Thank you Deborah...I am sure we all appreciate your time and expertise.

I *think* I understand in that there is not a clear black and white distinction between public and private facilities because there may or may not be other factors that the law may or may not view favorably. From what I am understanding of you...the club you referred to can set certain preferences because of its dynamic as opposed to a general class offered to the public. I guess how it might relate directly to those with businesses is...can a private studio be considered a club? As well...where does it leave the many Independent contractors on the board?

I imagine that exclusions may be acceptable in cases where say...an Instructor might not be qualified to teach a man, someone with a disability, or even someone with age related concerns but...I certainly wouldn''t want to test that.

In my own state...NJ has LAD and this is what it states:

[The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits an owner, manager, or employee of any place that offers goods, services and facilities to the general public, such as a restaurant, hotel, doctor's office, camp, or theater, from directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual because of that individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability. Further, individuals accompanied by a guide or service dog are entitled to full and equal access to all places of public accommodation.

There are certain exceptions. Places of public accommodation which, by their nature, are reasonably restricted to individuals of one gender (such as dressing rooms or gymnasiums) may deny access to the accommodation to members of the other gender. Also, the provisions of the LAD that govern public accommodations do not apply to a place of public accommodation that is "in its nature distinctly private" or to schools operated by bona fide religious institutions. However, it is unlawful for a private club or association to discriminate against a member with respect to the advantages and privileges of membership on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, domestic partnership status, sex, or affectional or sexual orientation. ]
So...here we have a very ambiguous statement and one that can be interpretted differently depending on the nature of a concen and the dynamics of the facility: "in its nature distinctly private". As well...would reasonable restriction include (in direct relation to conversation)someone of potential ill intent entering a class or for the protection of individuals who seek a safe haven from abuse.

And yes...gender and sexual orientation do sadly take a back seat but I believe strongly in progress and have witnessed and experienced change first hand. *I* would def. be interested in a booklet if you do decide to pursue it.

I think what concerns me most is a prevalent attitude of men and an automatic assumption of ill intent in a general context and this saddens me having been personally barred from an opportunity for the very same reason. Sounds ridiculous now...a woman entering a trade class because she is there to check out guys, cause a disruption or simply did not belong because it was traditionally done by men.
But...this is often what I hear as justicication for not allowing men.

sorry, I think the idea of banning people from class seems to push my buttons - we don't often see that spark in my posts, right?

I'm not holding my breath, Rob. :-) It matters not, anyway. There's way too many choices. It's a vestige of a way things were done in yesteryear, and the attitudes and perceptions of reality local to that time frame, none of which are bad. They are just not very useful now. That's why they fit the definition of "vestige".

:-)