Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!sb1!sb6!diy
From: diy@sb6.UUCP (D. I. Young)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: 1986 SUPREME COURT RULING...CLARIFICATION
Message-ID: <163@sb6.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Jun-84 11:28:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: sb6.163
Posted: Fri Jun 15 11:28:50 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 05:39:16 EDT
Lines: 16


  
Apologies for the confusion that may result from readingthe previous article
of the same title.  A paragraph was screwed up, and here's how it is supposed
to be written:

So it would not surprise me that a second Reagan term would produce a 1986
Supreme Court ruling in response to a discrmination suit that would say
"That business/real estate group/club doesn't really HAVE to accept/serve
people of a particular ethnic group, because while we recognize the rights
of of these ethnic groups, we also recognize the rights of the people who
owns these businesses.  It is THEIR business/club, and they have a right to
run it as they please.  That right can not be denied of them."

Once again, sorry if there was some confusion from reading the paragraph in
the original article, I'm not really sure what happened to it.