respond to the following:
In America, private clubs are allowed to discriminate against who is allowed to join. Either defend this position or argue against it, supporting your position with evidence or an example.
An example of this type of discrimination can be seen in the 2018 case involving Augusta National Golf Club which had barred any female members from joining until the club’s chairman changed the policy following public outcry (The New York Times 2020). This situation highlights how allowing private clubs to discriminate can have wide ranging consequences for both individuals being excluded as well as wider society since it sends a message that certain groups are not equal regardless of whether they meet certain criteria set forth by organizations like golf clubs or universities. Additionally, it also reinforces existing power dynamics thus making it easier for those in charge perpetuate their privileges without fear of repercussion since they have additional protection through legal exemptions granted by their organizations.
In conclusion, allowing private clubs to freely practice discrimination goes against the core values espoused within our modern democracies and robs those affected of access opportunities accorded other citizens. Therefore, I believe that all forms of discriminatory practices should be prohibited even if conducted by supposed private entities so that all may partake fully in social activities without fear of oppression due to unfair treatment.
Defend: Private clubs have the right to discriminate against who is allowed to join because they are considered a business and thus have the same rights as any other private business. In most cases, these regulations are simply meant to ensure that club members share similar interests or backgrounds, which can help create a friendly atmosphere. For example, some golf clubs prefer to only accept members who share an interest in the game of golf or those of similar socio-economic statuses. This allows for members to find common ground and creates a sense of unity among them. Additionally, membership fees help pay for amenities such as upkeep of the premises, security personnel and equipment rental. Allowing multiple types of people into one club would increase costs significantly due to potentially having different requirements for each group, making it difficult for these clubs to stay financially viable; therefore discrimination helps keep prices reasonable while creating an environment conducive towards good camaraderie among members.
In 1999, a case is Michigan sentenced Jack Kevorkian, MD, of homicide. He was the essential consideration doctor for Thomas Youk. Youk was a patient of Jack Kevorkian in 1998. Michigan investigators contended that the doctor controlled a deadly portion of an obscure medication after the patient enthusiastically marked a report expressing that is what he believed the doctor should do. After the patient’s passing, Kevorkian was accused of doctor helped self destruction, and first degree murder. Kevorkian’s lawyers contended that the doctor was simply attempting to facilitate the aggravation of the patient. This made the appointed authority decide for the doctor. The doctor helped self destruction charge was dropped. In any case, the first-degree murder accusation remained something similar. The appointed authority condemned the doctor to ten to a quarter century in jail. On June 1, 2007, Jack Kevorkian was delivered released early serving eight years in jail. (Berghmans)
Up until the year 2008, Oregon was the main express that had sanctioned doctor helped self destruction. On November fourth, 2008, Washington state turned into the second state to pass a demise with pride act. The demonstration legitimized doctor helped self destruction.
In 2009, the province of Montana passed a regulation that legitimized doctor helped self destruction. The law made it legitimate for occupants of Montana to doctor helped self destruction. The law expresses that doctor helped self destruction isn’t against public approach. The law shields specialists from arraignment for assisting in critical condition patients with dieing. In any case, the court declined to settle on the off chance that the right is ensured under Montana’s Constitution. (ProCon.org)
On May 20, 2013, Vermont’s lead representative Peter Shumlin endorsed for the “Finish of Life Decisions” bill into regulation. This was significant in light of the fact that this was the first time in Quite a while history that doctor helped self destruction has been made legitimate utilizing the regulative cycle. (ProCon.org)
“On Blemish. 2, 2014, Belgium turned into the world’s most memorable country to lift all age limitations on willful extermination. Lord Philippe of Belgium marked regulation that permits youngsters with terminal and hopeless diseases to decide to be euthanized. The kid should be “close to death, in ‘steady and excruciating physical’ torment with no accessible treatment.” The youngster should likewise have “limit of wisdom and be cognizant right now of the solicitation.” The solicitation must be made recorded as a hard copy, affirmed and settled upon by the treating doctor, affirmed by a second assessment from an external specialist, and afterward the kid should go through mental testing to affirm that the kid comprehends the solicitation completely and that test must be ensured recorded as a hard copy by the therapist. The treating doctor is then expected to meet with the youngster’s folks or legitimate agent to acquire their assent recorded as a hard copy. The Netherlands has comparative regulation however denies killing for youngsters under 12 years old.” (ProCon.org) This is significant in light of the fact that it lifts the age prerequisites of doctor helped self destruction. On the off chance that anybody ought not be ready to end it all, I accept that it ought to be kids.