|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A pair of men’s rights activists with a litigious history have filed a lawsuit against the city of Palo Alto claiming that the city discriminated against them by rejecting their attempt to enroll in a “ladies clinic” at the municipal golf course.
The plaintiffs Steve Frye and George St. George and their attorney Greg Adler have a long history of suing cities and venues for hosting events such as comedy nights, fitness classes or professional development classes for women, according to media reports. They sued a Visalia hotel in 2021 for hosting a karaoke night for women, according to the newspaper Valley Voice, and have filed dozens of other suits against golf courses, restaurants and other businesses.
The Orange County Register reported in 2014 that Frye had been involved in more than 40 similar lawsuits against Orange County businesses that offer discounts to women. That year he had filed a lawsuit against a restaurant for hosting a “Seniorita Night” that offered discounts for women. He lost that suit.
Frye had also filed a suit in 2010 against Donald Trump’s golf course in Rancho Palos Verdes for offering a 25% discount to women to commemorate breast cancer awareness month, according to the Los Angeles Times. A judge threw out that suit before it could go to trial, the Times reported.
While most of Frye’s and St. George’s litigation has been focused on southern California establishments, they are now turning their attention to Palo Alto, which they claim engaged in discrimination by denying them a chance to partake in a clinic at Baylands Golf Links, the public golf course in the Baylands.
Frye claims that he contacted the city in November asking to see if he could partake in a recurring “Ladies Golf Clinic” at the course. According to the complaint that he filed on April 15, he emailed the golf course’s player services manager the message: “Just checking to see if the Sundays ‘LADIES BEGINNERS/INTERMEDIATE CLINIC’ at Baylands GC is just gals only or can me and other guy friends join in too.”
The employee, Patrick Soli of the contracted firm Troon/OB Sports Golf Management, responded with: “Unfortunately the Ladies Clinic is only for the ladies. I’m working with one of my coworkers to start up a Men’s Clinic and we will keep you posted when that starts up!?”
Frye claims he and St. George went to the establishment on Dec. 10, 2023, and once again spoke to Soli, who reiterated that men were not allowed to participate in the women’s clinic.
“Any business operating in the progressive state of California in the 21st century knows that California embraces equality and condemns gender discrimination,” the complaint states. “To treat consumers unequally based on their gender such as Defendants have done with their discriminatory Events is as repugnant and unlawful as businesses engaging in the same discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.”
Like in prior suits, Frye and St. George are citing the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a 1959 law that prohibits businesses from discriminating based on factors such as race, sex, religion and disability. They are claiming that by barring them from participating in the golf clinic, Palo Alto and Baylands Golf Links violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act as well as other state and local policies that ban discrimination.
While the law was designed to prevent racial discrimination, Frye and St. George liken the city’s decision to host the ladies clinic at the golf course to discrimination based on race or religion.
“Imagine if a business had a White People Golf Clinic and prohibited people of color from participating. Or what if Defendants did it based on religion by having a Christian Golf Clinic? It would never happen because people know such conduct is wrong and they would know they were inviting litigation,” the claim states. “But, when the discrimination is against men, there is an archaic cultural mindset that such discrimination is somehow okay. But it is not okay. Civil rights are for everyone, and the law is decades ahead of our culture and forbids precisely the type of segregation and exclusionary discrimination that forms the basis of this case.”
They are seeking $4,000 for every instance of discrimination, according to the complaint submitted by Adler.
Frye, a south California resident, had filed similar lawsuits against golf courses in Palos Verdes, Napa and San Diego, according to media reports. He had also sued bars, hotels, a brewery and a cannabis dispensary similarly alleging discrimination.
Judges loathe frivolous lawsuits. Angry serial litigants are clogging the courts. They need to get help and stop imposing their faux morality on others. Expensive tantrums by bullies harm society.
They just want the money. If they really wanted to play golf with the ladies, they could just say they’re women, because transgender “rights” supersede all others.
“Like in prior suits, Frye and St. George are citing the Unruh Civil Rights Act, a 1959 law that prohibits businesses from discriminating based on factors such as race, sex, religion and disability.”
Surely they’ll be along soon to file for reparations forhe years women were / are / have been systematically denied equal pay and equal rights (for those of you old enough to remember when everyone assumed the ERA would sail right through — but that was before the big-money started campaigning against it and now look at where we are.)
How many people can even imagine having as little to do in life as these litigious men? Ridiculous waste of time. But they probably know Palo Alto runs from confrontation and expect to make settlement money off this.
Is this a disguised trans issue?
I don’t believe that it would be unlawful for the golf course to say that ladies have to dress like ladies in order to play. A bit old fashioned idea, (and ladies would have a right to be indignant), but also may agree with it to see the if the greedy, hypocritical, “lawyers” show up. If not properly attired, sorry. Can’t play the game.
Thanks for publicizing these vexatious litigants. The more their nonsense gets publicized, the better chance they won’t be able to get away with it.
I suspect that most of those who have here expressed their upset about this lawsuit are political “progressives”, a mindset which holds a comfortable monopoly of thought in Palo Alto government. But they have no good grounds on which to complain, because this is the world they’ve built for us all. Over the past 50 years they have used the court system with consummate aggressive skill to push the idea that no real distinction between men and women can be permitted under the law. But now this lawsuit comes along, and they don’t like the result of an equal application of the principle they insisted on. The golf course has, for no adequately stated reason, tried to exclude an entire class of people — half the population — from one of its programs solely on the basis of sex. No matter what the fine print may say to the contrary, calling it a “Ladies” event publicly expresses the exclusionary intent. But because progressives don’t care about that exclusion, apparently, they’re up in arms, and are all for an inconsistent application of principle and law to forbid an outcome they disdain. But that doesn’t wash. They should explain themselves, or reconsider their position.
Bob March,
Theoretically, these two litigants can claim to identify as women as their gender.
Sure, it would be done in bad faith, but it should work. At that point, if an employee of the course rejects them, then I think they will have a basis for their claim.
So if these two people want to become trans, more power to them.
Yes, Mr. March, we “progressives,” as you like to say, take such positions to level the playing field. White men have always been at the top of the sociopolitical hierarchy. Give other classes of people a place at the table, and lo! That’s just unacceptable!
These litigants are just trying to make money. In my opinion, society would be better served if they dealt with their insecurities in the privacy of qualified, licensed therapist offices and left the rest of us out of their drama.
How unfortunate! My wife routinely searches out the woman’s “_____” group, because she enjoys the woman’s commodity; be it woman’s ski group, woman’s tennis group, etc. There always seems to be someone, wanting to screw things up.
A similar thing happened with a local elementary fund raising group, where we have 35 guys out for the day sport shooting. It was a wonderful time, in the otherwise PC world we live in, until some woman felt she was not wanted (even though freely she attended the event), and had it shut down. What a wasted opportunity!!
Is this a personality type? Always looking for trouble? Women hit from different tees and their game is distinctly different. The Golf Course knows this and is trying to get the ladies out there so they are in a more equal social situation. This is suppose to be fun.
This is like the YIMBY people- article in the paper that they came from Pittsburgh, PA. Scott Weiner is from New Jersy. If they grew up somewhere else why not change their own location. Why are people popping into CA and trying to change what is here. These people are so tiring. They just don’t get it.
Palo Alto doesn’t litigate squat, just pay off the defendants and ban all identity events from now on unless it involves bearded ladies. Next.
There are whole groups of people who thrive on suing other people. Sue them back for defamation of policy. They want game then give them game back in spades.
Editor, I have paid my subscription, I am logged in, but I am now unable to read new articles as I have reached my limit. Please can you sort the problem. I have emailed several times. Thanks.
I have to laugh – most men hate to play with women. They don’t hit as far, talk too much on topics they don’t like, Take too long to move down to the hole. What is with these guys?