[twoodfin]

Freedom of association is in the First Amendment with the other biggies.

If I have a list of people who want to spend $500 to join my weekly poker night club, it’s my Constitutional right to choose whom to let in, assuming I’m not discriminating in a way that has 14th Amendment problems.

[belorn]

> "assuming I’m not discriminating in a way that has 14th Amendment problems"

The Supreme Court decision to ban race-conscious admissions in higher education is based on the 14th Amendment. This law by California is made in light of that decision.

A major contention seems to be if states should have the right to modify or add the list of protected classes that is included for the 14th amendment.

[nonameiguess]

Really need a Constitutional scholar or attorney to chime in, but as far as I understand, you can base admission to a private club on protected characteristics as well. The cases in which you can't are businesses commonly understood to be public access, like restaurants and barber shops and what not that have street fronts. But Augusta National never had to admit women. They caved to public pressure and Master's sponsors withdrawing money, not to the law.

This is, of course, why all boy's schools and all girl's schools can still exist, too. If HBCUs wanted to formally ban white people, I'm sure they'd face some backlash, but I think it would be legal to do that. All-male priesthoods are still normal and common. The Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints had an all-white priesthood up until 1978 and that was legal, just another case of responding to public pressure.

[anon291]

You're correct. However, there's no mechanism for enforcement, so no one here will have any standing. It's like the laws making it illegal to desecrate an American flag. unenforceable, but sometimes on the books.

[scarface_74]

“You can only get into our club if your great grandparents would legally be allowed to marry a white person before 1967 in Alabama”

[DiscourseFan]

This is why the law is fair