$400,000 judgment against Portland bar

[ludin]

The whole point is that homosexuals and trans* have no choice in who they are.

Choosing to discriminate against them is wrong for that reason.

Choosing to run a business is just fine.

nope but they can choose and behave in a manner that won't drive other customers away.
and the bar owner has the right to demand that they act properly.

 

[Henrin]

The whole point is that homosexuals and trans* have no choice in who they are.

Choosing to discriminate against them is wrong for that reason.

Choosing to run a business is just fine.

We are not talking about things they have no control over, but things they in fact DO have control over. As I said earlier, transgenders never cause problems until they make a choice. Go through all the times in recent history that transgenders have found themselves seen as a problem and see how many of them were because of a choice the individual made. Notice anything? It's always because of a choice, not because they were born in a certain way.

 

[VanceMack]

It certainly isn't my fault if some fool runs his business into the ground because he refuses to obey the law.

His business was already being run into the ground. And pray tell..is there some indication he chose to not serve gays/ is there some indication he refused service to transsexuals? The ONLY thing he did was asked a GROUP of transsexuals to stop meeting there...not because they were transsexuals but because their behaviors were causing problems with other patrons and the other patrons were deciding to go elsewhere.

You think thats appropriate for him to be punished for that...well..thats your right...but thats just ****ing stupid. Now...YOU can do whatever you want in YOUR businesses. That...oh....wait...you dont have a business...do you....

 

[roguenuke]

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.

And the board investigating this talked to employees and other patrons of the bar and found that the claim that the group was leaving a mess or "raucous", trying to take over, held no real basis. Basically, there is no real evidence that they were causing any real issues, nor actually hurting his business at all. What likely happened is he heard a rumor and/or has his own issues with transgendered people, and was seeing declining sales (since this was from about 2012, likely due to the economy), he found someone to blame for his failing business.

 

[Lutherf]

The whole point is that homosexuals and trans* have no choice in who they are.

Choosing to discriminate against them is wrong for that reason.

Choosing to run a business is just fine.

They do have a choice in how they act, though.

Let me ask, would you support the owner of this forum (or his proxies) banning a troll even though that troll made it known they were of a protected class?

 

[roguenuke]

They do have a choice in how they act, though.

Let me ask, would you support the owner of this forum (or his proxies) banning a troll even though that troll made it known they were of a protected class?

If the owner had left messages saying that he had been receiving complaints about their bad, disruptive, or raucous behavior and that was why they were being asked to not return, then he would have actually been less likely to face, and especially lose, his case. But he didn't say a single word about their behavior at his bar, only about their being transgendered.

 

[Lutherf]

If the owner had left messages saying that he had been receiving complaints about their bad, disruptive, or raucous behavior and that was why they were being asked to not return, then he would have actually been less likely to face, and especially lose, his case. But he didn't say a single word about their behavior at his bar, only about their being transgendered.

If you take a little time to look into this rather than just jumping on the hate bandwagon you would find that he was having issues with this group for a full year before the phone call.

At this point we really only have one side of the story. Would your opinion change if there was an indication that the group found out he was unhappy with their presence and then decided to get even more flamboyant just to annoy the owner?

 

[Ikari]

There are a million ways for a business to address the fact that one group of their customers doesn't like another group of customers without illegally discriminating.

Is there then? But is a private business's profitability "irrational" and "arbitrary"?

 

[Ikari]

His business was already being run into the ground. And pray tell..is there some indication he chose to not serve gays/ is there some indication he refused service to transsexuals? The ONLY thing he did was asked a GROUP of transsexuals to stop meeting there...not because they were transsexuals but because their behaviors were causing problems with other patrons and the other patrons were deciding to go elsewhere.

You think thats appropriate for him to be punished for that...well..thats your right...but thats just ****ing stupid. Now...YOU can do whatever you want in YOUR businesses. That...oh....wait...you dont have a business...do you....

It seems like this would need to be more clearly stated. I think the owner has every right to police his customers and decide whom he wishes or doesn't wish to serve. But in our hypersensitive age where everyone is a victim, you have to be careful with how it's exercised. If he wanted a particular group barred from his establishment because they have caused problems with his other clientele, then it likely had to be stated exactly as such.

Though fundamentally, I have a hard time understanding where people believe they get the right to another's property and labor.

 

[roguenuke]

If you take a little time to look into this rather than just jumping on the hate bandwagon you would find that he was having issues with this group for a full year before the phone call.

At this point we really only have one side of the story. Would your opinion change if there was an indication that the group found out he was unhappy with their presence and then decided to get even more flamboyant just to annoy the owner?

At this point being two years later? We have a lot of information about this case. I did look into it and found that he didn't provide any indication that they were disruptive when he left two different messages telling them they were not welcome on Friday nights, nor did his employees or other patrons (who were interviewed) confirm his and his lawyer's claims that the group was disruptive, nor that they actually were "leaving seats in the bathrooms up or doors open". In fact, if that were the case, leaving doors open in the restrooms, they could have kicked out those particularly people for doing just that. Why didn't he?

The only thing that would change my opinion is actual evidence that they were disruptive and ignored previous requests to control themselves and be respectful to other patrons. That simply isn't what the actual evidence (not his claims) suggest.

 

[PoS]

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.

Looks like the courts just made it legal for anybody to sabotage a business they dont like.

 

[Absentglare]

Usually you run your business into the ground by doing things like not paying any mind to complaints and huge declines of consumers. I can't help to notice that liberals never have any concept of business.

There are all sorts of reasons that businesses fail. The most common one is making less money than it costs to run the business.

When you get slapped by a $400,000 fine for breaking the law, it's pretty obvious to see how that could be a factor.

We are not talking about things they have no control over, but things they in fact DO have control over. As I said earlier, transgenders never cause problems until they make a choice. Go through all the times in recent history that transgenders have found themselves seen as a problem and see how many of them were because of a choice the individual made. Notice anything? It's always because of a choice, not because they were born in a certain way.

So you'd have no problem with them, as long as they choose to do things you agree with like hide in a closet and starve to death ?

 

[Lutherf]

And the board investigating this talked to employees and other patrons of the bar and found that the claim that the group was leaving a mess or "raucous", trying to take over, held no real basis. Basically, there is no real evidence that they were causing any real issues, nor actually hurting his business at all. What likely happened is he heard a rumor and/or has his own issues with transgendered people, and was seeing declining sales (since this was from about 2012, likely due to the economy), he found someone to blame for his failing business.

He has a lesbian waitress and willingly allowed this group to use his establishment to meet. He asked that they stop coming as a group but did not ask that they stay away as individuals. You might see those things as being homophobic but I sure don't.

The agency that "found no wrongdoing" on the part of the tranny group is the same agency that's prosecuting the owner. If an independent group has investigated I have yet to see that evidence.

 

[Absentglare]

yes it was, and the owner was right. this bias and agenda driven commission was in the wrong.
it had everything to do with their behavior.

as I said time and time again. women dont' want men in their bathrooms.
in the bar business women are everything. if they feel uncomfortable then they leave.
if the women leave then so do the men and you have no bar.

this group of people's behavior and actions in the bathroom made women feel uncomfortable
and his business started to decline.

he is not a gay bar or a tranny bar. he has the right to protect the interest of the majority of his clients.
and their behavior and actions were driving his main clients away.

more so one of the most important bar nights of the year.

Gays and trans* are allowed to be served at businesses open to the public.

Separate but equal has been unconstitutional for how long now ?

nope but they can choose and behave in a manner that won't drive other customers away.
and the bar owner has the right to demand that they act properly.

Loitering is illegal. Being a customer is not.

 

[Absentglare]

His business was already being run into the ground. And pray tell..is there some indication he chose to not serve gays/ is there some indication he refused service to transsexuals? The ONLY thing he did was asked a GROUP of transsexuals to stop meeting there...not because they were transsexuals but because their behaviors were causing problems with other patrons and the other patrons were deciding to go elsewhere.

You think thats appropriate for him to be punished for that...well..thats your right...but thats just ****ing stupid. Now...YOU can do whatever you want in YOUR businesses. That...oh....wait...you dont have a business...do you....

If a biker gang starts a barfight, the owner can say "hey, guys, your behavior is unacceptable, gtfo."

If a group of trans* are being paying customers, the owner can not say "hey, freaky deaky trans*, you're scaring away my business and you're not welcome."

Clear yet ?

 

[Absentglare]

They do have a choice in how they act, though.

Let me ask, would you support the owner of this forum (or his proxies) banning a troll even though that troll made it known they were of a protected class?

Why does it dissolve into this argument ?

Look, there's no "protected class," trans* don't have special rights. What they have is a huge amount of anti-trans* bigotry to face.

If a trans* commits murder, throw their ass in jail. End of story.

 

[roguenuke]

He has a lesbian waitress and willingly allowed this group to use his establishment to meet. He asked that they stop coming as a group but did not ask that they stay away as individuals. You might see those things as being homophobic but I sure don't.

The agency that "found no wrongdoing" on the part of the tranny group is the same agency that's prosecuting the owner. If an independent group has investigated I have yet to see that evidence.

First of all, even his lesbian waitress told him that he could not ask them to not return, as he had been talking about doing, just for being transgender. Her being lesbian however has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not his actions, asking them, even as a group, not to come on a certain day or at all, are illegal discrimination or not.

Do you have any evidence that the agency is lying rather than him? Why did he not say something about their behavior, rather than only mentioning them being transgender and his bar being regarded as a tranny or gay bar if it was their behaviors that were the concern?

 

[roguenuke]

There are all sorts of reasons that businesses fail. The most common one is making less money than it costs to run the business.

When you get slapped by a $400,000 fine for breaking the law, it's pretty obvious to see how that could be a factor.

So you'd have no problem with them, as long as they choose to do things you agree with like hide in a closet and starve to death ?

The business was not in a lucrative location to begin with. INor was it likely to prevail, given that there was a well established bar (his father's) next door. There is actually no evidence that there was any actual decline in his business due to the T-girls. Like I said before, he was looking for someone to blame for his failing business.

 

[Absentglare]

He has a lesbian waitress and willingly allowed this group to use his establishment to meet. He asked that they stop coming as a group but did not ask that they stay away as individuals. You might see those things as being homophobic but I sure don't.

The agency that "found no wrongdoing" on the part of the tranny group is the same agency that's prosecuting the owner. If an independent group has investigated I have yet to see that evidence.

Man, it's cool, the head of the KKK says he has a black friend, so you can't find him guilty of hate crimes against jewish people.

Is that really your weak case outlined here ?

They felt singled out because of who they are, not their behavior. No narrative suggests this is due to behavior except the guy making excuses for his discrimination.

 

[Henrin]

There are all sorts of reasons that businesses fail. The most common one is making less money than it costs to run the business.

When you get slapped by a $400,000 fine for breaking the law, it's pretty obvious to see how that could be a factor.

Indeed, and one of those reasons is a decline of consumers and an unanswered complaints.

So you'd have no problem with them, as long as they choose to do things you agree with like hide in a closet and starve to death ?

When people had more trouble getting jobs or keeping them because of their decision to get tattoos, no one was freaking out and demanding the government force people to hire them, but instead recognizing that these people made a choice and that no one has to accept the choices of others. Transgenders do not get into these situations because of their innate nature, but because they made a choice and many times feel compelled to force others to accept it.

 

[Ikari]

If a group of trans* are being paying customers, the owner can not say "hey, freaky deaky trans*, you're scaring away my business and you're not welcome."

Clear yet ?

What if they ARE scaring away his business? Does he have no right to make money? Does he get no control over his property and labor? If you affect his bottom line negatively, is he left with no recourse but to take the loss of income?

 

[Ockham]

What if they ARE scaring away his business? Does he have no right to make money? Does he get no control over his property and labor? If you affect his bottom line negatively, is he left with no recourse but to take the loss of income?

The law is siding with the minority here - he has no recourse if they drive business away, he has no control over his property or labor... our judicial branch and legislative branch (who pass the laws) have made it very clear to business owners. The legal system is enforcing it when activists target businesses and sue.

 

[Lutherf]

First of all, even his lesbian waitress told him that he could not ask them to not return, as he had been talking about doing, just for being transgender. Her being lesbian however has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not his actions, asking them, even as a group, not to come on a certain day or at all, are illegal discrimination or not.

Do you have any evidence that the agency is lying rather than him? Why did he not say something about their behavior, rather than only mentioning them being transgender and his bar being regarded as a tranny or gay bar if it was their behaviors that were the concern?

I'm pretty damned sure it's a case of political activism.

Here's a blog that's apparently from one of the "victims" - https://susanmiller64.wordpress.com/
Note that she says the group didn't press charges but were contacted by an attorney and the state agency. The state agency chose to prosecute even without a complaint.

well when we met with the 3 investigators from BOLI it was clear we didn’t have to convince them. they wanted to pursue this and use us as witnesses which is what happened. We didn’t actually file a law suit or complaint. BOLI investigated and found our rights had been violated and then Brad Avakian who is the commissioner of BOLI filed the complaint in his name on our behalf.

If you want to hear Penner's actual messages they're in this video - https://youtu.be/fJF4g4oB36U?list=UUXDpXm7gMIxJhcasKsz6y_w

 

[Ikari]

The law is siding with the minority here - he has no recourse if they drive business away, he has no control over his property or labor... our judicial branch and legislative branch (who pass the laws) have made it very clear to business owners. The legal system is enforcing it when activists target businesses and sue.

It's a shame though, because property and labor are HUGE rights. Life, liberty, and property. Right there in the big three (labor actually being part of property as a man owns his own labor). I don't see how one gains ownership of another's property and labor.

 

[Lutherf]

Man, it's cool, the head of the KKK says he has a black friend, so you can't find him guilty of hate crimes against jewish people.

Is that really your weak case outlined here ?

They felt singled out because of who they are, not their behavior. No narrative suggests this is due to behavior except the guy making excuses for his discrimination.

Comparing Chris Penner to the KKK is ridiculous.

The guy asked the group not to come back because their presence was hurting business, period. The state then came in and determined that even if his business was being negatively impacted he couldn't ask the group to leave. The reason he wasn't allowed to ask them to leave was because they were gay/trans. That isn't anti-discrimination. It's taking sides.