Oregon: repressive state?

User avatar
Master Rahl
Forum Regular
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:35 am
Alliance: KzD
Race: Aydindril
ID: 13355
Alternate name(s): Master Rahl
Location: Peoples Palace, D'Hara

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Sniperwax wrote:
Sol wrote:
Psyko wrote:
Sol wrote:
Psyko wrote:
Sniperwax wrote:I've been kicked out of many bars. Sometimes for good reason and sometimes not. These drama activists need to find a new bar and abstain from all the tearful spinelessness.
I'm sure you did something to be kicked out of those bars. It wasn't simply based upon your appearance.

It's not dramatic to react when you suddenly have a 4 year relationship with a venue go up in flames via voicemail because of something you didn't even do.
Freedom of choice? The man owned the club so why should he have no say as to who's allowed in or not? Regardless of his reasons. I have a right to shoot trespasses on my property for whatever reason they envisage, because I own it.
It's not trespassing to be a customer.



The law says you can't refuse equal service based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, sex, age, disability or religion. Freedom of choice in who you serve doesn't give you the right to ban a black person from your place of business. The only thing Oregon did was add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the anti-discrimination law.
Indeed, but that land is still mine, if I suddenly deny a farmhands work and throw him off the property for whatever reason I can. The business is still his. I'm just pointing out the whole discrimination thing is a bit nonsense, sure it may not be fair for some but you shouldn't be forcing people who to serve, there is enough red tape as it is. If people refute their business to some group then that's their revenue loss.
While it's someones freedom of choice to what they do (cross dress etc.) it should still be another persons freedom of choice to deny them in their establishment.
Taverns in particular are full of situations where a person or persons need to be removed. This is a necessary evil and it has been that way forever. You do not wait until situations escalate you risk losing your liquor license this way. You remove one party of a conflict from the scene and whether they deserved it or not is entirely irrelevant.

This isn't a topic of discrimination. The topic is grown adults crying because their feelings were hurt very bad by some big bad meanie-pants.
+1.
And horrible ruling. I didn't read the article and don't care to, as it will be bias (for marketing). If someone does something I don't like on my property I will kick them off.
[9:21:11 PM] Les Ennemis: good i like our members happy
What kind of plans would the Master Rahl have? I plan to conquer the world
Spoiler
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

The fact that they happen to be gay, or black, or whatever Oregon considers a point of discrimination.. doesn't make it discrimination to throw them out.

/argument (Judge is a scaredy cat. "Ooh, LGBT people. I must rule in favour because omg, they can't get married and they might TP my house and paint it yellow, sad sad. Here, let me bankrupt this good man for you, no problem!")


Now, about these people who abuse their religion/sexual orientation/race/whatever to get their every **Filtered** wish granted.. what the hell is up with that?
Image
User avatar
Loki™
Forum Elder
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:43 am
Alliance: Jötunheim
Race: System Lord
ID: 41339
Alternate name(s): Lloth, Sargonnas, D4ywalk3r

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

I think the way LBGT people are being catered to is ridiculous. They should be treated like any other person.
Image
Image
Spoiler
Image

Image
And Loki saw every thing that he had farmed, and, behold, it was very good.
Spoiler
George Hazard says:
thats what happens, HVE takes your soul and gives you an awesome high
when you leave, you can't live without it
ImageImage

The forces of Loki™ rush in full force, and inflict 1,086,054,534,340,000 damage on Pooop's forces!
It was confirmed that 12,620,737 of Pooop's forces fell at the hands of Loki™'s assult.

The forces of Pooop fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 481,837,854,506,000 damage on Loki™'s forces!
They managed to eradicate 1,988,050 of Loki™'s troops.
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Loki™ wrote:I think the way LBGT people are being catered to is ridiculous. They should be treated like any other person.
Exactly. ;) All this affirmative action nonsense.. wah.
Image
atok
Forum Irregular
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 9:02 am
Race: nordic god
ID: 0

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

'they' should have their own bars walled off from the rest of the world !
User avatar
Legendary Apophis
Forum History
Posts: 13681
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:54 pm
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Apophis the Great
Location: Ha'TaK

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Psyko wrote: Also...."Repressive state"?? REALLY?!

You do know repressive means inhibiting or restraining the freedom of a person or group of people, right? Which is what the bar owner was doing, not what the State did when ruling on the case. Oregon is trying to increase the freedoms of its residents, not restrain them. ](*,)
Of course it is repressive, there is no "positive" or "negative" restriction. For example: affirmative action is just a PC discrimination, doesn't mean it's not a discrimination.

The difference is the PC team won't admit they are doing repression and/or discriminating. They won't admit they are clearly discriminating against the average christian American (don't worry, the same applies in Western Europe thanks to liberals in power and their twisted values) in the way that the average christian american will always be wrong, even if it includes a clear drop of its revenue (see the bar owner case), this all in the name of political correct stuff.

Now talking crap about/expelling/firing the average christian person is all OK for local media & "equality defenders" (the person could bring the case to court though), while on the other hand, be sure you would be "slammed" pretty hard by both media and justice in the so called "liberal-freedom" states if you dared to talk crap about/expel/fire people the LGBTQ community. Now, dare to say it's equality when some have a higher "protection"! :smt047
Image
Image
Spoiler

Incarnate - LG - LG1 - LG2 - LG3 - LG4 - AG - EAG ~ AGoL - Completed
Spoiler
<Dmonix> Damnit Jim how come every conversation with you always ends up discussing something deep and meaningful?
<Dmonix> We always end up discussing male/female differences or politics or football
<Dmonix> All the really important issues in life
Psyko
The Irresistible
Posts: 5636
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:09 pm
ID: 0
Location: USA

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Sol wrote:
Psyko wrote:
Sol wrote:
Psyko wrote:
Sniperwax wrote:I've been kicked out of many bars. Sometimes for good reason and sometimes not. These drama activists need to find a new bar and abstain from all the tearful spinelessness.
I'm sure you did something to be kicked out of those bars. It wasn't simply based upon your appearance.

It's not dramatic to react when you suddenly have a 4 year relationship with a venue go up in flames via voicemail because of something you didn't even do.
Freedom of choice? The man owned the club so why should he have no say as to who's allowed in or not? Regardless of his reasons. I have a right to shoot trespasses on my property for whatever reason they envisage, because I own it.
It's not trespassing to be a customer.

The law says you can't refuse equal service based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, sex, age, disability or religion. Freedom of choice in who you serve doesn't give you the right to ban a black person from your place of business. The only thing Oregon did was add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the anti-discrimination law.
Indeed, but that land is still mine, if I suddenly deny a farmhands work and throw him off the property for whatever reason I can. The business is still his. I'm just pointing out the whole discrimination thing is a bit nonsense, sure it may not be fair for some but you shouldn't be forcing people who to serve, there is enough red tape as it is. If people refute their business to some group then that's their revenue loss.
While it's someones freedom of choice to what they do (cross dress etc.) it should still be another persons freedom of choice to deny them in their establishment.
Oregon is an Employment at Will state, which neither the employer or the employee needs a viable reason to end their employment agreement; you can fire someone without reason (except discrimination, of course). So your example applies to employment, not consumption of goods.

If this bar refused to serve Muslims, Christians, Hispanics, or anyone over the age of 30, that would have received the same service as people not classified in any of those groups they would be in violation of Federal Law. A discrimination complaint could be filed and a similar ruling would likely have been made.
Sniperwax wrote:
Sol wrote:
Psyko wrote:
Sol wrote:
Psyko wrote:
Sniperwax wrote:I've been kicked out of many bars. Sometimes for good reason and sometimes not. These drama activists need to find a new bar and abstain from all the tearful spinelessness.
I'm sure you did something to be kicked out of those bars. It wasn't simply based upon your appearance.

It's not dramatic to react when you suddenly have a 4 year relationship with a venue go up in flames via voicemail because of something you didn't even do.
Freedom of choice? The man owned the club so why should he have no say as to who's allowed in or not? Regardless of his reasons. I have a right to shoot trespasses on my property for whatever reason they envisage, because I own it.
It's not trespassing to be a customer.

The law says you can't refuse equal service based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, sex, age, disability or religion. Freedom of choice in who you serve doesn't give you the right to ban a black person from your place of business. The only thing Oregon did was add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the anti-discrimination law.
Indeed, but that land is still mine, if I suddenly deny a farmhands work and throw him off the property for whatever reason I can. The business is still his. I'm just pointing out the whole discrimination thing is a bit nonsense, sure it may not be fair for some but you shouldn't be forcing people who to serve, there is enough red tape as it is. If people refute their business to some group then that's their revenue loss.
While it's someones freedom of choice to what they do (cross dress etc.) it should still be another persons freedom of choice to deny them in their establishment.
Taverns in particular are full of situations where a person or persons need to be removed. This is a necessary evil and it has been that way forever. You do not wait until situations escalate you risk losing your liquor license this way. You remove one party of a conflict from the scene and whether they deserved it or not is entirely irrelevant.

This isn't a topic of discrimination. The topic is grown adults crying because their feelings were hurt very bad by some big bad meanie-pants.
Taverns do have situations where a person or group of people may need to be removed to avoid conflict, but that is not what happened here.

The group had a normal Friday night out at the bar, the same as they had every Friday for the previous 4 years. Days later, the leader of their group received a voicemail saying they weren't welcome anymore because their presence made people think it was a gay or tranny bar. That's not really a good reason, especially with the bar having previously held LGBTQ events at their bar and having advertised for it. There was no conflict. Nothing to indicate their time at the bar was coming to an end. The OLCC liquor license was never in jeopardy.

It is a topic of discrimination, according to the law. The complaint was filed because the T-Girls know the law and knew the actions of the bar were in violation of the law. If they just wanted to complain about people being mean to them for who they are, they could do so on their facebook page or contact the news just to rile up the community and cause the bar to lose even more business. They didn't publicize any of this; they filed a complaint and waited for the state to investigate. These girls face mean people every day of their lives because people are closed minded and judgmental; if this issue was just about someone being mean to them, they would respond the way they have to with everyone else ~ by shrugging it off and walking away. But to be refused a public service (going into a bar, hitting up a Starbucks, shopping at Macy's, buying a wedding dress, ordering a cake, etc) based upon how they look is more than just being mean; it's discrimination.

There was a Rue21 in Eugene last week who told a 14 year old girl who was shopping with her friend that she was "too fat" to be in the store and told to leave. That employee violated Rue21's personal anti-discrimination policy. Not an anti-being mean to customers policy. It was discrimination.
Sol wrote:The reason why this thread exists is because of that discrimination clause, take it away and the media wouldn't care much of stories like this.
Bouncers/club owners, discriminate all the time anyway, it's just that when sexuality gets involved everyone goes crazy :P.
That's because anyone who is not homo-normative is currently being treated as a second-class citizen. As if their sexuality somehow takes away their right to equal treatment under the law.

People went crazy over issues like this during the civil rights movement, or before/during/after the Civil war in regard to slavery. It's a debate over whether or not a specific personal attribute prevents a group of people from being seen as equal in the eyes of the law.
Juliette wrote:The fact that they happen to be gay, or black, or whatever Oregon considers a point of discrimination.. doesn't make it discrimination to throw them out.

/argument (Judge is a scaredy cat. "Ooh, LGBT people. I must rule in favour because omg, they can't get married and they might TP my house and paint it yellow, sad sad. Here, let me bankrupt this good man for you, no problem!")


Now, about these people who abuse their religion/sexual orientation/race/whatever to get their every **Filtered** wish granted.. what the hell is up with that?
Loki™ wrote:I think the way LBGT people are being catered to is ridiculous. They should be treated like any other person.
They weren't thrown out because of anything they did. They received a phone call days after their last visit to the bar and told not to return because they were trangendered. It would not be discrimination to throw them out if they were drunk and disorderly, raucous, or any other reason a person may be thrown out of a bar. If they had filed a complaint after being banned from the bar after a fight, the state would not have ruled in their favor, even if they are LGBTQ.

Loki - that is exactly what the LGBTQ community is asking for: to be treated the same as other people. But in this situation, they were not treated like any other person. A group of black people walk into the bar, have a night out on the town, then receive a phone call saying they can't come back because the bar's regular customers won't come in anymore because they think it's all of a sudden a "black bar". That doesn't happen, not legally, anyway.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Of course it is repressive, there is no "positive" or "negative" restriction. For example: affirmative action is just a PC discrimination, doesn't mean it's not a discrimination.

The difference is the PC team won't admit they are doing repression and/or discriminating. They won't admit they are clearly discriminating against the average christian American (don't worry, the same applies in Western Europe thanks to liberals in power and their twisted values) in the way that the average christian american will always be wrong, even if it includes a clear drop of its revenue (see the bar owner case), this all in the name of political correct stuff.

Now talking crap about/expelling/firing the average christian person is all OK for local media & "equality defenders" (the person could bring the case to court though), while on the other hand, be sure you would be "slammed" pretty hard by both media and justice in the so called "liberal-freedom" states if you dared to talk crap about/expel/fire people the LGBTQ community. Now, dare to say it's equality when some have a higher "protection"! :smt047
Whoa! Where did Christians come into play here?

I mean, yes, over half the T-Girls are Christian, but they weren't banned for their religion, they were banned because they are transgendered. Though it would be a similar issue if it were the other way around. As to whether or not the bar owner is a Christian, I can't say, and he never claims to have made his decision based on his religious beliefs. He's also not anti-LGBTQ ~ he just doesn't want his bar to be known as a gay or tranny bar, and the answer to that is better advertising, not banning a particular group of people from the premises.

Affirmative Action was created in the 60s by President Kennedy to redress discrimination that persisted after the civil rights movement and was meant to be temporary until there was a level playing field that granted everyone, regardless of race or religion or sex, equal employment and educational opportunities. It hardly applies in this matter, and if you want to berate "the Liberals" on their use of this Action in laws, you should probably create another thread, since it doesn't really apply to the particular article you brought forth to discuss.

However, I don't necessarily agree with the continued use of Affirmative Action. Many of the inequalities it was meant to counteract have been leveled out. I do still have an issue with women in the same position at a company as a male counterpart being paid less/hour or a smaller salary for performing the same tasks and duties. But many companies are working on fixing that based on a societal demand, not because of Affirmative Action. But, again, that's a completely different topic.
愛美
Section Admin of
General and the GC
Image
Image
User avatar
Legendary Apophis
Forum History
Posts: 13681
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:54 pm
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Apophis the Great
Location: Ha'TaK

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

I was talking in general about Christians, the fact that it's more "in" to behave wrongly against Christians than others and therefore, less likely to face such a massive fine. I am sure if expelled people were Christians let's say displaying clearly their beliefs, that if they were expelled from this bar for same reasons, they wouldn't have received $400k. Much less.
Image
Image
Spoiler

Incarnate - LG - LG1 - LG2 - LG3 - LG4 - AG - EAG ~ AGoL - Completed
Spoiler
<Dmonix> Damnit Jim how come every conversation with you always ends up discussing something deep and meaningful?
<Dmonix> We always end up discussing male/female differences or politics or football
<Dmonix> All the really important issues in life
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Yes, well.. I see Psyko's point as well.

If they would have been expelled, the issue would be different.
Now, they were allowed to be there, until the owner decided he didn't want them to show up the next day, so he called them and said, "Don't come back."
If he were so adamant about not allowing them in his club, he should have expelled them on the spot. Not the day after.


That being said, the figures used are completely ridiculous of course. Like I said, this could have been solved over a few drinks and a good conversation. Instead, our 'omg traumatised' drama queens went straight to court. It is that sort of pathetic behaviour that makes me think the whole affirmative action happening in courtrooms makes it far more appealing for LGBT to misbehave. After all, if anything goes to court, LGBT will win.. no judge dares touch that. Well, maybe in Texas or Tennessee. :P
Image
User avatar
Loki™
Forum Elder
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:43 am
Alliance: Jötunheim
Race: System Lord
ID: 41339
Alternate name(s): Lloth, Sargonnas, D4ywalk3r

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Psyko wrote:
Loki™ wrote:I think the way LBGT people are being catered to is ridiculous. They should be treated like any other person.
They weren't thrown out because of anything they did. They received a phone call days after their last visit to the bar and told not to return because they were trangendered. It would not be discrimination to throw them out if they were drunk and disorderly, raucous, or any other reason a person may be thrown out of a bar. If they had filed a complaint after being banned from the bar after a fight, the state would not have ruled in their favor, even if they are LGBTQ.

Loki - that is exactly what the LGBTQ community is asking for: to be treated the same as other people. But in this situation, they were not treated like any other person. A group of black people walk into the bar, have a night out on the town, then receive a phone call saying they can't come back because the bar's regular customers won't come in anymore because they think it's all of a sudden a "black bar". That doesn't happen, not legally, anyway.
I agree that the owner should have been fined. But for like 1k per person like I said before and 400k is just crazy. That fine was 400k because the general consensus in media is that LBGT people need extra protection and the judge is buying into that belief as well.
The overly aggressive way their rights are campaigned for is extremely annoying and it's starting to feel like they have more rights not less.
Juliette wrote:Yes, well.. I see Psyko's point as well.

If they would have been expelled, the issue would be different.
Now, they were allowed to be there, until the owner decided he didn't want them to show up the next day, so he called them and said, "Don't come back."
If he were so adamant about not allowing them in his club, he should have expelled them on the spot. Not the day after.


That being said, the figures used are completely ridiculous of course. Like I said, this could have been solved over a few drinks and a good conversation. Instead, our 'omg traumatised' drama queens went straight to court. It is that sort of pathetic behaviour that makes me think the whole affirmative action happening in courtrooms makes it far more appealing for LGBT to misbehave. After all, if anything goes to court, LGBT will win.. no judge dares touch that. Well, maybe in Texas or Tennessee. :P
+1
Image
Image
Spoiler
Image

Image
And Loki saw every thing that he had farmed, and, behold, it was very good.
Spoiler
George Hazard says:
thats what happens, HVE takes your soul and gives you an awesome high
when you leave, you can't live without it
ImageImage

The forces of Loki™ rush in full force, and inflict 1,086,054,534,340,000 damage on Pooop's forces!
It was confirmed that 12,620,737 of Pooop's forces fell at the hands of Loki™'s assult.

The forces of Pooop fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 481,837,854,506,000 damage on Loki™'s forces!
They managed to eradicate 1,988,050 of Loki™'s troops.
Sniperwax
Forum Regular
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:59 pm
ID: 0

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

They didn't work for the bar. They weren't students at the bar. They weren't residents of the bar. They were customers at the bar! The dollar is mightier than the sword to a consumer in a capitalist society.

While what happened to these fashionably challenged individuals is unfortunate we cannot promote the curling up into a ball and sobbing in a corner mentality. The school of hard knocks has become the school of hugging puppies until we run out of Kleenex.

They were discreetly asked to find a new hangout instead of being tossed out like ruffians and the punishment is one in the same. People that don't like the service they are paying for take their business elsewhere. Excellent exile candidates whine and get lawyers involved and rub their groins profusely at the thought of being that victim being interviewed by the media.

I used to drink after work nightly with about 25 dudes and 2 chicks. We would occasionally be asked to find a new bar because we were too blue collar hanging out in white collar spots. Life is unfair freaking deal with it sissies.
Psyko
The Irresistible
Posts: 5636
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:09 pm
ID: 0
Location: USA

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Legendary Apophis wrote:I was talking in general about Christians, the fact that it's more "in" to behave wrongly against Christians than others and therefore, less likely to face such a massive fine. I am sure if expelled people were Christians let's say displaying clearly their beliefs, that if they were expelled from this bar for same reasons, they wouldn't have received $400k. Much less.
Fascinating, considering the fact that nothing in your original post or the article cited are Christians or their religion mentioned. I don't understand how you can take a debate over discrimination of transgendered individuals and immediately related it to Christian treatment without actually proving that the same situation occurred to a Christian group, and if it did, why the heck didn't you reference that article instead of the one you did.

If you wanted to make that debate, you could bring up the Sweet Cakes bakery issue that happened in my metro-area community, because that is an actual case where there is a fight between religion/religious freedom and discrimination against homosexuals.
Loki™ wrote:
Psyko wrote:
Loki™ wrote:I think the way LBGT people are being catered to is ridiculous. They should be treated like any other person.
They weren't thrown out because of anything they did. They received a phone call days after their last visit to the bar and told not to return because they were trangendered. It would not be discrimination to throw them out if they were drunk and disorderly, raucous, or any other reason a person may be thrown out of a bar. If they had filed a complaint after being banned from the bar after a fight, the state would not have ruled in their favor, even if they are LGBTQ.

Loki - that is exactly what the LGBTQ community is asking for: to be treated the same as other people. But in this situation, they were not treated like any other person. A group of black people walk into the bar, have a night out on the town, then receive a phone call saying they can't come back because the bar's regular customers won't come in anymore because they think it's all of a sudden a "black bar". That doesn't happen, not legally, anyway.
I agree that the owner should have been fined. But for like 1k per person like I said before and 400k is just crazy. That fine was 400k because the general consensus in media is that LBGT people need extra protection and the judge is buying into that belief as well.
The overly aggressive way their rights are campaigned for is extremely annoying and it's starting to feel like they have more rights not less.
I never agreed to the sum, and I don't know much more than the news is reporting, but the 400,000K was not a blanket ruling; it was a rough total of what the bar will have to pay out to particular individuals. Obviously, there is more information that has yet to be shared, since the T-Girls did not all receive the same settlement sum. Also, with the current legal system in this country, a 1K ruling in the T-Girls' favor would result in about $40 in their pocket; the sum is meant to pay for their court costs, the lawyers always take their cut, and then they would receive what is left over.

My family recently received a $100,000 settlement in a lawsuit. Of that award, we receive about $36K paid out over the next year. It's not as if these girls are suddenly rich because a few of them were awarded $20,000; they aren't going to get anywhere close to that much in their bank accounts.

I don't personally believe taking things to court is always the best answer. The T-Girls could have chosen to simply find a different bar, since we have so many within the city limits, and left it at that. But, again, I don't know all of the details and there may be more incidents against the owner than a couple voicemails.
愛美
Section Admin of
General and the GC
Image
Image
User avatar
Loki™
Forum Elder
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:43 am
Alliance: Jötunheim
Race: System Lord
ID: 41339
Alternate name(s): Lloth, Sargonnas, D4ywalk3r

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

No matter what the owner should not have to pay 400k.
Image
Image
Spoiler
Image

Image
And Loki saw every thing that he had farmed, and, behold, it was very good.
Spoiler
George Hazard says:
thats what happens, HVE takes your soul and gives you an awesome high
when you leave, you can't live without it
ImageImage

The forces of Loki™ rush in full force, and inflict 1,086,054,534,340,000 damage on Pooop's forces!
It was confirmed that 12,620,737 of Pooop's forces fell at the hands of Loki™'s assult.

The forces of Pooop fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 481,837,854,506,000 damage on Loki™'s forces!
They managed to eradicate 1,988,050 of Loki™'s troops.
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Psyko wrote:I never agreed to the sum, and I don't know much more than the news is reporting, but the 400,000K was not a blanket ruling; it was a rough total of what the bar will have to pay out to particular individuals. Obviously, there is more information that has yet to be shared, since the T-Girls did not all receive the same settlement sum. Also, with the current legal system in this country, a 1K ruling in the T-Girls' favor would result in about $40 in their pocket; the sum is meant to pay for their court costs, the lawyers always take their cut, and then they would receive what is left over.
The bar owner is bankrupt because those idiots didn't have the bleeding decency to discuss it, instead of immediately running to court going all "OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG gaycism".
Psyko wrote:My family recently received a $100,000 settlement in a lawsuit. Of that award, we receive about $36K paid out over the next year. It's not as if these girls are suddenly rich because a few of them were awarded $20,000; they aren't going to get anywhere close to that much in their bank accounts.
It is not about how much you receive. It is about bankrupting the bar owner. Last time I checked, most people don't have 400k laying around to just spend on some willy-nilly frivolous settlement.
Psyko wrote:I don't personally believe taking things to court is always the best answer. The T-Girls could have chosen to simply find a different bar, since we have so many within the city limits, and left it at that. But, again, I don't know all of the details and there may be more incidents against the owner than a couple voicemails.
There may be.
But based on what has been released, it is a ludicrous lawsuit, a ridiculous settlement, and another victory for the "OMG gaycism, run to court and kill them"-mentality.
Image
Psyko
The Irresistible
Posts: 5636
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:09 pm
ID: 0
Location: USA

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Juliette wrote:
Psyko wrote:I never agreed to the sum, and I don't know much more than the news is reporting, but the 400,000K was not a blanket ruling; it was a rough total of what the bar will have to pay out to particular individuals. Obviously, there is more information that has yet to be shared, since the T-Girls did not all receive the same settlement sum. Also, with the current legal system in this country, a 1K ruling in the T-Girls' favor would result in about $40 in their pocket; the sum is meant to pay for their court costs, the lawyers always take their cut, and then they would receive what is left over.
The bar owner is bankrupt because those idiots didn't have the bleeding decency to discuss it, instead of immediately running to court going all "OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG gaycism".
Psyko wrote:My family recently received a $100,000 settlement in a lawsuit. Of that award, we receive about $36K paid out over the next year. It's not as if these girls are suddenly rich because a few of them were awarded $20,000; they aren't going to get anywhere close to that much in their bank accounts.
It is not about how much you receive. It is about bankrupting the bar owner. Last time I checked, most people don't have 400k laying around to just spend on some willy-nilly frivolous settlement.
Psyko wrote:I don't personally believe taking things to court is always the best answer. The T-Girls could have chosen to simply find a different bar, since we have so many within the city limits, and left it at that. But, again, I don't know all of the details and there may be more incidents against the owner than a couple voicemails.
There may be.
But based on what has been released, it is a ludicrous lawsuit, a ridiculous settlement, and another victory for the "OMG gaycism, run to court and kill them"-mentality.
Yeah, it sucks for the bar owner, but the bar is still open and making money. I'm not denying that. I am only defending the law being in place. Lawsuits always have a loser; there is no way both sides will be happy with the outcome.
愛美
Section Admin of
General and the GC
Image
Image
Post Reply

Return to “General intelligent discussion topics”