Current through Register Vol. XLI, No. 50, December 13, 2024
Section 77-5-5 - Preservation of and Defense of Right of Expressive Association5.1. The Commission may not interfere in the activities of an alleged private club or subject club opportunities to scrutiny beyond what is necessary in good faith to enforce the HRA.5.2. An alleged private club which is not in fact open to the public and which does not qualify for an exemption of truly private clubs pursuant to Section 2 of this rule may defend a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by demonstrating that compliance with the HRA imposes a serious burden on its members' freedom of expressive association. 5.2.1. A purported private club may have a defense to a claim of unlawful discrimination if the purported private club does not automatically exclude persons from consideration for membership, or enjoyment of club accommodations and facilities, and the advantages and privileges of membership on account of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, blindness, handicap, or familial status.5.2.2. A purported private club may have a defense to a claim of unlawful discrimination if the purported private club is selective in its membership based upon a stated criterion unique to club members and such criterion is the primary basis of association, and the denial of club membership is not automatically based upon the applicant's race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, blindness, handicap, or familial status.Example -- An alleged private club which requires that each member possess an IQ score exceeding 140 points may deny membership to a person with an IQ score less that 140 but may not deny membership to a person with an IQ score in excess of 140 on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, blindness, handicap, or familial status.