Supreme court ruling: Golf

“I just heard on the radio that the PGA has to allow a guy with a circulatory problem in his leg to play, with the use of a cart. All pro golfers must walk the course, which is essentially an 8 mile hike, while playing golf. This guy ( who, I guess, truly does have the afore mentioned handicap), now will get to play the course with out walking 8 miles in the sun and 95 degree heat. At the 18 th hole, while all the others are reaching deep for the energy to hit the ball to the green, he'll still be pretty fresh. Is this really fair?

Man oh man, I've been thinking, I've got a handicap: I'm only 5'8" tall. I can't jam the ball like Shaq and Kolbe. I want to play just as bad as this golfer wants to. And on top of that I'm deprived of a multi million dollar paycheck. Oh the injustice done to me.

But wait, here's my solution. When I'm playing with Kolbe, and I'm in the paint, and Kolbe passes to me, they should stop the game for 20 seconds, as soon as the ball touches my hand, and set up a 10 foot step ladder right next to the basket and allow me to climb to the appropriate height, then I can be like Mike and JAM THAT BALL RIGHT THROUGH THE RIM!!!!!!

If they don't let me play with my physical disability, which I was born with, I'll take it to the US Supreme court!

Very TIC”

“The Americans with Disability Act was lobbied for and signed into law by George Bush, Sr. -- a republican.

BTW -- at 5-8 you do not have a disability under the ADA.”

“Wus a Kolbe?”

“That's part of American greatness, is discrimination. Yes, sir. Inequality, I think, breeds freedom and gives a man opportunity.

-Lester Maddox, former governor of Georgia”

“Simple answer to the dilemma. PGA allows metal woods to be used in golf, a technological advancement. What makes the golf cart any different.”

“The golfers name is Casey. The ailment he has is INCREDIBLY painful. I would rather walk 800 miles than have one day of his disease.

Golf ( a sport I dislike )is not about walking. Its about putting a little ball in a hole. Many PGA class golfers prefer to walk for the stress relief it affords.”

“How about wheelchair access to trails? Some argue that all sections of trails like the Appalachian Trail should be made accessible to people of all abilities. I wonder if it would even be possible, given the terrain it passes over. It would sure destroy the experience for the majority.”

“Here is info about his disease. I would rather walk 8000 miles than have this for a day.

Description of Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome
Symptoms
The K-T syndrome is a rare congenital malformation that may include the following:
Port-wine stain or "birthmark" (cutaneous capillary malformations)
Soft tissue and bony hypertrophy (excessive growth of the soft tissue and /or bones)
Venous malformations & lymphatic abnormalities
Complications may include bleeding, cellulitis, venous thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism. Associated abnormalities in other systems, such as gigantism of toes, hand and feet anomalies, lymphedema, or involvement of the abdominal and pelvic organs may also occur.
K-T usually is limited to one limb, but may occur in multiple limbs and/or head or trunk area. Internal organs may be involved. Each case of K-T is unique and may exhibit the above characteristics to differing degrees.

Etiology
The etiology of Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome is unknown. One theory is that K-T may be caused by mesodermal abnormalities during fetal development Another medical opinion suggests the cause may be the result of mutation of a gene.
Treatment
There is no known "cure" for the K-T Syndrome. Conservative treatment of the symptoms seems to be the most effective, without significant side effects. For example, elastic garments and pumps often relieve the effects of lymphedema .The elastic garment is also helpful in protecting the limb from trauma and decreasing the chances of bleeding from the hemangioma. Laser therapy may reduce or eliminate port-wine stains. Surgical procedures may be necessary to debulk excessive tissue, to excise veins or hemangiomatous tissue or to correct uneven growth in limbs (epiphyseal arrest), for example.
Computed Axial Tomography (CAT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans, and color doppler studies are useful in determining the scope of the syndrome and how best to manage it.

Violin, there are actually wheelchair "hikers" who have done section of the northern AT. They have Description of Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome
Symptoms
The K-T syndrome is a rare congenital malformation that may include the following:
Port-wine stain or "birthmark" (cutaneous capillary malformations)
Soft tissue and bony hypertrophy (excessive growth of the soft tissue and /or bones)
Venous malformations & lymphatic abnormalities
Complications may include bleeding, cellulitis, venous thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism. Associated abnormalities in other systems, such as gigantism of toes, hand and feet anomalies, lymphedema, or involvement of the abdominal and pelvic organs may also occur.
K-T usually is limited to one limb, but may occur in multiple limbs and/or head or trunk area. Internal organs may be involved. Each case of K-T is unique and may exhibit the above characteristics to differing degrees.

Etiology
The etiology of Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome is unknown. One theory is that K-T may be caused by mesodermal abnormalities during fetal development Another medical opinion suggests the cause may be the result of mutation of a gene.
Treatment
There is no known "cure" for the K-T Syndrome. Conservative treatment of the symptoms seems to be the most effective, without significant side effects. For example, elastic garments and pumps often relieve the effects of lymphedema .The elastic garment is also helpful in protecting the limb from trauma and decreasing the chances of bleeding from the hemangioma. Laser therapy may reduce or eliminate port-wine stains. Surgical procedures may be necessary to debulk excessive tissue, to excise veins or hemangiomatous tissue or to correct uneven growth in limbs (epiphyseal arrest), for example.
Computed Axial Tomography (CAT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans, and color doppler studies are useful in determining the scope of the syndrome and how best to manage it.

There is a group of wheelchair "hikers" who have done parts of the AT up north. There was a story on NPR a while back. The folks interveiwed did NOT want access via road etc.. they loved thge challenge the trail presented. They had support staff who assisted along the way.”

“I know hyper. There was also a blind truhiker and one who did it on crutches. I would think that it being such a challenge for all would make the victory all the more sweet to someone who has extra challenges.”

“I have no doubt that the guy's ailment is real, and that it is very painful and difficult to live with. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether he should be allowed to play in the PGA when he can't play the sport. This isn't a job and he isn't facing "job discrimination." This is a sport, and the sport includes walking the course.

Now, UK's analogy of a short guy suing to play in the NBA is funny in a reductio ad absurdum kind of way, but doesn't really work because it requires changing the game, not just the conditions for the individual player. However, consider this -- if golf is just hitting the ball into the cup and not walking the course, then isn't baseball just hitting the ball and not running the bases? Why couldn't a baseball player stand (or even sit) at the plate, swing his bat, and then jump on a little cart or scooter and drive it over to first base? Or perhaps an Olympic swimmer has a neck problem and can't turn his head to breathe -- well, no problem, we'll let him use a snorkel.

In each of these cases -- and I'm sure we could think up plenty more -- the conditions of the other athletes in the competition aren't altered, so why should anyone complain? Simple -- because the conditions of the competition itself have been changed. The great thing about sports is that it is truly the great equalizer, the great equal opportunity playing field -- if you can play the game, you're in. Having heart and guts is important, but it is not a substitute for simple ability. People tend to forget that the American Way guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome.”

“But if the guy can't walk the course, where's his opportunity? I'll admit that this is a tough one.”

“The PGA now has African-American golfers (Tiger Woods, etc.), Native American golfers (Notah Begay), Indian golfers (Vijay Singh) and women golfers (Phil Mickelson).

They could appeal to just about anyone if they just let the guy play. They will sell more tickets and get more money. I think the Supreme Court is doing them a favor.”

“Violin, I think you miss the point. He has the same opportunity to walk the course that you or I have. But you and I haven't got what it takes to play in the PGA and I'm sorry but he doesn't either. To let him use the cart obliterates the concept of equal opportunity in favor of the p.c. concept of equal outcome.”

“The supreme court should not be wasting my tax dollars changing the rules of a professional sport!”

“Explorer, what if there were a one-legged golfer? Would he have to crutch? Wouldnt that put him/her at a disadvantage,due to extra effort? I think the fact that he is playing with a painful degenerative disease equalizes the playing field.”

“This is Legistlation from the bench. The court created law, because Casey's disability denied him access to the tee box.

I guess I won't complain too loudly. My company has made a fortune off the ADA legistlation. We manufacture elevator equipment. Since the ADA was passed every new or upgraded elevator must have Braille next to the push buttons. Old panel out, new panel it.

Only 1% of the population is blind. Only 1% of the blind can read Braille. Billions of dollars for so few people. Who hasn't gotten on an elevator and said, "Floor 3 please?"”

“As a avid golfer, I will attest that a cart will benefit you in the long run. After years of luggin or towing my bag I'll pay the few extra bucks for the cart nowadays. Why? it benefits my game.

Drinking Bear you must realize that metal woods and such can be used by anybody provided it is legal under the rules of golf. This new cart rule in pro golf can only be used by Casey for now. See, so you have modern advancements like metals woods(used by anyone) and carts(used only by one).

Problems........ a possible snowball effect from that ruling. I wonder now if a player pulls up lame with a pulled hammy, groin or hurting back, etc., could he cry foul and continue to play under the Casey rule. I think it would only be fair now to let them continue to play if the which to. I mean if one likes to play in pain and use a cart to get by, why can't others choose to do the same.”

“Bacpac.....could you answer one question that has puzzled me for some time?

Why is there braille
on the drive up ATM machines at Bank of America? You would have to be driving to use it. And they have a fit if you walk up and try to use one.”

“bacpac, then I'm sure you know of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this year saying something like a disabled person can no longer sue his/her home state government in the event specific equipment to help him/her is not provided.

Something like that. Better watch out, your company might be going belly up!!

Of course, I guess this does not pertain to the general public. I think it's just employees. Oh, did you just sell an elevator to the Fillmore County Courthouse in Preston, Minn?? They just spent almost $200,000 for an upcoming installation.”

“I think you know the answer WW. The solution is to write your elected officials and newspapers to complain.”

“The Supreme Court fuked up on this one. The guy gets an advantage over everybody else. Either everybody should be able to ride, or nobody should.”

“Is golf about walking or about hitting a ball into a hole?

There was no fundamemtal change to golf demanded by the court. The scoring hasnt changed,the size of the hole hasnt changed,the length of the greens hasnt changed,he still has to get the ball from point A to point B using a miniature hockey stick.

The PGA could have made an exception for a handicapped golfer. But they decided to be the "members only" club that they have been for years. Serves the elitist b@stards right.

Hey Pisgah, I guess the handicapped folks get an advantage at Wal-Mart too, I mean they get ALL the choice parking!

Perhaps Casey should go on a medical retirement and draw social security...”

“Maybe Casey should coach golf.

I can definitely score better when I ride as opposed to walking. Of course I don't have a caddie and I have to backpack my own clubs.

So far as elitist bastards go, they are the best in the world, or were.”

“bacpac-

The court did not create law. Martin sued under Title III arguing that the PGA tour was a "public accommodation" and as such should modify the policy to accommodate his disability. The courts did what they are set up to do: permit redress under federal law.”

“They changed the rules of a professional sport people! Do they not have better things to do than that? Is that what I'm paying taxes for?”

“no.

to play the game, according to the rules, you need to walk.

you also need to be able to hit a tiny ball into a tiny hole that is a few hundred yards away.

i can't aim, i can't play.
he cant walk, he can't play.”

“Hyper - I'm behind you 100%. The fundamentals of the game have not changed.

It takes as much energy for this guy to walk from the cart to the tee as it does for another golfer to walk from one hole to another.

The ADA says that "places of public accomadation" must make "reasonable modifications" for disabled people. I think this was pretty reasonable.”

“So what? If any of the other golfers want a cart, they should get one too. It's not like golfers are timed between holes or given style points for how they walk. Nice pants, white boy!”

“he can play golf all he wants, and the courses have to accommodate him, but the certain tournaments have their own rules.

maybe he could start another league and allow for carts.”

“Does allowing him to ride in a cart fundamentally alter the game? No, carts are seen on every golf course in America. Did it provide him an unfair advantage? Again, no. (If so, every game a golfer plays using a cart should NOT be allowed to be used to calculate their handicap.)

What the hell am I doing arguing this garbage?”

“As usual we have a group of experts that don't know the difference between a five iron and a mulligan.”

“i was wondering the same thing, kleet. i don't play golf, either.

so, especially since we do not play or care, who the hell are we to force someone to change THEIR rules?”

“The ADA is about access to public facilities. I think this golfer should have access to any public golf course he wants, and be able to use his cart. But should the PGA rules by changed so he can be a professional golfer? No. What if it comes down to him and Tiger Woods on the last hole. If he wins, will he really be the winner in a fair contest? No.

What if a one armed guy wanted to be a professional wrestler? What if a quadriplegic wanted to be a professional football player? What if a blind pool player wanted to enter a professional tournament?”

“What if a blind climber wanted to climb Mt. Everest? Doh!”

“get the guy a wheelchair (non-electric) and let him have at it.”

“Hyper, you don't think an 8 mile walk in the sun is an integral part of the game? It's ALL a part of the game.


"Ah, sir...I have a terrible limp, and it prevents me from running to the base like all the other pro ball players.....I'd like a little cart to take me there please."”

“We all walk (why else be on a bping site.) There is nothing magical or athletic about it. People less than one year old do it. People over 100 often are still able to do it.
The walking involved in golfing is not timed nor is it a test of endurance. It is simply the mode to get from one hole, to the fairway, to the green and on to the next hole. The insistance of having the Pro players walk the course is an effort to have an "old world charm" and to slow down play. Carts speed up play and these guys take a painfully loooooong time lining up their putts. Rather than have players stacked up behind the first group, walking staggers them. If you have taken a cart and get caught behind a party walking, you know what I'm talking about.
If the World Chess Federation had a rule that stated each player is to walk onto the stage to the board, should a contender be barred from participated because of an agonizing DISABILITY?
Would a handicapped pool player in a wheel chair be penalized because he doesn't have one foot on the floor? You guys would probably want to disqualify a golfer who crawls the course because the rules state he has to walk!”

“Did you know that each golfer has to keep his own score in the PGA. If he gets something wrong, or signs a erroneous scorecard, he is automatically disqualified, even though their scorecard is not used as the "official" scoresheet! Does it fundamentally change the game if his caddy keeps his score? Hell no, but it's still a rule and is still enforced. Walking the course has much more of an affect on the game than writing down your own score.”

“Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority, "we have no doubt that allowing Martin to use a golf cart would not fundamentally alter the nature" of the PGA Tour's tournaments.

That's from a group of judges (super-laywers). Who knows more about golf than doctors and lawyers?”

“There's alot of confusion about carts. Putting the PGA aside for a moment, carts are a means to speed up play and bill more green fees in a day. Most golfers on public courses, or private for that matter, are haks(a.k.a. duffers) and take longer to play 18 holes than a scratch golfer. Before I gave up golf(scratch no less) for backpacking, the foursome I played with could get play 18 in less than 3 hours.

Golf is mostly a mental game and only partially a physical game. The physical part of the game comes more into play during adverse playing conditions(i.e. wind, rain, hilly terrain, hot conditions). While I don't agree with the ruling I don't think Casey will receive an unfair advantage due to his disease taxing his physical reserves. Nontheless, should Fred Couples get to ride in a cart due to his back problems? Maybe John Daly should ride in a cart since he is on/off the wagon frequently. Personally, I hated riding in carts(some courses require them) since it reduces my time to think about the next shot. Walking also allows one to relax and stay loose for the next shot as well.

Hey flyguy! Are you a pilot?”

“More like a space-cadet. (fly, 6x, its a fishing reference)”

“Whoa, I guess I stired up some passions with this thread.It sure is interesting though. I originally wanted to poke fun at the special privledges some folks get. I don't know if Casey is truly entitled to his special privledge, but it certainly seems to me that he doesn't have to play by the same rules. Some golfers on this thread have chimed in that this gives an advantage and speeds up the duffers. Others have said his condition is very debilitating. Some have said that I am not handicapped at 5'8". But I do not have the opportunity to be like Mike and jam that ball. I have a hereditary condition that weakens my joints and it physically impossible for me to jump that high. I only want the opportunity to be like Mike and JAMTHATBALL for a multi million dollar paycheck. I am not being given that opportunity.

Very TIC

That's "tongue in cheek". I am only being sarcastic. I believe very much in handicap accesability. When I built my home, I built it completely HC accessable, and my job often requires it. I do wish Casey well, but I think he not playing by the same rules everyone else is, and he was persuasive enough in court. But that doesn't make it right.”

“There is NO rule in golf that says a course has to be walked. That is a PGA rule...but then until the 50's, they had a rule that said players had to be white. It allows members of the Senior Tour to use carts. And it chose to use carts at a tournament in Hawaii to shuttle players between holes to speed up play.

Golf is about shot-making and not about walking.”

“Anybody remember Jim Abbott, a one handed pitcher for the Anehiem Angels. MLB actually changed the rule on balks due to the way he had to adjust his glove during pitching. No harm, no foul, and the guy ended up pitching a no-hitter. Nobody complained. Let em' all ride carts if they want to!”

“I wouldn't mind playing a round with Justice Scalia.

Scalia, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 00?24


PGA TOUR, INC., PETITIONER v. CASEY MARTIN

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[May 29, 2001]

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

In my view today?s opinion exercises a benevolent compassion that the law does not place it within our power to impose. The judgment distorts the text of Title
III, the structure of the ADA, and common sense. I respectfully dissent.

I

The Court holds that a professional sport is a place of public accommodation and that respondent is a ?custome[r]? of ?competition? when he practices his
profession. Ante, at 17. It finds, ante, at 18, that this strange conclusion is compelled by the ?literal text? of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by the ?expansive purpose? of the ADA, and by the fact that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(a),
has been applied to an amusement park and public golf courses. I disagree.

The ADA has three separate titles: Title I covers employment discrimination, Title II covers discrimination by government entities, and Title III covers
discrimination by places of public accommodation. Title II is irrelevant to this case. Title I protects only ?employees? of employers who have 15 or more employees,
§§12112(a), 12111(5)(A). It does not protect independent contractors. See, e.g., Birchem v. Knights of Columbus, 116 F.3d 310, 312?313 (CA8 1997); cf.
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322?323 (1992). Respondent claimed employment discrimination under Title I, but the District Court found
him to be an independent contractor rather than an employee.

Respondent also claimed protection under §12182 of Title III. That section applies only to particular places and persons. The place must be a ?place of public
accommodation,? and the person must be an ?individual? seeking ?enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations? of the
covered place. §12182(a). Of course a court indiscriminately invoking the ?sweeping? and ?expansive? purposes of the ADA, ante, at 13, 18, could argue that
when a place of public accommodation denied any ?individual,? on the basis of his disability, anything that might be called a ?privileg[e],? the individual has a valid
Title III claim. Cf. ante, at 14. On such an interpretation, the employees and independent contractors of every place of public accommodation come within Title III:
The employee enjoys the ?privilege? of employment, the contractor the ?privilege? of the contract.

For many reasons, Title III will not bear such an
interpretation. The provision of Title III at issue here (§12182, its principal provision) is a public-accommodation law, and it is the traditional understanding of
public-accommodation laws that they provide rights for customers. ?At common law, innkeepers, smiths, and others who made profession of a public employment,
were prohibited from refusing, without good reason, to serve a customer.? Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S.
557, 571 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964). This understanding is clearly
reflected in the text of Title III itself. Section 12181(7) lists 12 specific types of entities that qualify as ?public accommodations,? with a follow-on expansion that
makes it clear what the ?enjoyment of the goods, services, etc.? of those entities consists of?and it plainly envisions that the person ?enjoying? the ?public
accommodation? will be a customer. For example, Title III is said to cover an ?auditorium? or ?other place of public gathering,? §12181(7)(D). Thus, ?gathering? is
the distinctive enjoyment derived from an auditorium; the persons ?gathering? at an auditorium are presumably covered by Title III, but those contracting to clean the
auditorium are not. Title III is said to cover a ?zoo? or ?other place of recreation,? §12181(7)(I). The persons ?recreat[ing]? at a ?zoo? are presumably covered, but
the animal handlers bringing in the latest panda are not. The one place where Title III specifically addresses discrimination by places
of public accommodation through ?contractual? arrangements, it makes clear that discrimination against the other party to the contract is not covered, but only
discrimination against ?clients or customers of the covered public accommodation that enters into the contractual, licensing or other arrangement.?
§12182(b)(1)(A)(iv). And finally, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice reinforce the conclusion that Title III?s protections extend only to
customers. ?The purpose of the ADA?s public accommodations requirements,? they say, ?is to ensure accessibility to the goods offered by a public
accommodation.? 28 CFR, Ch. 1, pt. 36, App. B, p. 650 (2000). Surely this has nothing to do with employees and independent contractors.

If there were any doubt left that §12182 covers only clients and customers of places of public accommodation, it is eliminated by the fact that a contrary
interpretation would make a muddle of the ADA as a whole. The words of Title III must be read ?in their context and with a view to their place in the overall
statutory scheme.? Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989). Congress expressly excluded employers of fewer than 15 employees from
Title I. The mom-and-pop grocery store or laundromat need not worry about altering the nonpublic areas of its place of business to accommodate handicapped
employees?or about the litigation that failure to do so will invite. Similarly, since independent contractors are not covered by Title I, the small business (or the large
one, for that matter) need not worry about making special accommodations for the painters, electricians, and other independent workers whose services are
contracted for from time to time. It is an entirely unreasonable interpretation of the statute to say that these exemptions so carefully crafted in Title I are entirely
eliminated by Title III (for the many businesses that are places of public accommodation) because employees and independent contractors ?enjoy? the employment
and contracting that such places provide. The only distinctive feature of places of public accommodation is that they accommodate the public, and Congress could
have no conceivable reason for according the employees and independent contractors of such businesses protections that employees and independent contractors of
other businesses do not enjoy.

The United States apparently agrees that employee claims are not cognizable under Title III, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18?19, n. 17, but
despite the implications of its own regulations, see 28 CFR, Ch. 1, pt. 36, App. B, p. 650 (2000), appears to believe (though it does not explicitly state) that claims
of independent contractors are cognizable. In a discussion littered with entirely vague statements from the legislative history, cf. ante, at 12, the United States argues
that Congress presumably wanted independent contractors with private entities covered under Title III because independent contractors with governmental entities
are covered by Title II, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18, and n. 17?a line of reasoning that does not commend itself to the untutored intellect. But
since the United States does not provide (and I cannot conceive of) any possible construction of the terms of Title III that will exclude em-
ployees while simultaneously covering independent
contractors, its concession regarding employees effectively concedes independent contractors as well. Title III applies only to customers.

The Court, for its part, assumes that conclusion for the sake of argument, ante, at 17, but pronounces respondent to be a ?customer? of the PGA TOUR or of the
golf courses on which it is played. That seems to me quite incredible. The PGA TOUR is a professional sporting event, staged for the entertainment of a live and TV
audience, the receipts from whom (the TV audience?s admission price is paid by advertisers) pay the expenses of the tour, including the cash prizes for the winning
golfers. The professional golfers on the tour are no more ?enjoying? (the statutory term) the entertainment that the tour provides, or the facilities of the golf courses on
which it is held, than professional baseball players ?enjoy? the baseball games in which they play or the facilities of Yankee Stadium. To be sure, professional
ballplayers participate in the games, and use the ballfields, but no one in his right mind would think that they are customers of the American League or of Yankee
Stadium. They are themselves the entertainment that the customers pay to watch. And professional golfers are no different. It makes not a bit of difference, insofar as
their ?customer? status is concerned, that the remuneration for their performance (unlike most of the remuneration for ballplayers) is not fixed but contingent?viz., the
purses for the winners in the various events, and the compensation from product endorsements that consistent winners are assured. The compensation of many
independent contractors is contingent upon their success?real estate brokers, for example, or insurance salesmen.

As the Court points out, the ADA specifically identifies golf courses as one of the covered places of public accommodation. See §12181(7)(L) (?a gymnasium,
health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation?); and the distinctive ?goo[d], servic[e], facilit[y], privileg[e], advantag[e], or
accommodatio[n]? identified by that provision as distinctive to that category of place of public accommodation is ?exercise or recreation.? Respondent did not seek
to ?exercise? or ?recreate? at the PGA TOUR events; he sought to make money (which is why he is called a professional golfer). He was not a customer buying
recreation or entertainment; he was a professional athlete selling it. That is the reason (among others) the Court?s reliance upon Civil Rights Act cases like Daniel v.
Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), see ante, at 18-19, is misplaced. A professional golfer?s practicing his profession is not comparable to John Q. Public?s frequenting ?a
232-acre amusement area with swimming, boating, sun bathing, picnicking, miniature golf, dancing facilities, and a snack bar.? Daniel, supra, at 301.

The Court relies heavily upon the Q-School. It says that petitioner offers the golfing public the ?privilege? of ?competing in the Q-School and playing in the tours;
indeed, the former is a privilege for which thousands of individuals from the general public pay, and the latter is one for which they vie.? Ante, at 14?15. But the
Q-School is no more a ?privilege? offered for the general public?s ?enjoyment? than is the California Bar Exam.1 It is a competition for entry into the PGA TOUR?an
open tryout, no different in principle from open casting for a movie or stage production, or walk-on tryouts for other professional sports, such as baseball. See, e.g.,
Amateurs Join Pros for New Season of HBO?s ?Sopranos,? Detroit News, Dec. 22, 2000, p. 2 (20,000 attend open casting for ?The Sopranos?); Bill Zack,
Atlanta Braves, Sporting News, Feb. 6, 1995 (1,300 would-be players attended an open tryout for the Atlanta Braves). It may well be that some amateur golfers
enjoy trying to make the grade, just as some amateur actors may enjoy auditions, and amateur baseball players may enjoy open tryouts (I hesitate to say that
amateur lawyers may enjoy taking the California Bar Exam). But the purpose of holding those tryouts is not to provide entertainment; it is to hire. At bottom, open
tryouts for performances to be held at a place of public accommodation are no different from open bidding on contracts to cut the grass at a place of public
accommodation, or open applications for any job at a place of public accommodation. Those bidding, those applying?and those trying out?are not converted into
customers. By the Court?s reasoning, a business exists not only to sell goods and services to the public, but to provide the ?privilege? of employment to the public;
wherefore it follows, like night the day, that everyone who seeks a job is a customer.2

II

Having erroneously held that Title III applies to the ?customers? of professional golf who consist of its practitioners, the Court then erroneously answers?or to be
accurate simply ignores?a second question. The ADA requires covered businesses to make such reasonable modifications of ?policies, practices, or procedures? as
are necessary to ?afford? goods, services, and privileges to individuals with disabilities; but it explicitly does not require ?modifications [that] would fundamentally
alter the nature? of the goods, services, and privileges. §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). In other words, disabled individuals must be given access to the same goods, services,
and privileges that others enjoy. The regulations state that Title III ?does not require a public accommodation to alter its inventory to include accessible or special
goods with accessibility features that are designed for, or facilitate use by, individuals with disabilities.? 28 CFR § 36.307 (2000); see also 28 CFR, ch. 1, pt. 36,
App. B, p. 650 (2000). As one Court of Appeals has explained:

?The common sense of the statute is that the content of the goods or services offered by a place of public accommodation is not regulated. A camera store may
not refuse to sell cameras to a disabled person, but it is not required to stock cameras specially designed for such persons. Had Congress purposed to impose so
enormous a burden on the retail sector of the economy and so vast a supervisory responsibility on the federal courts, we think it would have made its intention
clearer and would at least have imposed some standards. It is hardly a feasible judicial function to decide whether shoestores should sell single shoes to one-legged
persons and if so at what price, or how many Braille books the Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore chains should stock in each of their stores.? Doe v. Mutual
of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557, 560 (CA7 1999).

Since this is so, even if respondent here is a consumer of the ?privilege? of the PGA TOUR competition, see ante, at 14, I see no basis for considering whether the
rules of that competition must be altered. It is as irrelevant to the PGA TOUR?s compliance with the statute whether walking is essential to the game of golf as it is to
the shoe store?s compliance whether ?pairness? is essential to the nature of shoes. If a shoe store wishes to sell shoes only in pairs it may; and if a golf tour (or a golf
course) wishes to provide only walk-around golf, it may. The PGA TOUR cannot deny respondent access to that game because of his disability, but it need not
provide him a game different (whether in its essentials or in its details) from that offered to everyone else.

Since it has held (or assumed) professional golfers to
be customers ?enjoying? the ?privilege? that consists of PGA TOUR golf; and since it inexplicably regards the rules of PGA TOUR golf as merely ?policies,
practices, or procedures? by which access to PGA TOUR golf is provided, the Court must then confront the question whether respondent?s requested modification
of the supposed policy, practice, or procedure of walking would ?fundamentally alter the nature? of the PGA TOUR game, §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). The Court attacks
this ?funda-
mental alteration? analysis by asking two questions: first, whether the ?essence? or an ?essential aspect? of the sport of golf has been altered; and second, whether the
change, even if not essential to the game, would give the disabled player an advantage over others and thereby ?fundamentally alter the character of the competition.?
Ante, at 20-21. It answers no to both.

Before considering the Court?s answer to the first question, it is worth pointing out that the assumption which underlies that question is false. Nowhere is it writ that
PGA TOUR golf must be classic ?essential? golf. Why cannot the PGA TOUR, if it wishes, promote a new game, with distinctive rules (much as the American
League promotes a game of baseball in which the pitcher?s turn at the plate can be taken by a ?designated hitter?)? If members of the public do not like the new
rules?if they feel that these rules do not truly test the individual?s skill at ?real golf? (or the team?s skill at ?real baseball?) they can withdraw their patronage. But the
rules are the rules. They are (as in all games) entirely arbitrary, and there is no basis on which anyone?not even the Supreme Court of the United States?can
pronounce one or another of them to be ?nonessential? if the rulemaker (here the PGA TOUR) deems it to be essential.

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf?and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong
turns the Court has made to get to this point?then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the
Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government?s power ?[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
among the several States,? U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King
James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law
and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which
their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes.
The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a ?fundamental? aspect of golf.

Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question. To say that
something is ?essential? is ordinarily to say that it is necessary to the achievement of a certain object. But since it is the very nature of a game to have no object
except amusement (that is what distinguishes games from productive activity), it is quite impossible to say that any of a game?s arbitrary rules is ?essential.?
Eighteen-hole golf courses, 10-foot-high basketball hoops, 90-foot baselines, 100-yard football fields?all are arbitrary and none is essential. The only support for
any of them is tradition and (in more modern times) insistence by what has come to be regarded as the ruling body of the sport?both of which factors support the
PGA TOUR?s position in the present case. (Many, indeed, consider walking to be the central feature of the game of golf?hence Mark Twain?s classic criticism of
the sport: ?a good walk spoiled.?) I suppose there is some point at which the rules of a well-known game are changed to such a degree that no reasonable person
would call it the same game. If the PGA TOUR competitors were required to dribble a large, inflated ball and put it through a round hoop, the game could no longer
reasonably be called golf. But this criterion?destroying recognizability as the same generic game?is surely not the test of ?essentialness? or ?fundamentalness? that the
Court applies, since it apparently thinks that merely changing the diameter of the cup might ?fundamentally alter? the game of golf, ante, at 20.

Having concluded that dispensing with the walking rule would not violate federal-Platonic ?golf? (and, implicitly, that it is federal-Platonic golf, and no other, that
the PGA TOUR can insist upon) the Court moves on to the second part of its test: the competitive effects of waiving this nonessential rule. In this part of its analysis,
the Court first finds that the effects of the change are ?mitigated? by the fact that in the game of golf weather, a ?lucky bounce,? and ?pure chance? provide different
conditions for each competitor and individual ability may not ?be the sole determinant of the outcome.? Ante, at 25. I guess that is why those who follow professional
golfing consider Jack Nicklaus the luckiest golfer of all time, only to be challenged of late by the phenomenal luck of Tiger Woods. The Court?s empiricism is
unpersuasive. ?Pure chance? is randomly distributed among the players, but allowing respondent to use a cart gives him a ?lucky? break every time he plays. Pure
chance also only matters at the margin?a stroke here or there; the cart substantially improves this respondent?s competitive prospects beyond a couple of strokes.
But even granting that there are significant nonhuman variables affecting competition, that fact does not justify adding another variable that always favors one player.

In an apparent effort to make its opinion as narrow as possible, the Court relies upon the District Court?s finding that even with a cart, respondent will be at least
as
fatigued as everyone else. Ante, at 28. This, the Court says, proves that competition will not be affected. Far from thinking that reliance on this finding cabins the
effect of today?s opinion, I think it will prove to be its most expansive and destructive feature. Because step one of the Court?s two-part inquiry into whether a
requested change in a sport will ?fundamentally alter [its] nature,? §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), consists of an utterly unprincipled ontology of sports (pursuant to which the
Court is not even sure whether golf?s ?essence? requires a 3-inch hole), there is every reason to think that in future cases involving requests for special treatment by
would-be athletes the second step of the analysis will be determinative. In resolving that second step?determining whether waiver of the ?nonessential? rule will have
an impermissible ?competitive effect??by measuring the athletic capacity of the requesting individual, and asking whether the special dispensation would do no more
than place him on a par (so to speak) with other competitors, the Court guarantees that future cases of this sort will have to be decided on the basis of individualized
factual findings. Which means that future cases of this sort will be numerous, and a rich source of lucrative litigation. One can envision the parents of a Little League
player with attention deficit disorder trying to convince a judge that their son?s disability makes it at least 25% more difficult to hit a pitched ball. (If they are
successful, the only thing that could prevent a court order giving the kid four strikes would be a judicial determination that, in baseball, three strikes are
metaphysically necessary, which is quite absurd.)

The statute, of course, provides no basis for this individualized analysis that is the Court?s last step on a long and misguided journey. The statute seeks to assure
that a disabled person?s disability will not deny him equal access to (among other things) competitive sporting events?not that his disability will not deny him an
equal chance to win competitive sporting events. The latter is quite impossible, since the very nature of competitive sport is the measurement, by uniform rules, of
unevenly distributed excellence. This unequal distribution is precisely what determines the winners and losers?and artificially to ?even out? that distribution, by giving
one or another player exemption from a rule that emphasizes his particular weakness, is to destroy the game. That is why the ?handicaps? that are customary in social
games of golf?which, by adding strokes to the scores of the good players and subtracting them from scores of the bad ones, ?even out? the varying abilities?are not
used in professional golf. In the Court?s world, there is one set of rules that is ?fair with respect to the able-bodied? but ?individualized? rules, mandated by the ADA,
for ?talented but disabled athletes.? Ante, at 29. The ADA mandates no such ridiculous thing. Agility, strength, speed, balance, quickness of mind, steadiness of
nerves, intensity of concentration?these talents are not evenly distributed. No wild-eyed dreamer has ever suggested that the managing bodies of the competitive
sports that test precisely these qualities should try to take account of the uneven distribution of God-given gifts when writing and enforcing the rules of competition.
And I have no doubt Congress did not authorize misty-eyed judicial supervision of such a revolution.

* * *

My belief that today?s judgment is clearly in error should not be mistaken for a belief that the PGA TOUR clearly ought not allow respondent to use a golf cart.
That is a close question, on which even those who compete in the PGA TOUR are apparently divided; but it is a different question from the one before the Court.
Just as it is a different question whether the Little League ought to give disabled youngsters a fourth strike, or some other waiver from the rules that makes up for
their disabilities. In both cases, whether they ought to do so depends upon (1) how central to the game that they have organized (and over whose rules they are the
master) they deem the waived provision to be, and (2) how competitive?how strict a test of raw athletic ability in all aspects of the competition?they want their game
to be. But whether Congress has said they must do so depends upon the answers to the legal questions I have discussed above?not upon what this Court
sententiously decrees to be ?decent, tolerant,
[and] progressive,? ante, at 13 (quoting Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 375 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring)).

And it should not be assumed that today?s decent, tolerant, and progressive judgment will, in the long run, accrue to the benefit of sports competitors with
disabilities. Now that it is clear courts will review the rules of sports for ?fundamentalness,? organizations that value their autonomy have every incentive to defend
vigorously the necessity of every regulation. They may still be second-guessed in the end as to the Platonic requirements of the sport, but they will assuredly lose if
they have at all wavered in their enforcement. The lesson the PGA TOUR and other sports organizations should take from this case is to make sure that the same
written rules are set forth for all levels of play, and never voluntarily to grant any modifications. The second lesson is to end open tryouts. I doubt that, in the long run,
even disabled athletes will be well served by these incentives that the Court has created.

Complaints about this case are not ?properly directed to Congress,? ante, at 27-28, n. 51. They are properly directed to this Court?s Kafkaesque determination
that professional sports organizations, and the fields they rent for their exhibitions, are ?places of public accommodation? to the competing athletes, and the athletes
themselves ?customers? of the organization that pays them; its Alice in Wonderland determination that there are such things as judicially determinable ?essential? and
?nonessential? rules of a made-up game; and its Animal Farm determination that fairness and the ADA mean that everyone gets
to play by individualized rules which will assure that no one?s lack of ability (or at least no one?s lack of ability
so pronounced that it amounts to a disability) will be a handicap. The year was 2001, and ?everybody was finally equal.? K. Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in Animal
Farm and Related Readings 129 (1997).”

“Having the MLB change their rules is great. They decided to give the guy a break, and add some interest to their game, and maybe make some money on it. Having a court force MLB to change their rules is a different story, however. Helping a blind climber climb Everest is great. But thats not a professional sport league. This guy is demanding admission as into a professional sports league and wants the courts to force the league to change their rules. His is a compelling story, but maybe he should shoot for the special olympics, or be a club pro, or something besides professional player in the PGA.”

“Jeeeeeezus!

What a windbag.”

“kleety, I know words scare you, but it is really quite a humorous dessention.”

“Not only are golf courses "places of public accomadation", but so is the PGA itself. That is why the org. was forced to allow Casey's cart. Their selection process is open to ALL of the general public. All you need is a good game and silly pants. Last year Casey placed 14th in the Buy.com Tour (basically the minors for pro golf) the top 15 on that tour get exemptions to play the PGA the following year...Their own rules are forcing them to comply.”

“good point hp.

now, sports associations will become exclusive, to avoid crap like this.”