OT: Rickie Fowler's girlfriend should have been appropriately dressed
- Thread starter kapyoche
- Start date
You are crazy!! Like mental hospital in a straight jacket crazy!
Agree. People don't care about the golf but can't wait to post stupid stuff about the chick's outfit.
Hahaha. I knew that would be an unpopular statement. To each, his own, I say. I'm not saying I'd turn this girl away or that I have some right to be choosey, I absolutely do not. Just feel like Rickie could do a little better.
no wonder he's so good with his "putter" and drive her..
he probably works on his concentration by having her stand 5 feet behind the pin when he putts...
he probably works on his concentration by having her stand 5 feet behind the pin when he putts...
The USGA only runs the the national championships, US Open, Women Open, Senior Open etc. The PGA runs the PGA championship, all other tour events are managed by the PGA Tour.
It has no control of Augusta National and it's membership policies.
Thanks. Additionally the Tour runs one tournament per year - The Players and the Players is played on a resort course. It's a public course. A reservation at the Sawgrass Mariott is all you need to play there.
... yeah ... except that it is probably some one-of-a-kind designer creation uniquely crafted to provide that 'look' for a mere $3,000
Babbs, don't worry, there is no chance that she'll ever do it for you. :D
So you're saying it should've read "The PGA should worry about still hosting events at clubs where good ole' boys rule. I have no problem with the Daisy Duke outfit, but Augusta National's admission policy, for example, that's another story . . . ."
Or something of that ilk?
She's a model.. so this is a case of getting exactly what she wanted.. national attention.
Perhaps, but the only event hosted at a club that is men's only is the Masters at Augusta National, and the PGA has consistently pushed Augusta to cease their mens only admission rule. Augusta has roundly refused, leaving the PGA with the only option of cancelling the most popular/watched event of the year, at the most famous golf course in the world. Moreover, neither sanctioning body has expressed that they were concerned about Fowler's gf's outfit, only fans have. So the whole thought is pretty much a non sequitir. To be correct it would have to read
"… Instead of golf fans worrying about how Rickie Fowler’s girlfriend is dressed, the PGA should worry about still hosting one tournament per year at a private men's only club. I have no problem with the Daisy Duke outfit, but Augusta National's admission policy of barring women as full members, that's another story . . ."
Talk about time to turn in your man card. Even the Supreme Court of the US has said it is okay for private clubs to be men's only if they want to be.
Girl looked so trashy. It's appropriate attire if you want everyone to treat you like a hooker. This isn't the type of girl you settle down with.
No it should have read "The PGA Tour should worry about still hosting events at clubs where good ole' boys rule. I have no problem with the Daisy Duke outfit, but Augusta National's admission policy, for example, that's another story . . . ." and then it would be partially correct, you would have the right entity that runs the tour. However, as posted above, the PGA Tour does not host the events, the local tournament committees do, just like bowl committees. If the PGA Tour said all of a sudden that the Masters was not part of the PGA Tour do you know what would happen, all of the players would still go to Augusta and play in the tournament that Augusta National puts on. CBS would still televise it and IBM would still sponsor it and there would be no official PGA Tour event that week. If you have a beef with Augusta National's membership, you might want to contact IBM not the PGA Tour.
You will find no more charitable organization around than the PGA Tour. Millions pour back into the local communities after every tournament. The reality of the situation is that the USGA, the PGA, The PGA Tour and the RGA all stopped having tournaments at clubs that have racially exclusionary membership policies over 20 years ago. However, in the United States of America, private clubs are allowed to define their membership criteria. Italian American Clubs do this, Elks Clubs do this, black Fraternities and Sororities do this, white Fraternities and Sororities do this, tennis clubs do this, beach clubs do this, private schools do this, churches do this, travel sports clubs do this, etc., etc., etc. Stop supporting the pussification of America.
That would be fine if you were starting up a White People's Club, but not a golf course club, where having access to a golf course and the club based on strictly financial conditions should be all that matters, especially since business is often conducted at such clubs. And especially if you want to hold a tournament that's on TV.
Also, your comment about "pussification" is illogical - I didn't realize equal access meant being a pussy. I always though the pussification part had to do with being over-protective of our kids and always rewarding them even if there was no accomplishment - that part I actually agree with, generally speaking.
[QUOTE="RU848789, post: 190257, member: 292"
Also, your comment about "pussification" is illogical - I didn't realize equal access meant being a pussy. I always though the pussification part had to do with being over-protective of our kids and always rewarding them even if there was no accomplishment - that part I actually agree with, generally speaking.[/QUOTE]
See, I thought it was just a lame cliche old guys use to wrap their minds around "things ain't the same as when I was a kid." As if life was the pinnacle of hardcore when they were children. Every single person on here is a "pussy" compared to "good ol days" of a few generations ago. It's kind of a good trajectory.
Also, your comment about "pussification" is illogical - I didn't realize equal access meant being a pussy. I always though the pussification part had to do with being over-protective of our kids and always rewarding them even if there was no accomplishment - that part I actually agree with, generally speaking.[/QUOTE]
See, I thought it was just a lame cliche old guys use to wrap their minds around "things ain't the same as when I was a kid." As if life was the pinnacle of hardcore when they were children. Every single person on here is a "pussy" compared to "good ol days" of a few generations ago. It's kind of a good trajectory.
As far as I'm concerned, she can wear whatever, and as little of whatever, she wants.
One more
Just because there are wealthy people belonging to a club people say it's wrong. Wealthy people are allowed to hang out at Augusta just like Italians are allowed to hang out at the Italian American club. Forcing access is akin to the pussification of America. Giving people something that they haven't earned or don't deserve. Why???
I don't understand your distinction between type of club. For instance you work and recruit at a Pharma company. You recruit at Rutgers and from what you have posted the Rutgers grads do very well against the kids you hire from the select other schools you hire from. I assume your company partakes in government contracts. If so, maybe we should require that if you want to do so you have to open up your recruiting to the best and brightest from all schools, not just select schools - - or do you guys believe that only the best and brightest minds can come from certain schools??? Help me understand, you take money from the government and are exclusionary in your membership yet places like Augusta are 100% private and also exclusionary. I think I have less of an issue with Augusta and the Italian American Club.
Legally speaking you are mixing two concepts.
Businesses and organizations that are "open to the public" are not allowed to discriminate based on suspect classifications (race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, creed, religion). That's provided by the Civil Rights Act, which was held constitutional in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (holding US could regulate discrimination in private businesses because of the aggregate impact on interstate commerce)
There are limited exceptions where a business or other public organization can discriminate, if it is essential to the nature of the business (known as a bona fide occupational qualification). This is why Hooters can refuse to hire male servers, and why white people cannot force employers to hire them as hibachi cooks.
Private clubs that are not generally open to the public can discriminate on whatever basis they want, regardless of whether it is related to their purpose. This is the constitutional right to freedom of association.
Latest posts
-
OT: No one seems to care but the B1G Is doing well in the CFP.
- Latest: Scarlet dollar
-
-
-
