$400,000 judgment against Portland bar

[Lutherf]

Title has been modified to fit allotted space and adequately convey meaning.
Oregon Court of Appeals upholds civil rights decision, $400,000 judgment against Portland bar that banned transgender customers | OregonLive.com

In a ruling based on a landmark civil rights law, the Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a $400,000 damages award against a North Portland bar that turned away a group of transgender patrons.

In this case the owner is claiming that the complainants presence drove business away. If that's true and the ruling stands then it's a serious miscarriage of justice. There is no reason whatsoever that a business owner should be forced to accommodate customers whose presence creates a detriment to his business. It's no different than telling a biker gang to leave because their presence drives customers away.

The owner had allowed the group to use the bar on a regular basis but when his other customers complained and then stopped coming in he asked the group to stop using is place. I don't see how that is anything less than reasonable.

 

[gdgyva]

so a businessman no longer has any right to decline service to "protected" classes.....even if those classes start to hurt business and drive away other customers

so a regular bar can be turned into a gay bar and the owner has no say in the matter?

that just doesnt seem right, does it?

i can see where this could be abused....and especially if a group wants to target a business or proprietor

 

[sangha]

Title has been modified to fit allotted space and adequately convey meaning.
Oregon Court of Appeals upholds civil rights decision, $400,000 judgment against Portland bar that banned transgender customers | OregonLive.com



In this case the owner is claiming that the complainants presence drove business away. If that's true and the ruling stands then it's a serious miscarriage of justice. There is no reason whatsoever that a business owner should be forced to accommodate customers whose presence creates a detriment to his business. It's no different than telling a biker gang to leave because their presence drives customers away.

The owner had allowed the group to use the bar on a regular basis but when his other customers complained and then stopped coming in he asked the group to stop using is place. I don't see how that is anything less than reasonable.

I agree that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone based on their behavior, however the evidence strongly argues that was not the owners concern. In the owners own words, which he left on a recording, were

"People think that A: We're a tranny bar, or B: We're a gay bar," he said in a message left on one of the T-Girls voicemail. "We are neither. People are not coming in because they just don't want to be here on a Friday night now."

 

[Lutherf]

I agree that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone based on their behavior, however the evidence strongly argues that was not the owners concern. In the owners own words, which he left on a recording, were

So? How is that any different than "People think we're a biker bar"? The issue is that the presence of that particular group, which he had willingly accommodated, was having a negative effect on his business. There is no reason I can think of where the law should compel a business owner to accommodate any group that he or she can show is causing a negative effect on their business. Among other things it would be an absolutely stupid decision to do so for an administration that obtains their revenue based on the business owner's gross receipts.

 

[gdgyva]

I agree that a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone based on their behavior, however the evidence strongly argues that was not the owners concern. In the owners own words, which he left on a recording, were

forget about this case just for the moment

do you think the precedents set could be used to target particular businesses?

is it now possible for a bar without the owners consent, or desire, to be turned into a gay bar from a straight bar?

and is that a good thing?

i am not saying it will happen....or has happened....but now i think it "could" happen

 

[sangha]

So? How is that any different than "People think we're a biker bar"? The issue is that the presence of that particular group, which he had willingly accommodated, was having a negative effect on his business.

IOW, it had nothing to do with their behavior. He wasn't refusing to serve them because their behavior was inappropriate, which would be a valid reason

There is no reason I can think of where the law should compel a business owner to accommodate any group that he or she can show is causing a negative effect on their business. Among other things it would be an absolutely stupid decision to do so for an administration that obtains their revenue based on the business owner's gross receipts.

What you can and can't think of is irrelevant. What matters is what the legislature (remember? They're the ones who the people chose to make the law) think of

 

[sangha]

forget about this case just for the moment

do you think the precedents set could be used to target particular businesses?

is it now possible for a bar without the owners consent, or desire, to be turned into a gay bar from a straight bar?

and is that a good thing?

i am not saying it will happen....or has happened....but now i think it "could" happen

IMO, a business owner should be concerned that he has a clientele sufficient to ensure a profit. The sex life of his customers should be of no concern unless they are actually having sex on the premises.

 

[FlyingHippos]

Title has been modified to fit allotted space and adequately convey meaning.
Oregon Court of Appeals upholds civil rights decision, $400,000 judgment against Portland bar that banned transgender customers | OregonLive.com



In this case the owner is claiming that the complainants presence drove business away. If that's true and the ruling stands then it's a serious miscarriage of justice. There is no reason whatsoever that a business owner should be forced to accommodate customers whose presence creates a detriment to his business. It's no different than telling a biker gang to leave because their presence drives customers away.

The owner had allowed the group to use the bar on a regular basis but when his other customers complained and then stopped coming in he asked the group to stop using is place. I don't see how that is anything less than reasonable.

You should read your own article: "The labor bureau's Civil Rights Division began investigating and found no evidence to support Penner's contention that the T-Girls disrupted business."

In other words, the claims the owner made were BS.

 

[joG]

Title has been modified to fit allotted space and adequately convey meaning.
Oregon Court of Appeals upholds civil rights decision, $400,000 judgment against Portland bar that banned transgender customers | OregonLive.com



In this case the owner is claiming that the complainants presence drove business away. If that's true and the ruling stands then it's a serious miscarriage of justice. There is no reason whatsoever that a business owner should be forced to accommodate customers whose presence creates a detriment to his business. It's no different than telling a biker gang to leave because their presence drives customers away.

The owner had allowed the group to use the bar on a regular basis but when his other customers complained and then stopped coming in he asked the group to stop using is place. I don't see how that is anything less than reasonable.

So those bigots wanted to ruin the man that had treated them decently`?

 

[Henrin]

Once again it's his property and he shouldn't have to explain to anyone why he doesn't want to business with someone.

 

[Henrin]

IMO, a business owner should be concerned that he has a clientele sufficient to ensure a profit. The sex life of his customers should be of no concern unless they are actually having sex on the premises.

And your opinion is your own and doesn't need to be shared by everyone.

 

[Henrin]

Btw, getting a bunch of stuff done to yourself to lie to the general public about what you are is not the same as innate characteristics that you can't control. Just sayin'.

 

[Lutherf]

IOW, it had nothing to do with their behavior. He wasn't refusing to serve them because their behavior was inappropriate, which would be a valid reason



What you can and can't think of is irrelevant. What matters is what the legislature (remember? They're the ones who the people chose to make the law) think of

It DID have to do with their behavior. The other patrons were complaining that the restrooms had become a free for all. That was, apparently, a significant part of the reason his other patrons stopped coming in. People simply weren't comfortable in that environment.

 

[VanceMack]

]IMO, a business owner should be concerned that he has a clientele sufficient to ensure a profit[/B]. The sex life of his customers should be of no concern unless they are actually having sex on the premises.

Isnt that what he was doing? His stated purpose is that the presence of the group is driving away his business.

 

[gdgyva]

sad that this is where we are as a nation

i dont want discrimination, but i also dont want a businessman being forced to changed his business because a protected class suddenly decides they like his establishment

owning a gay bar, and owning a straight bar are two very different things....advertising, promotions, bar menu, specials.....

you are catering to a very different clientele.....nothing wrong with that if that is the business you chose, or wanted

but what if it isnt? now you seem to have no choice either way

and that is sad.....

 

[Henrin]

sad that this is where we are as a nation

i dont want discrimination, but i also dont want a businessman being forced to changed his business because a protected class suddenly decides they like his establishment

owning a gay bar, and owning a straight bar are two very different things....advertising, promotions, bar menu, specials.....

you are catering to a very different clientele.....nothing wrong with that if that is the business you chose, or wanted

but what if it isnt? now you seem to have no choice either way

and that is sad.....

The thing is these people will claim they're straight and the opposite sex than what they are, so therefore they belong. That makes the whole thing an hilarious and pathetic game of forcing people to ignore facts. lol.

 

[Fearandloathing]

It DID have to do with their behavior. The other patrons were complaining that the restrooms had become a free for all. That was, apparently, a significant part of the reason his other patrons stopped coming in. People simply weren't comfortable in that environment.

Oh, so it was a washroom issue.

OK, that's fair. But, watch, businesses will soon be compelled to have a third restroom for transgendered....with a changing table of course

 

[justabubba]

maybe because i am an old fart i was there and personally felt the sting of excluding groups because to accept them would alienate bigoted customers

So? How is that any different than "People think we're a biker bar"? The issue is that the presence of that particular group, which he had willingly accommodated, was having a negative effect on his business. There is no reason I can think of where the law should compel a business owner to accommodate any group that he or she can show is causing a negative effect on their business. Among other things it would be an absolutely stupid decision to do so for an administration that obtains their revenue based on the business owner's gross receipts.

yea, that white folks don't want to associate with black folks has been denied as a legal basis of exclusion for over 50 years
and yet you still believe it should be found acceptable

you are speaking the language of white privilege
no matter that there may be trans whites

 

[Henrin]

maybe because i am an old fart i was there and personally felt the sting of excluding groups because to accept them would alienate bigoted customer

View attachment 67190584
View attachment 67190585
View attachment 67190586

yea, that white folks don't want to associate with black folks has been denied as a legal basis of exclusion for over 50 years
and yet you still believe it should be found acceptable

you are speaking the language of white privilege
no matter that there may be trans whites

Cool lecture, so who owns the property anyway?

 

[Lutherf]

You should read your own article: "The labor bureau's Civil Rights Division began investigating and found no evidence to support Penner's contention that the T-Girls disrupted business."

In other words, the claims the owner made were BS.

Yeah, surprise, surprise. The agency that filed the complaint didn't find any exculpatory evidence. Imagine that.:roll:

 

[justabubba]

Cool lecture, so who owns the property anyway?

maybe the same person who owned it back in the day and denied service to negroes

because to serve them would drive away his white clientele

some folks appear to have been sleeping for over 50 years

 

[Henrin]

maybe the same person who owned it back in the day and denied service to negroes

because to serve them would drive away his white clientele

some folks appear to have been sleeping for over 50 years

I wasn't alive fifty years ago. Tell me though, what claim of service did blacks have on the property?

 

[justabubba]

I wasn't alive fifty years ago. Tell me though, what claim of service did blacks have on the property?

to not be excluded as customers only because of the pigment of their skin
just as the trans community should not be excluded as customers only because of their sexual orientation

 

[WCH]

IOW, it had nothing to do with their behavior. He wasn't refusing to serve them because their behavior was inappropriate, which would be a valid reason



What you can and can't think of is irrelevant. What matters is what the legislature (remember? They're the ones who the people chose to make the law) think of

Some of the customers were complaining that the trannies left the seats up and the doors open in the women's stalls. I picture this as disturbing to most normal females.

 

[WCH]

Oh, so it was a washroom issue.

OK, that's fair. But, watch, businesses will soon be compelled to have a third restroom for transgendered....with a changing table of course

All the businesses in Austin TX that only had one bathroom had to take down the M/F sign as not to disrespect those that were neither or confused.