Unbelievable: Dawkins event banned in Michigan

October 10, 2011 • 4:11 pm

The Center for Inquiry reports that because of Richard Dawkins’s atheism, a country club in Michigan banned an event at which he was going to talk about his new children’s book:

Prejudice against atheists manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by th eCenter for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
The Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

I posted the O’Reilly video a while back, and the person who should be shunned (not banned) is the odious O’Reilly himself, who accused Richard of using his book to propagandize children with atheism.

The CfI also reports that “Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions.” That means that they’re not allowed to discriminate against such events based on issues of gender, race, or religion.

This is a job for the Freedom from Religion Foundation—or the ACLU.  Stay tuned.

h/t: The Rev. El Mundo

43 thoughts on “Unbelievable: Dawkins event banned in Michigan”

  1. “After learning of Dawkin’s views on religion”? Jeez, these guys have been living under a rock for a while. I have a very distinct image of monocles falling into teacups while people gasp, “An atheist?! My word!” and women in petticoats having to be revived from fainting couches with smelling salts.

    1. Seriously! The articles I’ve read give little more detail, but I find it very difficult to understand the sudden turnabout due to his BELIEFS.

      I mean, who’d they think was presenting? Is there another Richard Dawkins in the area that’s a famous vintner or horticulturalist?

  2. The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

    This present a marvelous opportunity for any club members who share Dawkins’ belief in teaching science to children to grant the owner his wish and resign from the club.

    1. I don’t know how devastated the club would be. This is purely anecdotal, but in my experience, the country-club set and the godless-rationalist set don’t seem to overlap much.

      But I could be wrong in this instance.

  3. “Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions.” That means that they’re not allowed to discriminate against such events based on issues of gender, race, or religion.

    It does?
    Why?

      1. For those who don’t know, the United States has anti-discrimination laws that grew out of the Civil Rights movement. In those days, a private ly-owned and operated establishment that served the public — such as a Woolworth’s lunch counter — could legally ban people from its premises based on, for example, skin color.

        Today, there exist a number of “protected classes,” including race, religion, gender, national origin, and a number of others. Discrimination on the basis of a protected class is almost entirely illegal if the establishment is otherwise open to the general public.

        The law is quite far-reaching. For example, a barber who suggests to a black man that he get his hair cut elsewhere because the barber isn’t skilled in cutting “that type” of hair is just asking for a successful civil suit filed against him.

        I expect this will go to court, and the Wyndgate will have quite the uphill battle. Their best bet is probably to try to claim that atheism isn’t a religion and therefore atheists aren’t a protected class. In more enlightened times, that wouldn’t fly…but with today’s Supremes, if it makes it that far?

        Cheers,

        b&

        1. Iirc, there is already case law that’s establishe that even though atheism isn’t a religion, atheists enjoy the same anti-discrimination protections as adherents of a religion.

          A citation eludes me for the moment, however…

          /@

          4. just to be clear though, SCOTUS recognized this initially in the case I cited below, back in 1961.

            just so people don’t get confused it was a very recent thing.

        2. the United States has anti-discrimination laws that grew out of the Civil Rights movement.

          true, but something as basic as discrimination in a public venue is directly covered in the Civil Rights Act itself, and has been since it was ratified in 1964!

          I’m sure it’s probably been mentioned downstream, but atheism as equatable to religion for the purposes of civil rights was decided by SCOTUS even earlier, in 1961.

          U.S. Supreme Court
          TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

          so, defacto, atheism was covered as being something that cannot be discriminated against even earlier than the Civil Rights Act!

  4. Between this and the Amish, there is much to ponder about on the religious front.

    I found this quote on a Facebook atheist list I belong to:

    ‎”Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.” – Scott D. Weitzenhoffer.

    Its worth sending around……

    1. Brilliant! Might I add the following:

      Einstein is to Clarabell as Clarabell is to a creationist.

  5. If the rejection was based on the October 5th interview and the event was scheduled for October 12th, that means they got no more than a week’s notice, and probably a lot less than that. It seems that a lawsuit for damages is in order here.

  10. For the likes of O’Reilly, not mentioning god in certain contexts already constitutes propaganda for atheism. A lecture on the origins of Homo sapiens in which Adam and Eve aren’t mentioned is atheist propaganda.

    1. I’m guessing that just the newsarticle on the subject will be sufficient.

      I’m betting they will not bring this to court, even though they would win.

      not sure it’s a big enough deal, yet, and there is no need for an court case on the issue of discrimination.

      They could sue for damages, as suggested, but these would probably not even cover the court costs!

  12. I’m not surprised. The Wyndgate Country club probably still bans African Americans and Jews.

  13. Well, there is a bit of a case here, isn’t there—especially since the guy specifically says that it’s Richard’s religious opinions (I would say his “opinions about religion,” but OK) that motivate the banning. If the establishment is otherwise being made available to the general public for these kinds of events, then yeah, there’s a case. I agree, though, that the real value here is the publicity.

    1. A court case seems problematic, I’d be surprised if anyone took it that far. “Opinions about religion” includes one in a protected class? It’s not settled that atheists are protected in this way. After all, the Boy Scouts of America deny membership to atheists, and courts have consistently upheld their right to do this. The Dawkins case isn’t even about membership. Now, if the country club broke a contract, that would be a separate issue, having nothing to do with religious opinions.

      1. “The Dawkins case isn’t even about membership.”
        And that is exactly the difference. The Boy Scouts are allowed to discriminate on membership, but if they hold a publicly accessible event (e.g. if a Jamboree were open to the public) they would not be able to prevent access to the event based on religion or sexual preference.

  15. I used to work at this country club (really! 15 years ago) and it is super, ultra snooty, and in a super, ultra snooty, part of town. People (were?) members like Bob Seger and the kicker for the Detroit Lions, etc. I didn’t really think they would do something like this – if money was being paid, what do they care? Especially since the owner siphoned millions from another of his companies, got caught, and had to file bankruptcy. http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/12/cz_nv_0412venture.html

  16. I wonder if making an issue out of it would give the club more publicity than it deserves? I’m sure someone of Dawkins’ stature will not feel insulted by the antice of some poor club manager in Michigan.
    If it’s a contractual obligation that they did not fulfill, then that is a simple lawsuit for damages.
    Maybe I’m overlooking the “It’s the principle of the thing” issue here, but just my two cents!

    2. It’s all about “…the principle of the thing”

      On Google Maps HERE one can “Write A Review” of Wyndgate Golf Club
      1975 W Gunn Rd, Rochester, MI 48306

      Anyone who uses Google Maps to source a venue for their wedding etc. may be encouraged to try elsewhere

  18. I’m not 100% certain but as far as I can find out online the club seems to be owned by someone called Larry J Winget (considering it’s a Bill O’Reilly fan perhaps it should be “wingnut”?)
    Anyway it’s easy to find information online about him – mainly run-ins with the tax authorities. His wife seems to have been the general manager of the Wyndgate but is now retired. She is currently on the board for a Christian charity, the Michigan based Lutheran Child & Family Service.

    1. Ah, Christians and tax-collectors: that troubled relationship goes back to the gospels, as I recall… or was it that JC actually protected a tax collector?

  19. “Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions.” That means that they’re not allowed to discriminate against such events based on issues of gender, race, or religion,
    Does that mean a girl scout event would be banned?

Comments are closed.