Question:
There is nothing that smells like or looks like a question in these statements: "It is becoming a practice to allow these women to retain the membership. This may be the way in which the first female "member" of Augusta ."
Not a direct question but you must admit he did not state that AN will do that for a ‘fact’ that the first part is fact that some clubs are passing the membership to a spouse. The second part he is writting because for all we know it’s possible or already occured The premise to his entire point is very weak because we can safely assume that a married member of ANGC has died and there aren’t a female members with any kind of privileges.
That we know of, How can you safely assume that you know that spouses of deceased members at Augusta have no privileges?
Response:
I realize she is going the PR route instead of the legal and that is because it is her only option. She has no legal case and she knows it. My point is that in my opinion, you could argue that the LPGA has no legal right to exclude men from its tournaments and I am willing to bet that eventually some lawyer will push the issue to either stick it to Ms. Burke and Co. and / or make a name for himself. If this does happen, that is the end of the LPGA, which would be a shame. The end result will be a token female at ANGC and no more LPGA. Probably not the intended outcome. The best line I heard on this subject is this… "If this is truely a pressing womans issue then congratulations to us, there are no more important pressing womans issues". Steve
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My point is that if Burke and Co. keep pushing, eventually some lawyer friend of some Hooters Tour player is going to force the LPGA to let the guy play. She isn’t trying to set a legal precedent. She is working with public relations only.
Response:
There is nothing that smells like or looks like a question in these statements: "It is becoming a practice to allow these women to retain the membership. This may be the way in which the first female "member" of Augusta ." The premise to his entire point is very weak because we can safely assume that a married member of ANGC has died and there aren’t a female members with any kind of privileges.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tom, he did phrase his statement in the form of a question The "practice" when a member dies should be specified by the club’s bylaws. Unless you have a copy of the ANGC bylaws, you are blowing speculation out of your butt. Just for the record almost all the members of these clubs have wives (you know "women") . Why do you supose that these women haven’t been heard from? why hasn’t Ms Burke appealed to this group.The answer is that they enjoy the priviledges of their spouses and can and do play golf at these clubs. Generally, the lady’s get to play at specified times; are restricted to certain areas of the facility etc. but , guess what , they aren’t complaining a whole lot because they belong. In Scotland there’s a famous club called Prestwick. Very private, but like most clubs over there you can tee it up for a price and that includes women. But a caddy at the club boasted to me that only two women were ever invited officially by the club to play golf and they were the Queen and Princess Diana. Needless to say there are no females holding memberships. What has become an issue for private clubs all over the world is what do you do with the wife of a member that dies. It is becoming a practice to allow these women to retain the membership. This may be the way in which the first female "member" of Augusta . The point of all this is that there is more to this issue than Ms. Burke would like you to believe.What female would like to become the first member at Augusta simply as as a result of Ms. Burke’s coercion ? Would the husband of the female "member" enjoy all the privledges of the male "members"? And finally, you can’t forget that the main restriction at these places has to do with class and money. I can’t be a member at Augusta. I can’t afford it; and I don’t know anybody there who would sponsor me. Do I have less right to complain about these restrictions than any well healed woman?
Response:
Tom, he did phrase his statement in the form of a question
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The "practice" when a member dies should be specified by the club’s bylaws. Unless you have a copy of the ANGC bylaws, you are blowing speculation out of your butt. Just for the record almost all the members of these clubs have wives (you know "women") . Why do you supose that these women haven’t been heard from? why hasn’t Ms Burke appealed to this group.The answer is that they enjoy the priviledges of their spouses and can and do play golf at these clubs. Generally, the lady’s get to play at specified times; are restricted to certain areas of the facility etc. but , guess what , they aren’t complaining a whole lot because they belong. In Scotland there’s a famous club called Prestwick. Very private, but like most clubs over there you can tee it up for a price and that includes women. But a caddy at the club boasted to me that only two women were ever invited officially by the club to play golf and they were the Queen and Princess Diana. Needless to say there are no females holding memberships. What has become an issue for private clubs all over the world is what do you do with the wife of a member that dies. It is becoming a practice to allow these women to retain the membership. This may be the way in which the first female "member" of Augusta . The point of all this is that there is more to this issue than Ms. Burke would like you to believe.What female would like to become the first member at Augusta simply as as a result of Ms. Burke’s coercion ? Would the husband of the female "member" enjoy all the privledges of the male "members"? And finally, you can’t forget that the main restriction at these places has to do with class and money. I can’t be a member at Augusta. I can’t afford it; and I don’t know anybody there who would sponsor me. Do I have less right to complain about these restrictions than any well healed woman?
Response:
The "practice" when a member dies should be specified by the club’s bylaws. Unless you have a copy of the ANGC bylaws, you are blowing speculation out of your butt. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just for the record almost all the members of these clubs have wives (you know "women") . Why do you supose that these women haven’t been heard from? why hasn’t Ms Burke appealed to this group.The answer is that they enjoy the priviledges of their spouses and can and do play golf at these clubs. Generally, the lady’s get to play at specified times; are restricted to certain areas of the facility etc. but , guess what , they aren’t complaining a whole lot because they belong. In Scotland there’s a famous club called Prestwick. Very private, but like most clubs over there you can tee it up for a price and that includes women. But a caddy at the club boasted to me that only two women were ever invited officially by the club to play golf and they were the Queen and Princess Diana. Needless to say there are no females holding memberships. What has become an issue for private clubs all over the world is what do you do with the wife of a member that dies. It is becoming a practice to allow these women to retain the membership. This may be the way in which the first female "member" of Augusta . The point of all this is that there is more to this issue than Ms. Burke would like you to believe.What female would like to become the first member at Augusta simply as as a result of Ms. Burke’s coercion ? Would the husband of the female "member" enjoy all the privledges of the male "members"? And finally, you can’t forget that the main restriction at these places has to do with class and money. I can’t be a member at Augusta. I can’t afford it; and I don’t know anybody there who would sponsor me. Do I have less right to complain about these restrictions than any well healed woman?
Response:
My point is that if Burke and Co. keep pushing, eventually some lawyer friend of some Hooters Tour player is going to force the LPGA to let the guy play.
She isn’t trying to set a legal precedent. She is working with public relations only.
Response:
Just for the record almost all the members of these clubs have wives (you know "women") . Why do you supose that these women haven’t been heard from? why hasn’t Ms Burke appealed to this group.The answer is that they enjoy the priviledges of their spouses and can and do play golf at these clubs. Generally, the lady’s get to play at specified times; are restricted to certain areas of the facility etc. but , guess what , they aren’t complaining a whole lot because they belong. In Scotland there’s a famous club called Prestwick. Very private, but like most clubs over there you can tee it up for a price and that includes women. But a caddy at the club boasted to me that only two women were ever invited officially by the club to play golf and they were the Queen and Princess Diana. Needless to say there are no females holding memberships. What has become an issue for private clubs all over the world is what do you do with the wife of a member that dies. It is becoming a practice to allow these women to retain the membership. This may be the way in which the first female "member" of Augusta . The point of all this is that there is more to this issue than Ms. Burke would like you to believe.What female would like to become the first member at Augusta simply as as a result of Ms. Burke’s coercion ? Would the husband of the female "member" enjoy all the privledges of the male "members"? And finally, you can’t forget that the main restriction at these places has to do with class and money. I can’t be a member at Augusta. I can’t afford it; and I don’t know anybody there who would sponsor me. Do I have less right to complain about these restrictions than any well healed woman?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – do you hear what you are saying! "I approve of her method to try to implement ‘her’ desired change" Think for yourself man! Do you honestly believe that one person has the right to force and manipulate how another person act’s? As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..". But as a libertarian I approve of her method to try to implement her desired change. Using market forces and public opinion beats passing laws just about every time.
Response:
Randy, please accept my Duuhhh!!!! I replied to your first post before I read your second one…. I got to quit drinking in the mornings… <g
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brad, you are 100% on the mark here. I hadn’t read your post until after I just posted an article a few minutes ago concerning this matter, specifically w/r/t a panel discussion I saw last night on ESPN. I raised a few similar questions in my post, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. As I said in the other post, I think Ms. Burk’s organization has also opened itself up to a libel suit by alleging that these companies engage in discriminatory practices simply because one of their own executives belongs to a club that LEGALLY discriminates against women. But you raise a huge point here. Randy As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..". I know all of the arguments both pro and con for her actions and let me state for the record that I think it is laughable that there is this kind of coverage and discussion over such an idiotic pursuit. I know there are many out there who are genuinely outraged and think that she is on target (although I do believe that many are simply making sure they are publicly on the right side of the political correctness fence and may be a little less supportive where it not required of them to cover their asses). I do believe ANGC has the right to limit its membership to whomever it chooses. It is a private club and the act of holding a tournament and letting people watch it doesn’t obligate them to shed private status and accept the burden of compliance with the many government regulations designed to prevent discrimination and promote equality in the workplace, which are a good and necessary course of action. That said, here’s what I think are the real problems with her actions and the danger of the precedence they set. When you go to her website at http://www.augustadiscriminates.org you will find a listing of companies which she claims "sanction sex discrimination at Augusta National Golf Club". There is a very fundamental problem here due to the fact that the vast majority of these companies do not sponsor the tournament. What is true is that many of the members of ANGC are associated with or are employees of these companies/entities. That is a very big difference. By asserting that these companies/entities are sanctioning sexual discrimination due to the fact that some of their employees (yes, some may be officers and own stock but they are also employees) are members of ANGC you are in fact holding a company/entity responsible for the belief system of an employee and for the associations an employee may belong to. I think it is accurate to summarize this line of reasoning as "An entity can be considered to be sanctioning an act if one of its members believes in or commits such an act or belongs to another separate organization that does so or advocates doing so even if this is in no way tied to their association with the entity". This is just plain wrong. The worse and most dangerous part of this is that it opens the door for an entity to examine and exert influence on an employee’s private life by using the excuse that they are simply protecting their image. This is the part I find really scary! By blackmailing these companies Ms. Burke is encouraging and in effect empowering them to intrude into the private lives of their employees and to further demand the employee modify their personal life to fit the company ideology. Is it just me or does anyone else get a really creepy feeling about this one? My $0.02
Response:
I don’t agree with her point of view. I’m saying that I do agree in her right to protest against a sponsor of the tournament. Don’t get me wrong I am completely against what she wants to accomplish but I do support her right to legitimately protest. If you’ll read my original post you’ll see that I don’t think that she has the right to expanded her protest to include groups that are not directly linked to the tournament but only peripherally associated by virtue of an employees membership in ANGC. Once you read my original post you’ll see that we’re saying the same thing in regards to a non-sponsoring company being tarred with the "discrimination" brush simply because an employee is a member at ANGC.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And I do think she has the right to put pressure on the sponsors as well. I’m not so sure. How has AT&T discriminated against women? Just by virtue of the fact that one of AT&T’s board members is a member at Augusta National? You’ll have to draw the correlation for me before I’ll believe that AT&T has benefitted directly by his involvement with the club. For all we know, the guy may only use his privileges at the club to entertain family and friends, not as a venue to conduct business. And therein lies the tricky part of making the connection that Martha wants to make. While it may be true that golf courses in general are places where businessmen and businesswomen conduct business, it’s also fair to say that a lot of business people choose to partake in the privileges afforded to them as members of golf clubs TO GET AWAY FROM BUSINESS. Speaking strictly for myself, while it may be true that I’ve played golf with business associates before, the last thing in the world I’d ever want to do is have a round of golf ruined by "talking shop" while I’m playing. Turn off the damn cellphone and don’t talk to me about work until we’ve holed the last putts on 18. Randy
Response:
And I do think she has the right to put pressure on the sponsors as well.
I’m not so sure. How has AT&T discriminated against women? Just by virtue of the fact that one of AT&T’s board members is a member at Augusta National? You’ll have to draw the correlation for me before I’ll believe that AT&T has benefitted directly by his involvement with the club. For all we know, the guy may only use his privileges at the club to entertain family and friends, not as a venue to conduct business. And therein lies the tricky part of making the connection that Martha wants to make. While it may be true that golf courses in general are places where businessmen and businesswomen conduct business, it’s also fair to say that a lot of business people choose to partake in the privileges afforded to them as members of golf clubs TO GET AWAY FROM BUSINESS. Speaking strictly for myself, while it may be true that I’ve played golf with business associates before, the last thing in the world I’d ever want to do is have a round of golf ruined by "talking shop" while I’m playing. Turn off the damn cellphone and don’t talk to me about work until we’ve holed the last putts on 18. Randy
Response:
Brad, you are 100% on the mark here. I hadn’t read your post until after I just posted an article a few minutes ago concerning this matter, specifically w/r/t a panel discussion I saw last night on ESPN. I raised a few similar questions in my post, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. As I said in the other post, I think Ms. Burk’s organization has also opened itself up to a libel suit by alleging that these companies engage in discriminatory practices simply because one of their own executives belongs to a club that LEGALLY discriminates against women. But you raise a huge point here. Randy
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..". I know all of the arguments both pro and con for her actions and let me state for the record that I think it is laughable that there is this kind of coverage and discussion over such an idiotic pursuit. I know there are many out there who are genuinely outraged and think that she is on target (although I do believe that many are simply making sure they are publicly on the right side of the political correctness fence and may be a little less supportive where it not required of them to cover their asses). I do believe ANGC has the right to limit its membership to whomever it chooses. It is a private club and the act of holding a tournament and letting people watch it doesn’t obligate them to shed private status and accept the burden of compliance with the many government regulations designed to prevent discrimination and promote equality in the workplace, which are a good and necessary course of action. That said, here’s what I think are the real problems with her actions and the danger of the precedence they set. When you go to her website at http://www.augustadiscriminates.org you will find a listing of companies which she claims "sanction sex discrimination at Augusta National Golf Club". There is a very fundamental problem here due to the fact that the vast majority of these companies do not sponsor the tournament. What is true is that many of the members of ANGC are associated with or are employees of these companies/entities. That is a very big difference. By asserting that these companies/entities are sanctioning sexual discrimination due to the fact that some of their employees (yes, some may be officers and own stock but they are also employees) are members of ANGC you are in fact holding a company/entity responsible for the belief system of an employee and for the associations an employee may belong to. I think it is accurate to summarize this line of reasoning as "An entity can be considered to be sanctioning an act if one of its members believes in or commits such an act or belongs to another separate organization that does so or advocates doing so even if this is in no way tied to their association with the entity". This is just plain wrong. The worse and most dangerous part of this is that it opens the door for an entity to examine and exert influence on an employee’s private life by using the excuse that they are simply protecting their image. This is the part I find really scary! By blackmailing these companies Ms. Burke is encouraging and in effect empowering them to intrude into the private lives of their employees and to further demand the employee modify their personal life to fit the company ideology. Is it just me or does anyone else get a really creepy feeling about this one? My $0.02
Response:
My point is that if Burke and Co. keep pushing, eventually some lawyer friend of some Hooters Tour player is going to force the LPGA to let the guy play. I do not see how the LPGA can legally keep a guy from entering a tournament under current anti discrimination laws. And yes, unfortunately, that would be the end of the LPGA which I think would be a shame. The Burke campaign against ANGC has already started the ball rolling for allowing men into the LPGA teaching program. Its the law of unintended consequences. In an attempt to get one rich female into Augusta, the LPGA ceases to exist, killing womens professional golf. Steve
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Men playing on the LPGA tour is a bullshit argument countering Ms. Burke and the ANGC. The minute a man qualifies for an LPGA event, the tour collapses as the sponsors and the TV networks will head for the hills. Men clobbering women in a golf tournament isn’t a sporting event. Anyone know if there are any legal issues by stating these companies sanction sexual discrimination? If that were my business on the list, I would have a lawyer on the phone explaining how if it is not off the list in an hour, there would be a legal action. Also… why doesn’t anyone ask Ms. Burke about the LPGAs rules barring men? They are a business, unlike ANGC, and therefore should be subject to anti discrimination laws. I sent an e-mail to the LPGA asking what classification they fell under. The answer back was a business. I then asked how, as a business, they could legally exclude males. Two weeks later, no answer. I am sure there are male players on some of the minor tours who would love a chance to compete for some of the LPGA prize money. I think it would be a shame to lose the LPGA tour as it is but I do not see how according to current laws they can exclude men from playing. Steve
Response:
Men playing on the LPGA tour is a bullshit argument countering Ms. Burke and the ANGC. The minute a man qualifies for an LPGA event, the tour collapses as the sponsors and the TV networks will head for the hills. Men clobbering women in a golf tournament isn’t a sporting event.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone know if there are any legal issues by stating these companies sanction sexual discrimination? If that were my business on the list, I would have a lawyer on the phone explaining how if it is not off the list in an hour, there would be a legal action. Also… why doesn’t anyone ask Ms. Burke about the LPGAs rules barring men? They are a business, unlike ANGC, and therefore should be subject to anti discrimination laws. I sent an e-mail to the LPGA asking what classification they fell under. The answer back was a business. I then asked how, as a business, they could legally exclude males. Two weeks later, no answer. I am sure there are male players on some of the minor tours who would love a chance to compete for some of the LPGA prize money. I think it would be a shame to lose the LPGA tour as it is but I do not see how according to current laws they can exclude men from playing. Steve
Response:
do you hear what you are saying! "I approve of her method to try to implement ‘her’ desired change" Think for yourself man! Do you honestly believe that one person has the right to force and manipulate how another person act’s?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..". But as a libertarian I approve of her method to try to implement her desired change. Using market forces and public opinion beats passing laws just about every time.
Response:
THAT would be rich! She gets a woman in by resigning… I would think it wonderfully appropriate if ANGC would come out and say "At some point, we will likely be ready to admit a women, however it will certainly not be during the tenure of Martha Burk in the NCWO."
Make it necessary, not necessary and sufficient. Dave
Response:
I would think it wonderfully appropriate if ANGC would come out and say "At some point, we will likely be ready to admit a women, however it will certainly not be during the tenure of Martha Burk in the NCWO." Dave
Better yet, have some woman come forward and say she was offered membership, but will not accept under these circumstances. have several other eligible women say the same thing, with one of "these circumstances" being Martha Burk; Martie goes is one, and just one, of the conditions necessary beofre an eligile woman will accept membership. I can’t see the kind of high roller that ANCG goes for accepting a membership under these circumstances…they let in one politician..Ike! I can’t see any politician getting an offer. Certainly not an entertainer! Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html )
Response:
FYI, In French, the close word to the martha’s last name in prononciation is "Beurk," which is the sound one makes when vomiting! — bill-o
Response:
Anyone know if there are any legal issues by stating these companies sanction sexual discrimination? If that were my business on the list, I would have a lawyer on the phone explaining how if it is not off the list in an hour, there would be a legal action. Also… why doesn’t anyone ask Ms. Burke about the LPGAs rules barring men? They are a business, unlike ANGC, and therefore should be subject to anti discrimination laws. I sent an e-mail to the LPGA asking what classification they fell under. The answer back was a business. I then asked how, as a business, they could legally exclude males. Two weeks later, no answer. I am sure there are male players on some of the minor tours who would love a chance to compete for some of the LPGA prize money. I think it would be a shame to lose the LPGA tour as it is but I do not see how according to current laws they can exclude men from playing. Steve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – By asserting that these companies/entities are sanctioning sexual discrimination due to the fact that some of their employees (yes, some may be officers and own stock but they are also employees) are members of ANGC you are in fact holding a company/entity responsible for the belief system of an employee and for the associations an employee may belong to.
Response:
I agree entirely. And I do think she has the right to put pressure on the sponsors as well. I just think she needs to be called out on encouraging entities who are not directly related to the event to intrude into the employees personal lives. That’s completely wrong.
I have no interest in going to her website – I don’t want her to be able to add my hit into her "It matters to people" argument – but was she at least smart enough to actually write and get a negative or non-response from CEO’s of companies before she put them on her hit list? From what I understand, approximately 25% of ANGC’s membership is on her side. That may well mean – that within the context of ANGC’s policies of privacy – they are actually working to change things from within. If she hasn’t made an effort to avoid abusing these people, she may well find herself on the losing end of this little game. One can hope. I would think it wonderfully appropriate if ANGC would come out and say "At some point, we will likely be ready to admit a women, however it will certainly not be during the tenure of Martha Burk in the NCWO." Dave
Response:
THAT would be rich! She gets a woman in by resigning… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would think it wonderfully appropriate if ANGC would come out and say "At some point, we will likely be ready to admit a women, however it will certainly not be during the tenure of Martha Burk in the NCWO."
Response:
As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..".
But as a libertarian I approve of her method to try to implement her desired change. Using market forces and public opinion beats passing laws just about every time.
Response:
I agree entirely. And I do think she has the right to put pressure on the sponsors as well. I just think she needs to be called out on encouraging entities who are not directly related to the event to intrude into the employees personal lives. That’s completely wrong.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..". But as a libertarian I approve of her method to try to implement her desired change. Using market forces and public opinion beats passing laws just about every time.
Response:
I agree entirely. And I do think she has the right to put pressure on the sponsors as well. I just think she needs to be called out on encouraging entities who are not directly related to the event to intrude into the employees personal lives. That’s completely wrong.
And sensible people have the right to oppose her. Rob — GOP (Golf Only Pledge) Service is the rent we pay for being RSG Masters 2003 ( http://home.att.net/~janellenrob/RSG-MS.html )
Response:
As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..".
[good post snipped] This is the part I find really scary! By blackmailing these companies Ms. Burke is encouraging and in effect empowering them to intrude into the private lives of their employees and to further demand the employee modify their personal life to fit the company ideology. Is it just me or does anyone else get a really creepy feeling about this one?
I think you have made a good point, Brad. I hadn’t thought of it from this side before and you are right; it is creepy. Bruce Bruce E. Newman * benewman at nbnet.nb.ca * Fredericton, NB, Canada http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=newmanb http://go.to/bruce_newman
Response:
As a golfer and a Libertarian I tend to view her actions, as many do, with a certain detached disbelief. A kind of mental smack on the forehead while thinking "You’ve got to be kidding me..". I know all of the arguments both pro and con for her actions and let me state for the record that I think it is laughable that there is this kind of coverage and discussion over such an idiotic pursuit. I know there are many out there who are genuinely outraged and think that she is on target (although I do believe that many are simply making sure they are publicly on the right side of the political correctness fence and may be a little less supportive where it not required of them to cover their asses). I do believe ANGC has the right to limit its membership to whomever it chooses. It is a private club and the act of holding a tournament and letting people watch it doesn’t obligate them to shed private status and accept the burden of compliance with the many government regulations designed to prevent discrimination and promote equality in the workplace, which are a good and necessary course of action. That said, here’s what I think are the real problems with her actions and the danger of the precedence they set. When you go to her website at http://www.augustadiscriminates.org you will find a listing of companies which she claims "sanction sex discrimination at Augusta National Golf Club". There is a very fundamental problem here due to the fact that the vast majority of these companies do not sponsor the tournament. What is true is that many of the members of ANGC are associated with or are employees of these companies/entities. That is a very big difference. By asserting that these companies/entities are sanctioning sexual discrimination due to the fact that some of their employees (yes, some may be officers and own stock but they are also employees) are members of ANGC you are in fact holding a company/entity responsible for the belief system of an employee and for the associations an employee may belong to. I think it is accurate to summarize this line of reasoning as "An entity can be considered to be sanctioning an act if one of its members believes in or commits such an act or belongs to another separate organization that does so or advocates doing so even if this is in no way tied to their association with the entity". This is just plain wrong. The worse and most dangerous part of this is that it opens the door for an entity to examine and exert influence on an employee’s private life by using the excuse that they are simply protecting their image. This is the part I find really scary! By blackmailing these companies Ms. Burke is encouraging and in effect empowering them to intrude into the private lives of their employees and to further demand the employee modify their personal life to fit the company ideology. Is it just me or does anyone else get a really creepy feeling about this one? My $0.02