When does one become liable for what groups they associate with?

[biostem]

In terms of groups one can join or leave at will, at what point is the individual and them exercising their autonomy, responsible for what groups they identify with/belong to, and what actions or beliefs members of said group do/hold?

For instance, let's say I was a member of a bowling league. Next, let's say that this bowling league was vehemently against homosexuals, and was vocal about their views. Even if I, personally, was not against homosexuals, should I be held accountable for my membership in a group that is? Where do we draw the line between the freedom to associate with whomever you want, vs being responsible for how you exercise that freedom? At what point should I, as an individual holding views that contrast with that of a group I identify with, make the conscious decision to distance myself from that group?


And just to be perfectly clear, I am specifically referring to groups you can join or leave, (not ones you are born into, such as your race).

[U.P. Cinnabar]

At what point should I, as an individual holding views that contrast with that of a group I identify with, make the conscious decision to distance myself from that group?

The moment you find out they hold those opposing views. Anything else is tacit support of their behavior, and automatic accountability for it.

Where do we draw the line between the freedom to associate with whomever you want, vs being responsible for how you exercise that freedom?

There is no line of distinction. The freedom to choose and the responsibility for the choices you freely make always go hand in hand.

[Simon_Jester]

This approach can be... problematic... in some ways, though. Because if everyone fully lives this way it becomes hard to even have a society that isn't entirely divided up along arbitrary factional lines. How different do someone else's opinions have to be, before you refuse to associate with them? What are the consequences of different groups in society saying "ANATHEMA!" to each other and refusing to talk to each other?

Do we say that we are only responsible for overt, active evil practiced by the people we associate with? Or is any bad opinion of theirs something we should walk away from them over? Where does one draw the line between 'I'll excuse the shit you say because you're my friend' and 'I won't?'

[Esquire]

It's both possible and not immoral to compartmentalize relationships. A bowling league needn't be a statement of ones political (here used with the full import of the term) beliefs.

This ceases to be true when the primary purpose of a given organization is to espouse a particular set of beliefs. One can't, for example, be a member of the Republic Party without being at least partially-complicit in that party's stances; however, a member of a primarily-Republican bowling league has no such responsibility.

As to what's worth breaking a friendship over - sorry, that's absolutely subjective. Find your own line and stick to it, just remember that nothing will ever get done if you refuse to talk to anybody holding a different opinion on important issues. Those are the only ones really worth discussing in the first place.

[K. A. Pital]

Why join a club of homophobes if you can avoid joining it?

And thus the issue is solved. Organizations whose members are espousing shitty views are shitty, so I'd just pass on joining them in any way.

[Purple]

Why join a club of homophobes if you can avoid joining it?

And thus the issue is solved. Organizations whose members are espousing shitty views are shitty, so I'd just pass on joining them in any way.

Because those people can be perfectly nice friendly human beings otherwise. If you were to distance your self from everyone who has one viewpoint on one topic that you disagree with you'd live a sad and lonely life.

Bottom line is that people are evil by nature. Some more than others. And as long as a person does not progress from words to actions there is absolutely no need to distance your self from him just because of his opinions.

[biostem]

Why join a club of homophobes if you can avoid joining it?

And thus the issue is solved. Organizations whose members are espousing shitty views are shitty, so I'd just pass on joining them in any way.

I'd like to point out that my question wasn't just aimed at "clubs", like the bowling league I used as an example... it could include religions, political parties/groups, etc.

I'm trying to get some insight into how or why someone would willingly associate with *any* group, while holding beliefs that are diametrically opposed to said group.

[Axton]

Well, for one thing (and I realize this was stated upthread, but I'd like to reiterate it) there's a difference between groups whose members may share certain beliefs, and groups that are about those beliefs.

A bowling league with a majority of members who are personally against homosexuality is a different animal from, say, a gay-bashing club who also happen to have bowling nights together, in the same way that a troupe of WW2 reenactors is a different beast from a gang of neo-Nazis.

[Soontir C'boath]

There is also the issue that we wouldn't want groups to necessarily be bereft of reasonable people and have them turn out like the Bundy's.

[Ralin]

And the question of whether or not there are any viable alternatives in the area.

Which can be of greater (the one medical association in the state is seriously racist) or lesser (the one bowling league in town is seriously racist) importance, but it can easily complicate things.

[Feil]

I think it comes down to whether the individuals or the group are taking a stance. Groups should represent all their members, not just the majority, which is why "Bowling for charity, all proceeds to American Red Cross" feels normal for a bowling league whereas "Bowling for Jesus, all proceeds to the mission fund" is something you'd find in a church group. Morality entirely aside, if a group is making a statement irrelevant to its core purpose (e.g. bowling) or stated doctrine (e.g. a church's mission statement) that some of its members are known to disagree with, even if it's a good statement, it's a bad group.

If it's the group itself, be open and honest about your disagreement and ask them to respect you by keeping their programs neutral to the issue. It's not hard: "Hey, guys, I'm not cool with this week's flier, I don't support that stuff. Can we keep homosexuality issues out of the program?" If they care about you, they'll listen when you say you're not down with whatever they're saying or doing. You're there to bowl, not preach - you don't have to try to convince them that they're wrong, just make it clear that you don't stand for what they're saying and ask them to stop. If they don't, then you can leave.

If it's individuals taking a stance, that's their business. Be open and honest about your own views, but again, don't make an issue of it: you're there for bowling, not to preach.

This goes both ways. If your bowling league wants to support pride week, but you have a hardcore evangelical member who makes it clear that he's not okay with that, don't.