In the Salt Lake Tribune today (here), Dawn House reports on the governor’s effort to repeal the private club membership law. Patrons of “private clubs,” are legally required to purchase a membership. Private clubs may serve alcohol without food. Restaurants, bars, pubs, etc. are required to serve food when they serve patrons alcohol (of course at a cost to the patron).
I agree with Lisa McGarry’s comment, the private club membership requirement is “silly” and “archaic.” But I may disagree with the reasons for thinking that the requirement is silly and archaic. Let me explain.
First, the suggestion that the law curbs underage drinking is wildly implausible. John Valentine, the Utah Senate President, said that since the law effectively screens out minors, the law prevents underage drinking. The law may prevent minors from drinking at private clubs. But even this claim assumes that minors haven’t got the resources to purchase or to create fake IDs. When I was younger, fake IDs were readily available and could be purchased very easily. Advanced technology may make acquiring fake IDs prohibitively expensive but not impossible.
Relatedly, minors still may drink alcoholic beverages. They can do so at home or at a friend’s house. They merely need access to alcohol. Access to alcohol can be obtained fairly easily. A law cannot reduce underage drinking.
Second, Senator Valentine also believes that the membership law discourages patrons from becoming intoxicated because patrons’ memberships can be revoked. Revocation is not nearly enough a sanction to prevent people from becoming intoxicated. If people want to become intoxicated and believe they can go to their members only bar for their favorite adult bevarage, they will go and they will become intoxicated.
It’s likely that some people may not want to purchase a private club membership. Bartenders and owners may feel that they serve members’ needs even if they think the member is drunk. Revoking a membership would only result if the member started fighting. I doubt bartenders or owners would revoke a membership for drunkenness. That a membership can be revoked for drunkenness doesn’t mean that bartenders or owners will enforce it.
Finally, in addressing the main idea of the article, it appears that the LDS Church is the main promoter of the law. The government is not a theocracy. Any law established on the basis of one religion or another is unjust. So, the law itself is unjust.
Other points deserve some consideration, but I’ll leave it at that.
Nice post. However, while I agree with you that religions should not dictate laws and how the government is ran, I do disagree whith the last argument made:
1) if a law is passed that has certian religious supporters or that such a law is supported by (promoted) a religion, then it does not necessarly follow that we have an established theocracy.
2) moreover, even if a religion did control a government to the point that there was an obvious theocracy, and that religion passed laws, then it does not follow that those laws are “unjust.” to merely claim that a law is “unjust” becuase a religion is involved does not provide us with sufficent reason.
Perhaps what you mean by “unjust” is that if a religion influences a law to the point that it violates the operations of a democratic society, then it could be considered unjust or unfair.
Just some thoughts;)
John,
Let me direct you to this blog post too:
http://cityweekly.blogspot.com/2008/05/meet-your-unfriendly-private-club.html
The church does influence UT state law because most of the members of the legislature are members of the Church. So, we’ve – at least implicitly – established a theocracy in Utah. We can see this in the types of laws that are passed by the legislature and how they overlap with church law. Of course the LDS Church and members of the Church will deny that fact.
It would be unjust for one religion to push its agenda through a legislature if the government believed in religious freedom. Since my post addresses religious freedom in the United States, I take it that a theocracy’s passing laws is fundamentally “unjust.” Religious freedom entails that no religion has any undue influence over passing legislation. Religion’s influence on any law not only violates the “operations of a democratic society” but – more importantly – violates every citizen’s right to the free practice of religion. That’s really bad!