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 person
s 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
.
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"!
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.