balless as you for my attorney!!! I only hire the best to pummel those like you into submission

Florda_mike said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

---

So are you saying that America's history no laws have been changed or written as the result of lawsuis?

---

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that you must have a legal basis to file a lawsuit. You have not offered any legal basis on which Jon Rahm could build a lawsuit.

---

I'd argue they've exposed his health records by saying he's not received the jab

That's certainly an arguable legal basis to file suit and get it started as a HIPPA violation they're indirectly exposing his medical info especially if he didn't volunteer it publicly! More legal reasons could easily come to fruition between filing and court hearing as things are turning south on the COVID scam and all that goes along with it too!

Are you getting you legal jargon online? I'd never hire someone so balless as you for my attorney!!! I only hire the best to pummel those like you into submission

---

The PGA is not a covered entity under HIPAA. The law does not apply to it.

I thought you conservatives wanted the Courts to apply the law as written.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

His civil rights? What on earth are you talking about. Explain a theory under which Jon Rahms 'civil rights" were violated.

---

I didn't say his civil rights were violated... but just because an club or organization established a rule doesn't mean it can't run afoul of law.

He'll get his day in court and the court will decided if the organization operated in bad faith.

But just for the record, I believe that private business or private club or organization should establish whatever policies they wish without interference from gov't.

If I want to start a club for vaxxers I should have that right. Likewise, I should be able to start a club for straight men only or gay men only or no transgenders or transgenders only, etc....

---

People who are not vaccinated are not a protected class.

---

This sentence sums up the problem. More targeting and punishment coming for the unwashed masses. If you don't do as WE say, you will be punished.

---

Was here on Friday. Seguin has a great downtown.

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

---

So are you saying that America's history no laws have been changed or written as the result of lawsuis?

---

"Non-disclosure Agreements" are a good example. In 2021 they don't seem to be worth the paper they're printed on.

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

His civil rights? What on earth are you talking about. Explain a theory under which Jon Rahms 'civil rights" were violated.

---

I didn't say his civil rights were violated... but just because an club or organization established a rule doesn't mean it can't run afoul of law.

He'll get his day in court and the court will decided if the organization operated in bad faith.

But just for the record, I believe that private business or private club or organization should establish whatever policies they wish without interference from gov't.

If I want to start a club for vaxxers I should have that right. Likewise, I should be able to start a club for straight men only or gay men only or no transgenders or transgenders only, etc....

---

People who are not vaccinated are not a protected class.

---

This sentence sums up the problem. More targeting and punishment coming for the unwashed masses. If you don't do as WE say, you will be punished.

---

Was here on Friday. Seguin has a great downtown.

---

Thank you, Booray. Our downtown has really been revitalized the last 10 years or so. I know the building (On Austin St.) but have not seen that mural. I guess Country should make his way to town.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

No court is going to "extend HIPAA." You have a basic misconception about the difference between common law and statutory law.

---

So are you saying that America's history no laws have been changed or written as the result of lawsuis?

---

"Non-disclosure Agreements" are a good example. In 2021 they don't seem to be worth the paper they're printed on.

---

They will in time, soon hopefully

Tide is turning now

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

He declined to be vaccinated. He knew the terms and conditions of PGA tournament participation.

Simple risk consequences analysis.

---

Is it not worth an investigation and hearing to determine if his civil rights were violated?

---

His civil rights? What on earth are you talking about. Explain a theory under which Jon Rahms 'civil rights" were violated.

---

I didn't say his civil rights were violated... but just because an club or organization established a rule doesn't mean it can't run afoul of law.

He'll get his day in court and the court will decided if the organization operated in bad faith.

But just for the record, I believe that private business or private club or organization should establish whatever policies they wish without interference from gov't.

If I want to start a club for vaxxers I should have that right. Likewise, I should be able to start a club for straight men only or gay men only or no transgenders or transgenders only, etc....

---

People who are not vaccinated are not a protected class.

---

This sentence sums up the problem. More targeting and punishment coming for the unwashed masses. If you don't do as WE say, you will be punished.

---

Was here on Friday. Seguin has a great downtown.

---

Thank you, Booray. Our downtown has really been revitalized the last 10 years or so. I know the building (On Austin St.) but have not seen that mural. I guess Country should make his way to town.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

Immutability vs personal choice isn't a consideration anymore under the new rules of racism. As long as there is a differential outcome or impact according to race, then it is racism, regardless if it was the result of behavior. If white males are supposedly more likely to refuse the vaccine, then any policy mandating vaccination should be considered unequivocally racist - if we're being consistent, that is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

Immutability vs personal choice isn't a consideration anymore under the new rules of racism. As long as there is a differential outcome or impact according to race, then it is racism, regardless if it was the result of behavior. If white males are supposedly more likely to refuse the vaccine, then any policy mandating vaccination should be considered unequivocally racist - if we're being consistent, that is.

---

I'm being consistent in saying that stuff is BS. If you actually believe it, I guess you could say requiring vaccination is discriminatory. What you can't do is have it both ways.

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Booray said:

---

First, Jon Rahm has not filed a lawsuit. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Second, Courts do not create protected classes: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it.

As an avowed conservative, you are arguing for judicial activism of the highest magnitude.

---

First, Congresses passes laws in many instances as the result of court cases, you know that.

Second, I'm a Libertarian. True, I lean conservative, but I've already said that I support a private entity to establish whatever policies they wish.

Third, where have argued for judicial activism? Did I say the court needs to find in his favor? Please kindly point to where I said that. I said he should be heard.

I'll ask you again, do you believe he shouldn't even be heard?

---

Courts do not exist to allow people to "be heard." The judiciary applies the law to the facts of a case. In this instance there is no law to apply.

When you want courthouse doors open to cases that clearly have no legal merit, you are supporting judicial activism.

I am interested in Jon Rahm's thoughts on the matter, so yes he should be heard. He can tweet it, post it, insta it, or give an interview about it. He can ask for a bill to be passed or for the PGA to change their policy. But I don't think he should be heard inside a courtroom because there is no basis in law for it. Zero, nada, zilch.

---

Not that I would support it, but a lawsuit could lead to HIPPA being extended to employers.

Changes in laws often start with a lawsuit

---

He's not an employee. He's not a citizen.

Headshot


So much for the "America first " gang. Cinque is trying to take money out of hard working Americans pockets and give it to interlopers.

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Wasnt it the Montgomery City busses? As long as you are using a poor analogy you might as well get it as accurate as possible.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Wasnt it the Montgomery City busses? As long as you are using a poor analogy you might as well get it as accurate as possible.

---

You've grown in your bigotry. No one expects you to stand still when you can target more minorities.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Poor analogy. Skin color is innate and immutable. Vaccination status isn't. I remember when conservatives knew the difference.

---

Immutability vs personal choice isn't a consideration anymore under the new rules of racism. As long as there is a differential outcome or impact according to race, then it is racism, regardless if it was the result of behavior. If white males are supposedly more likely to refuse the vaccine, then any policy mandating vaccination should be considered unequivocally racist - if we're being consistent, that is.

---

I'm being consistent in saying that stuff is BS. If you actually believe it, I guess you could say requiring vaccination is discriminatory. What you can't do is have it both ways.

---

I know you're being consistent. But I suspect many who liked your comment aren't.
No, you can't have it both ways, but those who agree with you that the analogy was poor and who also believe differential outcome/impact is racism are trying to do exactly that, if you turn their own ridiculous rules of racism against them. Just pointing out the irony.

Canon said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Wasnt it the Montgomery City busses? As long as you are using a poor analogy you might as well get it as accurate as possible.

---

You've grown in your bigotry. No one expects you to stand still when you can target more minorities.

---

Poor Spanish golfers?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canon said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Canon said:

---

fubar said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

fubar said:

---

Shouldn't a private organization such as the PGA, in agreement with its players/members, be able to set and enforce its rules?

---

I dont understand why "conservatives" all of a sudden hate private organizations and are always trying to call in lawyers.

---

Weird, isn't it?

---

Look at these guys defending segregated lunch counters for blacks. You two advocate private busses telling blacks to sit at the back.

---

Wasnt it the Montgomery City busses? As long as you are using a poor analogy you might as well get it as accurate as possible.

---

You've grown in your bigotry. No one expects you to stand still when you can target more minorities.

---

Poor Spanish golfers?

---

Methinks you likey da senioritas mad? Se?