Hacker News Reader

Comment by criddell | Hacker News Reader

The article mentions how in the past, the Patriotic Order Sons of America didn't allow black people to join. They eventually changed but I'm wondering if the change was forced. Is it legal to discriminate on the basis of race or sex today?

View on HN

I am a former Mason. I left the lodge due to no longer complying with their requirement to believe in a higher power (God). To be explicit: Masonry used to be segregated into "Prince Hall" masonic halls (for non-white folks) and "normal" masonic halls. This split was ended, and now Prince Hall masonic halls are full masonic lodges, and membership is recognized in both directions. In practice; every lodge I ever attended was integrated even if it was a significant white majority.

When we were voting on new members, it was a silent vote with unanimous consent required. Any vote could be retaken at the order of the master. This means that if someone is eligible and should be a mason, and the vote comes up with a negative vote, the master can say a few words suggesting people reconsider and take the vote up again.

There was only once that I saw someone not pass the first ballot to become a mason. The master said that we should reconsider, and most of the brothers in the room chose not to vote the second time (as a symbol they were not the negative vote), and many of those who did showed their ballot before casting it. The second vote passed.

This as a process indicates there's plenty of room for abuse: any single master mason can anonymously vote to exclude someone for any reason they want. It's up to the folks around them to set them square if they are out of line. I can easily see an lodge existing where there wouldn't be any members willing to speak up in someone's defense.

It's my belief that none of what I've posted here is exposing any of the secrets of a master mason; but if any fraternal members disagree I'll happily edit and delete this post, and I don't intend to expose anything; but instead demonstrate that masonry (as well as, I'd assume, most other 'secret' societies), is as good as the members in the lodge.

You dont have to believe in God. Segregation (PHL) is a US only thing. You were correct to leave. That voting system was not Masonic and I've never seen it anywhere else, and nor do i believe it would be tolerated anywhere else. Please dont edit or delete your post.

During my time as a Mason (I left for much the same reason as jayofdoom), we followed the same procedure when voting for new members. The couple of times there was a non-unanimous vote, the Master called for another vote, in case anyone made a mistake or wanted to reconsider. In none of the cases did anyone make a show of not voting or showing their votes, though. I think it only happened twice in the 12 or so years I was there. I have no idea why someone rejected one of the candidates; and in the other, I suspect some of our members thought the candidate wanted to join because he thought it would help him with a political career (this is purely speculation; we didn't discuss this at all).

I believe the Prince Hall lodges were always proper Masonic lodges, they just derived their charters from Irish then English lodges, rather than from the American lodges. They were always fully legit.

It took a while for American lodges to recognise that.

It Depends (tm) but generally a private club can admit, or not, whoever they please, or don't.

In the UK (& I believe EU) that's true to the extent that you could have an even more personal ('I don't like your face') objection, but your reasoning can't be on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', such as race.

Though actually maybe private members' clubs have some kind of exception to that - gender is also a protected characteristic under that act, but there are gentlemen's (only) clubs still (ladies' too perhaps, I'm not sure).

There are male-only clubs (The Garrack, Savage Club), and more modern female and non-binary only clubs (such as the marguerite).

They are all, by definition sexist, but you are allowed under UK law to be such when deciding who to invite to a party.

What would be interesting, is if one became a monopoly in its niche (often clubs have a _thing_), whether one could argue they missed out on serious opportunities in work because they were not allowed to join, but I don't know of such a case being risen.

Indeed it was The Garrick about which Baroness Hale made something rather like that argument, noting that many of her male colleagues were members, perhaps implying that they enjoyed a networking opportunity that she had been denied:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/garrick-club-v...

If a club is truly private they can. ianal but I believe they have to be very specific about their membership criteria. Like you couldn't have criteria that permits anyone who isn't black it would have to be a lot more specific than just that.

You can legally exclude on any basis if you’re running an actual private club. But if it smells like a public accommodation (a restaurant that you can patronize without being a member of the club, for example), then the prohibitions against exclusion on the basis of race, religion, etc. kick in.

It is legal for private clubs that do not offer services to the public to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin etc. Butler National, Preston Trail, Burning Tree Club are examples of male only golf clubs/courses.

Don't universities and workplaces have particular sex and race only clubs?

Kind of, but that's why (most of) them have a disclaimer similar to "We welcome people of all races/genders/[whatever characteristic the group is organized around." on their flyers.

Sounds like you never went to college. Those clubs aren't allowed to discriminate, so you'll see a Jewish girl as an officer in an Asian students society, or a woman engineers club admitting men.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com