How to defend two differing sets of human rights? There are ways, including setting up the sort of Apartheid-type approaches which eventually were overcome in South Africa
Much has been written about the men-only rules of the Muirfield Golf Club, as it hosts the 2013 Open Championship [July 2013]. Many members of the golfing fraternity disapprove of discrimination in all its forms, and have spoken up against Muirfield’s ‘weird’ rules (as one golfer put it).
South Africa, many years ago, had its own political rules about association between people of different races. It took decades of dissent to overturn the rules. Pressure on the Muirfield club will eventually probably result in a change of its rules, as took place recently at Atlanta.
There is another way. Muirfield has every right to stick to its rules, however weird they seem to others outside the club. Those who feel strongly about it, should ensure that the rules are protected from being weakened by forces from outside. For example, golfers who might dispute the rules could decide they would prefer not to play in competitions at the club. Broadcasters (encouraged by subscribers and sponsors) could decide they did not want to broadcast events held at the club. Spectators could decide not to spectate. And so on.
This would help Muirfield to preserve its rights of association of its male membership, and there would be one more major golf competition awarded to clubs with a set of rules more acceptable to other people, including women, living in the 21st century.