Page 1 of 3

Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:20 am
by Legendary Apophis
This past week, a Portland bar owner was ordered to pay $400,000 to a group of cross-dressers he banned from his club last year. The penalty was actually the first to be imposed under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007.
[...]He pointed out that Penner had let them in his bar for four years without incident. Radmacher said Penner and the club had an informal agreement to discuss if there were ever issues with them hanging out at The P Club, and this incident was Penner trying to have a dialogue.

"He's not anti-LGBT. He doesn't want to be a poster child for somebody who is going to oppose all races, genders, etc. from coming into places of public accommodation," Radmacher said.

Penner can file an appeal but hasn't yet decided if he will or not.

If the ruling stands, the $400,000 in damages will be paid to 11 members of the “T-Girls” who testified at the case hearing. Each member will receive between $20,000 and $50,000, depending on how much state officials determined they suffered.

Cassandra, the woman who received the voice mails from Penner, was awarded the highest amount – $50,000 – for the “emotional, mental and physical” suffering she experienced.

The state found two other members of the group also suffered physical problems based on this incident.

Additionally, the bar was ordered to pay $5,000 in civil penalties. [...]
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Bar-has- ... =video&c=y


Dictatorship of PC and liberals ruling. $400k for such a thing, complete madness!

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:12 pm
by Loki™
Maybe 1k per person but 400k? ](*,)

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:13 pm
by Juliette
Loki™ wrote:Maybe 1k per person but 400k? ](*,)
Instead of just solving it with a couple of drinks. ;)

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:13 pm
by Sniperwax
Anyone who suffers emotional, mental, and physical anguish in such a manner should be discarded immediately. No weak links can be tolerated. Eradicate them all! My name is Sniperwax and I support this message.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 1:40 pm
by Juliette
Sniperwax wrote:Anyone who suffers emotional, mental, and physical anguish in such a manner should be discarded immediately. No weak links can be tolerated. Eradicate them all! My name is Sniperwax and I support this message.
Such a Hillary.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:57 pm
by Psyko
Legendary Apophis wrote:This past week, a Portland bar owner was ordered to pay $400,000 to a group of cross-dressers he banned from his club last year. The penalty was actually the first to be imposed under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007.
[...]He pointed out that Penner had let them in his bar for four years without incident. Radmacher said Penner and the club had an informal agreement to discuss if there were ever issues with them hanging out at The P Club, and this incident was Penner trying to have a dialogue.

"He's not anti-LGBT. He doesn't want to be a poster child for somebody who is going to oppose all races, genders, etc. from coming into places of public accommodation," Radmacher said.

Penner can file an appeal but hasn't yet decided if he will or not.

If the ruling stands, the $400,000 in damages will be paid to 11 members of the “T-Girls” who testified at the case hearing. Each member will receive between $20,000 and $50,000, depending on how much state officials determined they suffered.

Cassandra, the woman who received the voice mails from Penner, was awarded the highest amount – $50,000 – for the “emotional, mental and physical” suffering she experienced.

The state found two other members of the group also suffered physical problems based on this incident.

Additionally, the bar was ordered to pay $5,000 in civil penalties. [...]
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Bar-has- ... =video&c=y


Dictatorship of PC and liberals ruling. $400k for such a thing, complete madness!
My sweet, wonderful city....

DID THE RIGHT THING!

If people think your bar is a tranny or gay bar, the right thing to do would be to increase advertising and promotion in a manner which did not indicate it was a gay or tranny bar. If a group of people continually come into your bar and happen to be gay or transgendered, are paying customers, and do not violate any laws or disrupt the other patrons, the bar has NO RIGHT to throw them out because of who they are.

It is discrimination, and it shouldn't be tolerated. The T-Girls are a wonderful group of people and did not deserve to receive such a hateful reaction after frequenting the bar for over 4 years without incident. For the record, they aren't just cross-dressers.

The 400K ruling was high, but after court costs and legal fees, they won't actually be getting much money at all. My guess is the ruling was also meant to make an example out of this behavior. We don't like discrimination, whether it's based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else.

I love my city.


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. ](*,)

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:05 pm
by papa~smurf
what where they doing that made the owner ask them to leave, and what cause him to call one. incomplete info tbh. how ever, i do believe that owners do have the right not to take money from any one they want. It not a good finical plan, but what ever.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:13 pm
by Psyko
papa~smurf wrote:what where they doing that made the owner ask them to leave, and what cause him to call one. incomplete info tbh. how ever, i do believe that owners do have the right not to take money from any one they want. It not a good finical plan, but what ever.
http://www.pqmonthly.com/boli-orders-p- ... -act/16419
Avakian filed the complaint in August 2012 after learning that Penner had left two voicemails for T-Girls founder Cassandra Lynn asking the group, which had been meeting at the bar every Friday night for about two years, not to return. In the messages, he claimed he had lost business since the social club for T-girls (trans women and cross-dressers) and their friends began frequenting the bar.

“I’m going to have to ask for you, Cass, and your group not to come back on Friday nights. I really don’t like having to do that but unfortunately it’s the area we’re in and its hurting business a lot,” the June 18 message left on Lynn’s cell phone says. A June 21 message adds: “I’ve done some investigating why my sales are declining and there’s two things I keep hearing: People think that a) we’re a tranny bar or b) we’re a gay bar. We are neither. People are not coming in because they just don’t want to be there on a Friday night now.”
While I can understand his frustrations as a business owner, he later admits...
When PQ talked to Penner last August, he insisted that he did not discriminate, citing past LGBTQ functions held at the bar, as well as the identities of staff members.
Hmm...so maybe it's your LGBTQ functions which might give off the vibe of being a gay or tranny bar, because functions like that are advertised. But to blame it on a group of regulars....pfft. Discrimination, and also using the group as a scapegoat for his own advertising inadequacies.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:25 pm
by Sniperwax
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.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:35 pm
by Psyko
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.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:49 pm
by Sol
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.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 5:54 pm
by Psyko
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.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:05 pm
by Sol
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.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 6:39 pm
by Sniperwax
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.

Re: Oregon: repressive state?

Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:08 pm
by Sol
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.
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.