Oregon bar owner fined $400,000 for discriminating against transgender customers

Started by Skynet, August 31, 2013, 03:41:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Skynet

Here's the story.

A Portland bar owner violated the city's anti-discrimination laws when he banned a group of transgender customers (who regularly came to the bar for a year) from the establishment, claiming that it affected his business.

This is the first high-profile case I've heard of in the United States.  Hopefully this is a sign of  building progress, after legal victories in California and Colorado for transgender students.

Aiden

I personally think it is bullshit. If it is his business, he has the right to serve those who wishes and deny service to others.

DO I agree with discrimination? No, but his business, let him run it as he wishes.

Kythia

I'm not sure I like this.  If they'd have walked in the first time and he'd told them to get out then fine.  But coming for over a year and then the reason given that they were harming the business?  Assuming that was true - I have no idea - then, yeah, I'm not sure I like this. 

Aiden posted while I was typing but yeah, what he said.
242037

Ephiral

Wasn't that debate settled back in the 60s? If you open to the general public, you open to the general public. Would it have been okay if he'd tossed out a bunch of long-term clients because they were black?

Kythia

No, but it would be OK if he'd thrown out a bunch of long term black customers because they were harming sales.  He didn't throw them out because they were transgender, he threw them out because they were harming his business. 
242037

Ephiral

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 04:08:49 PM
No, but it would be OK if he'd thrown out a bunch of long term black customers because they were harming sales.  He didn't throw them out because they were transgender, he threw them out because they were harming his business.
How exactly were they harming his business? By patronizing it on a regular basis? No, they were "harming his business" by being trans. So yes, he threw them out for being trans.

Beguile's Mistress

They may have been regular customers but if their patronage was causing others to leave or not return the loss of revenue is a detriment to the business.

A restaurant in a town nearby catered to the non-binary crowd but when a popular chef from a restaurant that burned was hired fans of his started eating there.  They didn't care about the type of place it was but the regular customers and management felt uncomfortable and worried the place would change.  The straight couples were asked to find another place to eat and not return.

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 04:11:41 PM
How exactly were they harming his business? By patronizing it on a regular basis? No, they were "harming his business" by being trans. So yes, he threw them out for being trans.

I see your point but I think its largely semantic. I'm trying to think of an analogy but drawing a blank a little.  They weren't harming his business by being trans, they were harming his business by making other customers not want to come.    My point is that if - again I have no idea whether its true or not, but assuming it is - if a group of clients are harming a business then the business should have the right to refuse them service.   At least that's my first thought.  Still not 100% sure what I think about this but my gut instinct is to be on his side.

Half a million dollars is presumably enough to shut him down.  Look at it from his point of view.  He had a group of customers that were harming his business, that he never asked for.  He gave it a while - a year - but the situation didn't improve.  He asked them to leave. 
242037

Kythia

OK.  Imagine a group of bikers - leather jackets, love and hate tattoos on knuckles, stereotypically scary - started drinking there.  They're not causing trouble but the place is getting a reputation as a biker bar and these people are driving away other custom.  Would you think he had the right to ask them to stop coming?  I get the parallel isn't perfect but, yeah, do you think he'd have that right?
242037

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on August 31, 2013, 04:18:38 PM
They may have been regular customers but if their patronage was causing others to leave or not return the loss of revenue is a detriment to the business.

A restaurant in a town nearby catered to the non-binary crowd but when a popular chef from a restaurant that burned was hired fans of his started eating there.  They didn't care about the type of place it was but the regular customers and management felt uncomfortable and worried the place would change.  The straight couples were asked to find another place to eat and not return.

I'd say the patron (the owner) of a shop, a bar or a restaurant - or a night spot - has the right to say they don't want a certain kind of people in as customers. A local food and everyday store around here banned gypsy women, as long as they were dressed in traditional roma/gypsy way. It was a fairly small shop, often manned just by one to three people, no surveillance camera except near the counter, and the manager had had trouble for some time with groups of gypsy women coming in, spreading around the shop and (he alleged) lifting stuff into their wide, multilayered skirts. Often one or two of the ladies would engage the counter clerk or assistant in talk about something as a foil and to prevent them from going after those who did the actual lifting. After a few minutes the whole band disappeared out again without buying a thing. According to the manager, this had happened regularly for a couple of months.

The manager stated it was plain that stuff had been stolen and that his staff had actually seen several very suspicious incidents but had been unable to stop the women because it was crowded  - as a shop clerk you really can't run after everyone you see who you think is behaving suspiciously, not if it happens at a fast rate and it's a gang operation. That was on the manager's word, of course, but I would be prepared to believe him, it wouldn't have been an easy decision.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Beguile's Mistress

@gaggedLouise ~ Stores have had a long tradition of limiting the number of school kids allowed in a store at any one time for that reason and because of normal hijinks that damage the store and can cause injury.  They also post signs that between certain hours no more than a certain number of patrons are allowed inside.  The loss of merchandise and insurance claims as well as lawsuits can be crippling.

Ephiral

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 04:29:41 PM
OK.  Imagine a group of bikers - leather jackets, love and hate tattoos on knuckles, stereotypically scary - started drinking there.  They're not causing trouble but the place is getting a reputation as a biker bar and these people are driving away other custom.  Would you think he had the right to ask them to stop coming?  I get the parallel isn't perfect but, yeah, do you think he'd have that right?
Yes, because "biker" is not an inherent trait. Try this: Would it have been okay for him to reject Muslims or black people (or - gasp! - black Muslims) because some EDL-types said they wouldn't go there?

If so, are any and all anti-discrimination laws bad? Because this renders them essentially unenforceable.

Quote from: gaggedLouise on August 31, 2013, 04:34:59 PM
I'd say the patron of a shop, a bar or a restaurant - or a night spot - has the right to say they don't want a certain kind of people in as customers. A local food and everyday store around here banned gypsy women, as long as they were dressed in traditional roma/gypsy way. It was a fairly small shop, often manned just by one to three people, no surveillance camera except near the counter, and the manager had had trouble for some time with groups of gypsy women coming in, spreading around the shop and (he alleged) lifting stuff into their wide, multilayered skirts. Often one or two of the ladies would engage the counter clerk or assistant in talk about something as a foil and to prevent them from going after those who did the actual lifting. After a few minutes the whole band disappeared out again without buying a thing. According to the manager, this had happened regularly for a couple of months.

The manager stated it was plain that stuff had been stolen and that his staff had actually seen several very suspicious incidents but had been unable to stop the women because it was crowded  - as a shop clerk you really can't run after everyone you see who you think is behaving suspiciously, not if it happens at a fast rate and it's a gang operation. That was on the manager's word, of course, but I would be prepared to believe him, it wouldn't have been an easy decision.
Sorry, but this is just racist. The obvious and correct solution there is to ban wide, multilayered skirts, and say nothing about the people in them.

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 04:44:46 PM
Yes, because "biker" is not an inherent trait. Try this: Would it have been okay for him to reject Muslims or black people (or - gasp! - black Muslims) because some EDL-types said they wouldn't go there?

Yes.  Or rather "almost".  He didn't ban them because people said they wouldn't drink there, he banned them because people weren't drinking there.  Adjusting your question to that phrasing, yes.  It's his bar, why should he be run to the ground and forced out of business?  If he was the only bar in Oregon than it would be different but, lacking any knowledge whatsoever, I'm gonna say he isn't.

QuoteIf so, are any and all anti-discrimination laws bad? Because this renders them essentially unenforceable.

But think about the message this has sent to other Oregon bar owners.  Is it "you should let this group drink at your bar" or is it "this group will drink at your bar, drive all your customers away then force you to close if you object - find some excuse to not let them through the door."  Is that the goal of anti-discrimination laws?  I suspect not.
242037

Beguile's Mistress

@Ephiral ~ If an owner has a chance to think about it might go the politically correct way and if it's pointed out in a non-confrontational way without name calling they might be more inclined to respond favorably.  Of course, there will probably be the radical out there who will still call it racist because only gypsies are seen wearing that type of clothing.

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 04:51:38 PM
But think about the message this has sent to other Oregon bar owners.  Is it "you should let this group drink at your bar" or is it "this group will drink at your bar, drive all your customers away then force you to close if you object - find some excuse to not let them through the door."  Is that the goal of anti-discrimination laws?  I suspect not.

As people who have felt discriminated against gain more freedoms and privileges heretofore denied them they have to remember their responsibility to co-exist in the world around them rather than be the group now forcing cultures and ideologies on others.

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 04:44:46 PM
Sorry, but this is just racist. The obvious and correct solution there is to ban wide, multilayered skirts, and say nothing about the people in them.

No, it's not. He clearly said gypsies were welcome if they didn't wear traditional gypsy garb and didn't come in a big group, just one or two at a time. But the only people who had been troubling his business in this way were gypsies, because nobody else around here has that kind of really wide, multi-layered skirts, three or four quite separate layers - and skirts that actually give you the space to hide a good deal of objects under them; try shoplifting that way with a pencil skirt?  ;)

And a ban against "suspicious multi-layered skirts" wouldn't have been possible to enforce, it would have landed the personnel in endless discussions with customers. If a woman in a billowing, European-style evening dress comes in to buy a newspaper and a packet of cigarettes, obviously shoplifting isn't going to be an issue. They had to have something that was clearcut and actually matched the kind of people that had been causing the trouble.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Ephiral

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 04:51:38 PMBut think about the message this has sent to other Oregon bar owners.  Is it "you should let this group drink at your bar" or is it "this group will drink at your bar, drive all your customers away then force you to close if you object - find some excuse to not let them through the door."  Is that the goal of anti-discrimination laws?  I suspect not.
...except the part where the thing that killed his business - it had gotten by for a year with these customers, remember - was refusing service to a legally-protected minority. So the message is "Refusing service to minorities on the basis of their minority status will be more painful to you than being a decent human being."

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on August 31, 2013, 04:55:54 PM
@Ephiral ~ If an owner has a chance to think about it might go the politically correct way and if it's pointed out in a non-confrontational way without name calling they might be more inclined to respond favorably.  Of course, there will probably be the radical out there who will still call it racist because only gypsies are seen wearing that type of clothing.

As people who have felt discriminated against gain more freedoms and privileges heretofore denied them they have to remember their responsibility to co-exist in the world around them rather than be the group now forcing cultures and ideologies on others.
Um. Could you please rephrase this, particularly the last part? It comes off as extremely condescending. First, it's not "felt discriminated against", it's "been discriminated against". Trans people aren't imagining the high rate of violence they experience, the lack of support from police in many jurisdictions, housing and employment discrimination, or service discrimination. Second, my body is not an ideology.

kylie

     I have to say the attempts to draw comparisons between trans as such, and groups that are often seen as physically or directly, materially threatening -- bikers and gypsies, or hordes of minors -- well, that's pathetically reaching.  Perhaps here and there you get "flaming" trans who may speak a little more vocally than their neighbors would like, but I don't believe the trans community has any comparable reputation for damaging places they visit by violence, mob misbehavior (at least no more than others) or theft.

     From the reports I've seen so far, the owner left a phone message that complained specifically that the bar would be viewed as a "tranny" (potentially derogatory) or gay bar.  Now, it's not okay to push people out of an establishment for being trans (or gay for that matter, not that it's at issue) any better than one could for being Black.  It seems to me that the owner calculated that he could argue this was all about sexual orientation (as in, who one wants to take to bed after drinking) just because "well it's a bar," but he ended up in a bind because 1) there is nothing about being trans that makes demands on other people's orientation and 2) even then bars do not clearly have only that one function -- people can go to eat and socialize too.

     If he really wanted to make it a "straight bar," (so he would say, but this really means some vague gender normative non-Other bar, since it's not just orientation at stake) then maybe he should research what sorts of décor trans like (or not)...  If he can pin it down to anything.  Trans seem pretty varied and flexible to me, sometimes  ;)

     Now conversely...  If the owner of any given establishment is to be considered "master of the house" to an extent they can pick and choose every detail of their clientele any day they like, then well they can throw out anyone who wears a blue shirt on Tuesday without notice (after accepting royal blue for every Tuesday the past year, in this case).  How would we get along if the local drug store in a one stoplight town operated like that?  That's a lotta miles you gotta go for some Tylenol if you're not lucky...
   
     

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 05:03:04 PM
...except the part where the thing that killed his business - it had gotten by for a year with these customers, remember - was refusing service to a legally-protected minority. So the message is "Refusing service to minorities on the basis of their minority status will be more painful to you than being a decent human being."

Its the half a million dollars fine I was referring to in killing his business. 

Sure it had got through a year, I'm not sure how that's relevant.  Was it losing money?  Was the owner shoring it up with his savings?  Businesses can take more than a year to be killed, quote easily - my boyfriend's business has been struggling for two and is shored up by loans - and the fact that they had been going there a year, to me, shows that he wasn't reacting out of bigotry or homophobia.  As I say, if he'd banned them the second they walked through the door it would be different.  But it takes some time to even realise that a group of clients are hurting sales. 

EDIT:  Missed the second half of your post, somehow, despite having quoted it.  Not sure how that happened.  Anyway -
His business is in financial trouble, presumably, from this fine.  Its also been less profitable than it could be for a year.  So he's taken a financial hit by them being there, one which wouldn't have happened if they weren't.  It seems common sense for other bar owners to learn from that.
242037

Ephiral

A person does not have to be twirling moustaches and saying "How can I discriminate against X today?" to take a bigoted action. I specifically try to avoid referring to people as bigoted for exactly this reason - most bigotry doesn't come from malice so much as from unthinking adherence to bigoted standards - which is exactly what took place here. Was this guy what most people would call "a bigot"? Almost certainly not. Was this act bigotry? Absolutely.

As to the rest: Similarly, it seems like common sense for bar owners in certain parts of the country to "learn" to refuse service to black people. Or to women. Or to straight white men, in some cases. Somehow, I don't think that this would be tolerated, let alone get the level of defense I'm seeing here.

Beguile's Mistress

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 05:03:04 PM
Um. Could you please rephrase this, particularly the last part? It comes off as extremely condescending. First, it's not "felt discriminated against", it's "been discriminated against". Trans people aren't imagining the high rate of violence they experience, the lack of support from police in many jurisdictions, housing and employment discrimination, or service discrimination. Second, my body is not an ideology.

My issue is that as groups gain freedom of expression and other privileges some seem to think the world owes them something beyond the basic respect and freedoms we all deserve. 

If using been makes you feel better feel free to do so.  I really don't care what your body is as I wasn't talking about it or that of anyone else.

Since, as usual, you seem to easily take offense where none is meant I'll leave you to your usuall methodology.  Good day all.

Ephiral

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on August 31, 2013, 05:13:12 PM
My issue is that as groups gain freedom of expression and other privileges some seem to think the world owes them something beyond the basic respect and freedoms we all deserve. 

If using been makes you feel better feel free to do so.  I really don't care what your body is as I wasn't talking about it or that of anyone else.

Since, as usual, you seem to easily take offense where none is meant I'll leave you to your usuall methodology.  Good day all.
Intent is not magical. Equating "being trans in public" with "pushing an ideology" is offensive, regardless of what you meant. I'm sorry that it bothers you to be called on this, but that does not change the facts. This is why I rather politely suggested that you think about what you were saying, and rephrase it in a way that didn't have those problems.

Blythe

The bar owner was in clear violation of the 2007 Oregon Equality Act.

Refusing service to someone because they believe them being trans* is harming one's business is still refusing them service based on their trans* status, which is clearly discrimination based on gender orientation.

So yup, I support the T-girls and their right to sue. They were within their legal rights, and kudos to them for protecting themselves against discrimination.

gaggedLouise

Quote from: kylie on August 31, 2013, 05:06:19 PM
     I have to say the attempts to draw comparisons between trans as such, and groups that are often seen as physically or directly, materially threatening -- bikers and gypsies, or hordes of minors -- well, that's pathetically reaching.  Perhaps here and there you get "flaming" trans who may speak a little more vocally than their neighbors would like, but I don't believe the trans community has any comparable reputation for damaging places they visit by violence, mob misbehavior (at least no more than others) or theft.

     From the reports I've seen so far, the owner left a phone message that complained specifically that the bar would be viewed as a "tranny" (potentially derogatory) or gay bar. 

For clarity: my pitch in this thread isn't about that specific Oregon bar.  There will be several different stories and takes on what went on from the people involved. I am only after the issue: does a manager have the right to exclude some kinds of people if he really thinks they are threatening or damaging his business, his personnel or his customers? Yes, I think they have that right - just because a bar or a shop exists and is open it doesn't mean they are obliged to let absolutely everyone in* as long as there is place. If some group really hurts business or makes a nuisance or a risk to other customers, or to the staff, the owners have a right to say that kind of customer isn't wanted, and to enforce this within reasonable limits. Especially if it's a certain behaviour that's troubling and not just these people being e.g. gay, latino, teenagers, people with dogs etc.

QuoteNow conversely...  If the owner of any given establishment is to be considered "master of the house" to an extent they can pick and choose every detail of their clientele any day they like, then well they can throw out anyone who wears a blue shirt on Tuesday without notice (after accepting royal blue for every Tuesday the past year, in this case).  How would we get along if the local drug store in a one stoplight town operated like that?  That's a lotta miles you gotta go for some Tylenol if you're not lucky...
   

If a manager or patron does that kind of thing in a way that just selects people out of the blue, for inane or racist reasons, that is going to hurt their business, and it could become a long-term stain. What "that manager" did can become a local talking point that stays around for many years after the actual feud ended. People have very long memories when it comes to having been humiliated or treated badly in a shop or a bar, or even reading about somebody who was humiliated or turned away in a local shop. Some will boycott such a place for many years and tell their friends to do it too. If it's a local shop or bar the managers won't take that kind of risk lightly.


*and as long as those people seem to have the required age to drink beer in the bar, buy some of what the shop has for sale or whatever.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 05:12:12 PM
A person does not have to be twirling moustaches and saying "How can I discriminate against X today?" to take a bigoted action. I specifically try to avoid referring to people as bigoted for exactly this reason - most bigotry doesn't come from malice so much as from unthinking adherence to bigoted standards - which is exactly what took place here. Was this guy what most people would call "a bigot"? Almost certainly not. Was this act bigotry? Absolutely.

But you still think the laws, as applied in this case, are a good idea?  That even without any mens rea he can be found guilty?  Strict liability like, I dunno, speeding?

I have a habit of asking a series of rapid fire questions that I'm aware looks aggressive.  Its not - in this case at a minimum - meant as such.  For some reason I've decided to include this caveat rather than retyping, but the point is those are meant genuinely not, I dunno, aggressively.
242037

kylie

Quote from: EphiralAs to the rest: Similarly, it seems like common sense for bar owners in certain parts of the country to "learn" to refuse service to black people. Or to women. Or to straight white men, in some cases. Somehow, I don't think that this would be tolerated, let alone get the level of defense I'm seeing here.
I don't bother to "+1" a lot of things, but I really have to second this.  It doesn't matter much to me if he just wondered if it would be okay and 'gave it a trial period,' or had a group of people who didn't like trans show up the last month or last night, or if he just woke up and said "Wow, you know those people are wacked and I should get rid of them before someone else thinks so too."   Discrimination is discrimination.  Having a bottom line income estimate or peer pressure doesn't change that (though I suppose it makes it easier to cover up and paper over, if you have enough of them). 

      I'm a little more open to arguments about how much is a reasonable penalty, but I do think that needs to consider too...  When people see de facto gender discrimination as "just business," then it may take a pretty high monetary fine to dissuade them from acting that way.
     

Blythe

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on August 31, 2013, 04:55:54 PM
@Ephiral ~ If an owner has a chance to think about it might go the politically correct way and if it's pointed out in a non-confrontational way without name calling they might be more inclined to respond favorably.  Of course, there will probably be the radical out there who will still call it racist because only gypsies are seen wearing that type of clothing.

As people who have felt discriminated against gain more freedoms and privileges heretofore denied them they have to remember their responsibility to co-exist in the world around them rather than be the group now forcing cultures and ideologies on others.

I thought I might address this point in a way that Ephiral did not. I am not sure "ideology" applies when referring to trans* people in this instance, any more than it applies to any separate group of people seeking basic rights. In a way, does it all not just fall under civil rights issues?

The term "ideology" implies that the T-girls were making some sort of political statement or furthering a culture, but they were not, you see. They merely wanted to frequent a bar they had been known for frequenting, which is just a basic right all of us feel we should have, the right to offer our patronage to businesses, so long as our behavior is appropriate. I didn't see anywhere in the article (or links the articles provided) that stated the T-girls were acting up or being upsetting. So they were denied a basic right because they were trans*, which I do genuinely feel would be discrimination.

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on August 31, 2013, 05:13:12 PM
My issue is that as groups gain freedom of expression and other privileges some seem to think the world owes them something beyond the basic respect and freedoms we all deserve. 

But....isn't this issue about basic respect, BeMi? About trans* girls having the same access to businesses regardless of their trans* status? Could you explain how this is beyond a basic right and freedom?

Beguile's Mistress

For clarification purposes only:  The word ideology is not - I repeat not - used in relation to any person in a trans category.  It is merely part of a laundry list of things.  Politics could be included as could belief in extraterrestrials or life on Mars.  It is merely an example of areas in which groups of people are gaining recognition and some are expecting others to now take the back seat they were relegated to.  I have never - repeat never - felt that any type of gender preference was an ideology.  I also don't see it as a culture which is another word I used above.

People are people and I respect everything about them whether they respect me or not. 

Formless

Regarding the original topic. I do not find it fair how they treated the bar owner. It seems he only acted that way after a whole year. Clearly it was to save his business.

Now Ephiral. Allow me to ask you this question and perhaps you may see the reason behind the bar owner's act.

Let us say he never contacted one of the T-girls. And he went on until his sales crippled and he can no longer manage the business , while he was fully aware that most of his regular customers went to another place because they had the idea that it was a ' tranny bar ' ( Not my choice of words but borrowing the source's terminology ). It was not the T girl's fault obviously. Because they could easily find another place to stay at. But what about the bar owner who clearly runs the business to bring food on the table? He is a victim. But the source of the problem does not lay in him or the T girls. But the society. So , why should he be punished for that? Would you , Ephiral , wishes for someone's loss? He asked them politely , and he served them for a whole year without any complaints. That says alot about his hospitality to everyone without any discrimination until it started to affect his own income.

Imagine running your own business , and while it went well for two years , your income started declining for no apparent reason in the third year. Once you ask around , most people who ' used ' to attend your place told you that there's X person/group who attend your place and they don't feel comfortable being around them. And not only one ex-customer , but most of your ex-customers told you the same thing. You either close your place , or as that x person/group to leave.

You can control your actions. But we cannot change everyone's mentality.

Slywyn

Reading the story itself, he didn't ask them to leave because he was losing business. He asked them to leave because his bar was beginning to get the 'rep' I guess would be the right word, as either a) a trans* bar, or b) a gay bar.

And rather than be seen as either of those things, he's asking them not to come back so they can go back to being a 'normal' bar.

If you were going to ask someone to leave because they were harming your business you'd do it immediately, you wouldn't wait an entire year, and more emphasis would be on the fact that he's losing business. He doesn't even say "everyone stopped coming", he said "People stopped coming on friday night". One night a week is hardly going to send a business into the red.

To me it seems like he sent them away just because they were "The T-Girls" and he didn't want them in his bar, not because of any effect they were actually having.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Kythia

Check this one Sylywyn.  It seems he presented evidence that sales were going down (on a Friday night - which isn't just "one night a week" it's "one of the two crucial nights for a bar"
242037

Slywyn

I still think there isn't really a way to prove that they were the cause of the decline, and there isn't really any proof given. Just "between January and June sales went down". There's no way to back up that they were the ones causing the decline(At least none that I see mentioned), and it can be written off as coincidence without anything to really prove it.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 06:13:42 PM
Check this one Sylywyn.  It seems he presented evidence that sales were going down (on a Friday night - which isn't just "one night a week" it's "one of the two crucial nights for a bar"

Hmmmm, that article is fascinating....the T-girls were coming in for four years, not one year, apparently?

Quote
He pointed out that Penner had let them in his bar for four years without incident.

But how does he know it was only the T-girls' presence that was supposedly dropping his sales on Fridays? There are a myriad of factors that go into running a successful bar and pulling in the weekend crowd. 4 years is....a lot longer than one year.

I feel like I do not know enough about the history of the bar and its sales now, which would be really useful to this discussion.  :-X

Slywyn

Quote from: Blythe on August 31, 2013, 06:18:24 PM
Hmmmm, that article is fascinating....the T-girls were coming in for four years, not one year, apparently?

But how does he know it was only the T-girls' presence that was supposedly dropping his sales on Fridays? There are a myriad of factors that go into running a successful bar and pulling in the weekend crowd. 4 years is....a lot longer than one year.

I feel like I do not know enough about the history of the bar and its sales now, which would be really useful to this discussion.  :-X

If they really have been coming in for four years, then I think his excuse of decline of sales is bogus. You would have noticed a decline long before the four years was up, and there are many other factors that can cause a decline in a bar.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

gaggedLouise

It's hard to know just how, in what manner, they would have been making other customers feel troubled. I am not saying that in the sense that 'it's just bullshit, it's quite unlikely that they could have had an adverse effect by acting in some way', I do mean we don't know because neither the manager nor the T-girl group is going to address it. Nor does the Huff Post. It's part of journalistic practice that a paper or a news outlet refrains from detail about this kind of thing. But the fact that the manager knew Cass's home phone number suggests to me that he had been discussing with that group, and with her, a couple times, and that he (and some of his customers?) may have felt they were acting up, taking too much of a space, using the bar as their arena, or even inviting too many gay buddies, outside of the group proper, to come around - and forcing others more or less into the role of spectators. On Friday nights at least, but friday nights are a peak time for any bar owner and it's also the time many people choose to check out a new bar where they haven't been before.

How much place somebody is taking, or grabbing, or being offered, in any kind of informal public place is often about unspoken deals, settlements that aren't made with lawyers, and about mutual respect to avoid open conflicts and tantrums. I think that was what BeMi was on to with saying "a group can claim basic respect", the respect everybody else gets, but it's a different ball park if they start to act like everybody owes them a lot just for being open about what they are, like "you owe me respect and affection just because I am proud of who I am".

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Kythia

Quote from: Slywyn on August 31, 2013, 06:22:50 PM
If they really have been coming in for four years, then I think his excuse of decline of sales is bogus. You would have noticed a decline long before the four years was up, and there are many other factors that can cause a decline in a bar.

From the language of the article the decline in sales is a given, just not something the law concerns itself with -

QuoteThe P Club’s decline in Friday night sales between January 2011 and June 2012 is not a defense, and no evidence was presented to show that the T-Girls had caused any other problems at the P Club that might have justified Penner’s decision to ask them not to return on Friday nights,” deputy labor commissioner Christie Hammond wrote in her findings on the case.

- though, yes, there may well be other factors. 
242037

Neysha

It's the bar owners fault for operating a small business and not expecting to drown in some sort of regulation. :P
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Blythe

Quote from: gaggedLouise on August 31, 2013, 06:28:51 PM
But the fact that the manager knew Cass's home phone number suggests to me that he had been discussing with that group, and with her, a couple times, and that he (and some of his customers?) may have felt they were acting up, taking too much of a space, using the bar as their arena and forcing others more or less into the role of spectators.

I'm not sure that knowing Cass' home phone number suggests that. I think that only suggests that the bar owner frequently communicated with at least one of the T-girls--the article only states that there was dialogue that happened, but....with no mention of what the dialogue is, inferring or assuming the topic might not get us anywhere.

I mean, they were there for four years. It's possible that the bar owner was friendly and initially making accommodations for the girls....but again, we don't actually know that.

Quote from: gaggedLouise on August 31, 2013, 06:28:51 PM
It's hard to know just how, in what manner, they would have been making other customers feel troubled. I am not saying that in the sense that 'it's just bullshit, it's quite unlikely that they could have had an adverse effect by acting in some way', I do mean we don't know because neither the manager nor the T-girl group is going to address it. Nor does the Huff Post. It's part of journalistic practice that a paper or a news outlet refrains from detail about this kind of thing.

This part of your post does sum up how I feel on things.

EDIT: Because if we don't know if/how they were affecting business, claiming they were is wrong.

Formless

Quote from: Neysha on August 31, 2013, 06:33:11 PM
It's the bar owners fault for operating a small business and not expecting to drown in some sort of regulation. :P

You have no idea how true that is.

kylie

     That thing I said, "There's nothing about being trans that makes demands on other people's orientation."  I'm not changing my argument, but I can see how people may see trans as a threat to their orientation.  Or gender for that matter!  (I suppose this can be called a form of cultural or personal insecurity.)  So I'm going to try to be gracious and stretch that out and play with it a little.  Though...  Point remains, that this is not a good defense for the owner. 

     I've only seen a couple articles and I don't know what 'flavor' of trans these gals are, that is assuming they each have relatively consistent styles from day to day or for when they go out to places like this bar, whatever it is like there.  For all I know, one of them might look like a geeky tomboy and another might look like a classic blonde Barbie doll.  Just as likely, if not more, they're a lot more "average" than that in many ways -- at least if people outside their circle are actually looking for anything "normal" when they scrutinize, I mean after they have done the common double take and picked up "oh, hmm, trans." 

      The thing is, whether it's because they are scrutinized and talked about by others or because they talk about gender and maybe pick at it among themselves or with others....  Trans often end up showing other people things about gender they aren't comfortable with.  Sometimes these are sexual details of many kinds, and sometimes they could logically be about where so many different gender options lie and how they work.  But many people have been trained to file much of gender questions under "sexuality" also...  And you know how "well, okay, that's potentially also involving some sexual choices" can often become "oh, c'mon it's always about sex" for anyone else you meet when they aren't completely on the same page.  And this brings us to situations like the owner saying "not a gay bar" etc.

      Getting to the point, I wonder if the trans girls bothered someone merely by speaking about being trans or about topics like how cis or straight people think, or perhaps even "how I used to think about sex/girls before I became out as trans" etc. etc.  I mean, these are things that can make cis and very heteronormative people uncomfortable, because they sometimes really expose or make fun of how the traditions of "straight" are often put together.  And then you have some girls -- in a group, now! -- who may or may not pass in so many ways, sometimes being checked even more closely than other women. 

      So I'm not denying that some people may get uncomfortable around trans.  But so what...  I get uncomfortable myself around some Black people, but I don't think that means the owners should chase them all away simply because I am bombarded with stereotypes in the media, and I don't know heads or tails about where they came from or what their way of speaking means. 

As to ideology, being trans and sitting in a bar is not an active billboard waving protest any more than being vegan, or being Black, or wearing Nikes, or that cis guy talking about his girlfriend(s), or whoever talking about Edward Snowden with any given person in the bar.  If you make living or speaking about trans out to be ideology, then the only question is, "Well, where does freedom of speech end for everyone at some point that others can't stand it or will blow up and wreck the place?  Does every group have to declare its own private, exclusive venue and fund it in order to go out, so there will be no publicly open areas, until they break down to the smallest possible units and damn the economics of scale or any notions of a public commons?" 

As far as sexuality...  The trans being there, whether with many gender curiosities or few visible or audible, are not "imposing" an orientation on anyone any more than the state allowing same-sex marriage is forcing anyone to have a same-sex partner (let alone to marry one)...  But oh, some are apparently so upset that they can't control themselves around trans?? What!    Well, this is nothing new I suppose.  A good few men apparently think women in general are responsible for most of their rapes, too...

Finally, what an impossible thing to police anyway -- gender!  Some women have big arm and chin bones or small or no breasts -- who knows at a glance, if they are trans or not?  Should they all be thrown out so that the owners can show they have done their best to eject everyone who might be trans?  (Or were they going to require a show of birth certificates at the door to confirm original, relative penis length?)  I don't think so. 

...........  I just think these are all inappropriate things to be targeting people over in an open to the public establishment. 

Maybe there is another category for membership only establishments that have limited access based on demographics somehow, I'm not sure.  If they are legal, then I think even those would have to establish their rules openly and periodically through some formal process --- not a targeted, private phone message to previously accepted customers.
     

Florence

Quote from: Aiden on August 31, 2013, 04:03:14 PM
I personally think it is bullshit. If it is his business, he has the right to serve those who wishes and deny service to others.

DO I agree with discrimination? No, but his business, let him run it as he wishes.

The problem is if we allow everyone to do this, we wind up with segregation all over again. Sure, I would HOPE that peoples intelligence would make them realize that more costumers = more money, and that their love of money would overpower their hate of people, but... If I've learned anything its to never bet all your chips on "people being smart or kind".

His reasoning that its hurting his business is in my opinion pretty flimsy. People think its a tranny bar or a gay bar? Put out a friggan sign in the front "Everyone's welcome" or something (I'm not a professional sign designer, sue me :U). But lets assume that this problem can't be rectified, that this IS costing him money and thus my above point of people valuing money above hatred would be invalid. Then that's exactly why we can't allow stuff this. Because if its bad for HIS business, it'll be bad for everyone else's; and they'll find themselves banned from every bar in the area.

Oh, of course, they'll get 'tranny bars' and 'gay bars', but if they shouldn't NEED special bars of their own. I feel sorry for him if he's losing business, but maybe he should think of better ways to handle it than banning people for being themselves.

NOW, if he explicitly said that they were being disruptive, unruly, causing trouble, that's one thing. But from what I'm seeing, people weren't coming because they're transgender.

THOUGH... I do wish they'd found a way to resolve this without suing him, as if he's resorted to banning regulars, I'm assuming he can't really afford the loss. And in all honesty, as I've said before I do feel bad for the guy. I wish people weren't so idiotic that he even had to consider this course of action, let alone decide to take it; and frankly, I DO hope he can find another way to stay in business.

And I find the idea of straight people being banned from a place that Beguile's Mistress mentioned just as bad. We need to promote a culture or unity, not... this group goes her and that group goes there. And as stated before the mentions of bikers and gypsies aren't really a good comparison.

Tl;dr version: Its a shitty situation for everyone, but banning these girls for being trans just isn't an acceptable way to handle the problem, in my opinion.
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

Geil

A key phrase just popped into my head that sums up what I think about this situation.

Even assuming the the bar owner's assertions were true, it's subtly incorrect to say the T-Girls' presence was causing the drop in takings and eventually potentially putting him out of business; it was the other customers' absence. There was a wrong being done, but it was being done upon the owner, by the general public's transphobia. Barring the T-Girls was a second wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Poetry in Emotion
Variety is the spice of life - I'll have the vindaloo please.
A&A Games O&O

Ephiral

...okay, going to try to reenter this conversation.

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 05:24:55 PM
But you still think the laws, as applied in this case, are a good idea?  That even without any mens rea he can be found guilty?  Strict liability like, I dunno, speeding?
If they serve the end goal of reducing discrimination and maybe making people think about the discriminatory implication of their acts, then yes, I do. There's some argument to be had about the size of the fine, but that's a distinct matter.

Quote from: Formless on August 31, 2013, 06:00:05 PMNow Ephiral. Allow me to ask you this question and perhaps you may see the reason behind the bar owner's act.

Oh, I absolutely see the reason. I'd be frustrated if my business's sales went down for a year and a half. But I wouldn't be blaming guests for a problem that started over two years after they started coming. I note that the only evidence he appears to have offered the investigation was the declining sales - where are the customers' opinions that he claimed drove his decision in the voicemail?

Relevant to the discussion: It appears that the problem was not solved by getting rid of these people - they still needed to completely rebrand the place. Best date I can put on this is nine months after this incident. A quick review of the Yelp page shows a number of low-star reviews unrelated to this issue - "too big for its own good", "boring", and "hostile clientele" show up. At least one review which defends this action goes on to give the place two stars because of the hostile clientele. So... maybe the problem wasn't the trans people, but the actively hostile clientele? Maybe the bar owner seizing on the trans people as the "obvious" reason people weren't coming back was wrong?

gaggedLouise

Let's say we had a women's clothing store that refused to sell anything to men (except gifted lingerie for their partners) or to TVs/TGs (non-operated). I would say it was a truly daft policy, perhaps even expressing dumb or transphobic atitudes from the owners, but it would be useless to try to take them to court, or to a market watchdog. If their assistants were instructed to just say to every male or trans customer "Sorry, you're in the wrong shop" or "This department doesn't carry what you're after, Sir. Men's clothing is over there, across the aisle, Thank you!" and avoided to get pulled into any discussion about why I was after a skirt, then they would be simpletons, yes, but there would be no point in trying to press it. If they really felt they didn't want any trans customers, and repelled us like that, well, game over, but there would be no point in claiming they were breaking the law.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Ephiral

Quote from: gaggedLouise on August 31, 2013, 07:05:21 PM
Let's say we had a women's clothing store that refused to sell anything to men (except gifted lingerie for their partners) or to TVs/TGs (non-operated). I would say it was a truly daft policy, perhaps even expressing dumb or transphobic atitudes from the owners, but it would be useless to try to take them to court, or to a market watchdog. If their assistants were instructed to just say to every male or trans customer "Sorry, you're in the wrong shop" or "This department doesn't carry what you're after, Sir. Men's clothing is over there, across the aisle, Thank you!" and avoided to get pulled into any discussion about why I was after a skirt, then they would be simpletons, yes, but there would be no point in trying to press it. If they really felt they didn't want any trans customers, and repelled us like that, well, game over, but there would be no point in claiming they were breaking the law.
Um. You do realise that Oregon has a law explicitly covering this?

Neysha

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 06:58:11 PM
Relevant to the discussion: It appears that the problem was not solved by getting rid of these people - they still needed to completely rebrand the place. Best date I can put on this is nine months after this incident. A quick review of the Yelp page shows a number of low-star reviews unrelated to this issue - "too big for its own good", "boring", and "hostile clientele" show up. At least one review which defends this action goes on to give the place two stars because of the hostile clientele. So... maybe the problem wasn't the trans people, but the actively hostile clientele? Maybe the bar owner seizing on the trans people as the "obvious" reason people weren't coming back was wrong?

Where did you find those Yelp reviews?
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 06:58:11 PM
...okay, going to try to reenter this conversation.
If they serve the end goal of reducing discrimination and maybe making people think about the discriminatory implication of their acts, then yes, I do.

Meh, I disagree.  In the most unhelpful statement ever made by anybody you should read a book I read once the name of which I can't remember.  It talked about how a load of problems in the US are caused by using legislation to settle social issues (your comment on page one about this debate being "settled in the 60s" reminded me of it) rather than a consensus being found.  But I can barely recall the details, just that reading it it seemed to make sense.

It was really interesting.  It was by some guy, and it had pages.  And a cover, IIRC.  Ask in your local bookshop, I'm sure they'll know it. 

QuoteOh, I absolutely see the reason. I'd be frustrated if my business's sales went down for a year and a half. But I wouldn't be blaming guests for a problem that started over two years after they started coming. I note that the only evidence he appears to have offered the investigation was the declining sales - where are the customers' opinions that he claimed drove his decision in the voicemail?

Well, as Louise pointed about above its pretty standard for stuff like that not to be included in a newspaper article.    The key point, to me, is that they had been coming in so long.  Why would he wake up one morning and blame them for problems - which seems to be what you're suggesting.  Isn't it rather more likely that he looked for the cause and discovered it was them (or, as Geil rightly points out, society's transphobia)
242037

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 07:08:27 PM
Um. You do realise that Oregon has a law explicitly covering this?
'
I think Sweden has a roughly similar law, and AFAIK most women's clothing stores these days are happy to do business with transvestites and transwomen, at least in larger cities. But refusing to sell (or help find the right kind of) a skirt or a silky blouse to someone at a store of a kind that has traditionally been catering to only bio women doesn't really equal "denying this person the right to their gender identity" in the larger world. It only means you have to look up another shop, and most of these do serve TG customers. I really don't think this would be actionable.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Blythe

Quote from: Neysha on August 31, 2013, 07:10:19 PM
Where did you find those Yelp reviews?

Isn't that Yelp page you linked under the new name, not the old name (wouldn't the old one have the reviews?...)?  ??? There are two pages for the club--one under the new name and one under the old. The old one has the reviews.....I think. I'm not sure.

Ephiral

Quote from: Neysha on August 31, 2013, 07:10:19 PM
Where did you find those Yelp reviews?
Under their original name, while trying to nail down the name change. You can do it yourself by Googling "P-club twilight room annex" - it's the third hit, right below the news results.

A modified query got me better results - the name change was three months after the incident, and was part of a complete restructuring of the entire place. Again, indicative that this was not the issue.

Neysha

In my search for Yelp (or any other) reviews on the business, I found this local article on the situation.

Quote from: The OregonianThe group, the Rose City T-Girls, had frequented the bar every Friday night for two years. They brought anywhere from a dozen to 40 people -- some who crossdress, others who have fully transitioned to female -- into the cavernous club each week. But their presence drove other customers away, Penner said.

Quote from: The OregonianPenner insists he's neither homophobic nor anti-transgender people. He once hosted a weekly queer dance night in the space, and on Wednesday nights a gay pool team practices in the bar.

But a year ago, he said, he started hearing complaints about the T-Girls. Other customers said they left the stall doors open and seats up in the women's restrooms.

"Most are in-the-closet, straight men, but they're using the women's restrooms," he said. "They feel they have a right to use those restrooms because on Friday nights, they are women."

Quote from: The OregonianPenner wanted to ask the T-Girls to leave the bar a year ago, he said. But Cindy Benton, his bar manager, told him he couldn't do that, said Penner, noting she, "by the way, is a lesbian and having her wedding reception here next year."

After another year of decline in customers, he asked a bartender for a phone number for Cassandra Lynn, one of the T-Girls. Then, while vacationing, he left the message for the T-Girls.

Quote from: The OregonianHe once dreamed of owning a Grocery Outlet, so he sold the bar in 2005. He returned to run the Portsmouth Club when Dustin Drago, the man he sold the club to, defaulted on payments and left town. That, too, caused a fight with the state.

The labor bureau said Penner owed $7,000 in back wages that Drago never paid employees. Penner appealed the agency's ruling, though, and in May the Court of Appeals agreed that he could not be held liable for Drago's failure to pay.

Penner believes that commissioner Avakian holds a grudge against him for winning the appeal. That, Penner says, is why Avakian issued a complaint himself on behalf of the T-Girls.

"It's pretty coincidental, honestly," said Estabrook, the labor bureau official. "That and this investigation have nothing to do with each other."

And the most current story on the case from the same website:


Quote from: The OregonianPenner last year said he is neither homophobic nor anti-transgender people. He once hosted a weekly queer dance night in the space, and a gay pool team has practiced in the bar. But, he said, other customers complained that the T-Girls left the stall doors open and seats up in the women's restrooms.

Penner said business had declined since the T-girls started coming to the bar. Between eight and 54 T-Girls came in on Friday nights. But all other P Club customers stopped coming, Penner said. In 2009, the bar sold a total of $110,000 in drinks on Friday nights, Penner said. By 2012, that dropped to $81,000.

"We said at the hearing he was an idiot when he said that," said Jonathan Radmacher, Penner's lawyer. "But he has a track record of decades of being supportive of the LGBT community.

Conversely...

Quote from: The OregonianLynn testified at a hearing before an administrative law judge that she could not sleep in the months after Penner's voicemail. She was irritable at work and considered disbanding the group. Other girls said they stopped going out in public as women. They pulled away from friends, showed up late to work and gained weight.

Quote from: The OregonianInvestigators found no evidence to support Penner's contention that the T-Girls disrupted business. In October, investigators announced that the bureau found substantial evidence of discrimination against the transgender patrons. The bureau then tried to reach a settlement with Penner. When no settlement could be reached, Avakian said, and he took the case to a hearing.

"The individuals had found a place at the P Club where they found they could share their lives, their stories. When that is stripped away, that is an indignity that is severe," Avakian said.

Penner's lawyer said his client was not surprised by BOLI's decision; it was Avakian who brought the complaint, and Avakian's deputy who affirmed it.

I love local politics. If I ever wanted to become a member of organized crime, I'd of become a local politician :P
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 07:17:22 PM
Meh, I disagree.  In the most unhelpful statement ever made by anybody you should read a book I read once the name of which I can't remember.  It talked about how a load of problems in the US are caused by using legislation to settle social issues (your comment on page one about this debate being "settled in the 60s" reminded me of it) rather than a consensus being found.  But I can barely recall the details, just that reading it it seemed to make sense.

It was really interesting.  It was by some guy, and it had pages.  And a cover, IIRC.  Ask in your local bookshop, I'm sure they'll know it.
My mother worked in a bookstore for years. She would stab me for making a query like that. As to your larger issue: Exactly how are we supposed to address the tyranny of the majority, then? I am assuming that you agree that abusing a minority simply for being a minority is in fact wrong.

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 07:17:22 PMWell, as Louise pointed about above its pretty standard for stuff like that not to be included in a newspaper article.    The key point, to me, is that they had been coming in so long.  Why would he wake up one morning and blame them for problems - which seems to be what you're suggesting.  Isn't it rather more likely that he looked for the cause and discovered it was them (or, as Geil rightly points out, society's transphobia)
Then there should have been evidence of that - evidence which would have been much more convincing to the BOLI investigation than raw numbers with no context. The apparent absence of any attempt to put those numbers into this context shifts probabilities - given that presenting this evidence could not possibly have hurt his case and might have helped, its absence indicates that either this evidence does not exist or that he was behaving completely irrationally. Neither of these conclusions supports acting carefully based on a detailed examination of his clientele and the reason for their dissatisfaction.

Neysha

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 07:22:20 PM
Under their original name, while trying to nail down the name change. You can do it yourself by Googling "P-club twilight room annex" - it's the third hit, right below the news results.

A modified query got me better results - the name change was three months after the incident, and was part of a complete restructuring of the entire place. Again, indicative that this was not the issue.

So which Yelp reviews are the ones you cited? Were they the filtered ones because all of the rest of them seem... biased due to the case.

Three Star Review:
Quote from: Steve H.P-Club has changed their name to the Annex - Twilight Room.   Still a great little spot.  They have closed the kitchen for now.  We shoot pool out of there on Wed Night in the APA pool league.  Enjoy the atmosphere.

Five Star Review:
Quote from: Pillow F.Great new staff & Hours of happiness. Great venue for live music. It's what the P-Club was before it was the P-club.

Five Star Review:
Quote from: Doc E.the p-club ha an open mic every tuesday night that's amazing! it runs from 9 to midnight and the stage has some of the best sound in portland!

Two Star Review:
Quote from: Christa A.This place is way too big for its own good. There is some amazing recreational fun to be had, 2 pool tables, 1 shuffleboard area and 2 pin ball games at your service.

However, not the best variety of beers on tap, not the best entertainment and a very interesting crowd.

I would have given four stars to the joint if they had tip-top shuffle board discs, but they don't, shit is falling apart.

Tuesdays have free bingo and I will definitely be back because I have never lived in a town that offers up free bingo.

Five Star Review
Quote from: Emilie S. The PClub, Portsmouth Club, Portsmouth Pizza... this place has been through so many incarnations, but I think it is better now than ever.

In the past year, the PClub has become one of my favorite places for food on Lombard. They have a ridiculously cheap Happy Hour with generous portions. Everything on their menu is tasty, My favorites are the humongous nachos and a really decent variety of sandwiches.

The PClub is a very large space, probably too big. There is a stage with plenty of room for live music. They have pool tables, Stumptown Poker tourneys every Thursday, DJs

Open late 7 days/week.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Kythia

The full court report is online.  From what I gather, business on a Friday was extremely slow (for whatever reason) and the bar was looking at doing a rebrand - the one that eventually made it the twilight lounge.  He (the owner) had been told that people viewed it as a "tranny bar" and that people weren't coming in for that reason, as a result he asked the group not to come any more to remove that perception.
242037

Ephiral

Quote from: Neysha on August 31, 2013, 07:36:32 PM
So which Yelp reviews are the ones you cited? Were they the filtered ones because all of the rest of them seem... biased due to the case.
Some were filtered, but appear to have been filtered only due to the low post-count of the reviewers, as far as I can tell - the content was certainly inoffensive and informative. One is the two-star review you yourself cited. Given this, I am forced yet again to conclude that you are not arguing in good faith, Neysha. I will not respond further to you in this thread.

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on August 31, 2013, 07:38:36 PM
The full court report is online.  From what I gather, business on a Friday was extremely slow (for whatever reason) and the bar was looking at doing a rebrand - the one that eventually made it the twilight lounge.  He (the owner) had been told that people viewed it as a "tranny bar" and that people weren't coming in for that reason, as a result he asked the group not to come any more to remove that perception.

*goes off to read full court report* This might take me a bit to get through. Hopefully I shall return after reading this and be able to discuss it properly. Thank you for the link, Kythia! ^^

Neysha

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 07:40:53 PM
Some were filtered, but appear to have been filtered only due to the low post-count of the reviewers, as far as I can tell - the content was certainly inoffensive and informative. One is the two-star review you yourself cited.

So how does one review equal...

Quote from: EphiralA quick review of the Yelp page shows a number of low-star reviews unrelated to this issue - "too big for its own good", "boring", and "hostile clientele" show up.

I mean...  I suppose "one" is "a number" but given this, I am forced yet again to conclude that you are not arguing in good faith, Ephiral. I will proceed to respond to your posts to point it out as it occurs throughout this thread however if you continue to argue in such a manner though.

Quote from: EphiralGiven this, I am forced yet again to conclude that you are not arguing in good faith, Neysha. I will not respond further to you in this thread.

That's more then fine with me. :)
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Ephiral

Quote from: Two-star reviewThis place is way too big for its own good. There is some amazing recreational fun to be had, 2 pool tables, 1 shuffleboard area and 2 pin ball games at your service.

However, not the best variety of beers on tap, not the best entertainment and a very interesting crowd.

I would have given four stars to the joint if they had tip-top shuffle board discs, but they don't, shit is falling apart.

Tuesdays have free bingo and I will definitely be back because I have never lived in a town that offers up free bingo.

Quote from: One-star reviewBOYCOTT!!!!I will never come back here again!! lLets see how can I count all the ways this place is disgusting! The first time I came here I was approached  by 5 guys that were homophobic they were tying to start trouble and insulting me!! The staff that was working could care less about the incident that just shows how Negligence they are. Food and drink I have had better!!  So I had to leave this is not a gay friendly place at all!! Folks remember every dollar you spend is a vote you are either supporting or not supporting certain establishments.
I admit, this one might be related to the T-girls. Weight it at maybe 50%.

Quote from: Two-star review'Rumor has it', that back in the 80s, this was a very coke-laden James Spader foil to Robert Downey Jr ("Twilight Room"), ala "Less than Zero"....

These days they play bingo and shuffleboard and serve pizza over at the P-Club. Oh brother.

Quote from: Filtered two-star reviewI find what this group did to be wrong this place was not a Gay bar or a T-Girl club and as a bar owner he had every right to ask them not to come back. He might have been a little more tactful about it but he had the right to do it. I was in there 2 times and the staff was okay but some of the patrons were very rude to me so i stopped coming. A bar has it group of people and it cliental and this group of people should have found a different place and not filed this bogus discrimination claim. This group has been asked to leave two other bars and one of them was a gay bar, so i think there is more to this then what they are saying in there complaint with BOLI (Bureau of Labor and Industry). This is not a good neighborhood for the LGBT community and this bar does not want to be know as a Gay Bar and they have every right to that. So to the leader which i will not name please stop this bogus crap.
This one is extremely supportive of the owner, so I doubt its claims of "hostile clientele" that chased away a customer are intended as retaliation.

Quote from: Filtered four-star reviewOk, I am going to give this place 4 stars. Why? Because I believe it was the weirdest place I have been in a while. I think the the "P", in P-Club stands for prostitute. At least, the kinds that are over 45 and raging alcoholics. From the second we walked in we were tagged as different. Which was cool, except for all the prosty's that were convinced we we in a band. We'll when in rome, tell em you are in a band, and that band's name is "teen porn". When they ask what kind of band it is, throw out "Art punk', "bauhaus", or just plain "rock and roll".

The bathroom reeked of wee but was pretty awesome as well. I felt like I had traveled to another dimension, that this is where dreams come to die.

When we left, the prosty's wanted to see our band and were quite mad that we had decided to go next door to the "college" bar.

What a weird ass place. I am so glad that isn't my life.

P.S. Cheap beer.

All emphasis is mine. I believe my argument is now substantiated.

Kythia

Going over the court report again, it seems the lawyer for the bar is an idiot.  Frankly I'd appeal on ineffective counsel - assuming that's permitted. Doesn't change the facts of course but it seems a load of quite stupid mistakes were made.
242037

Neysha

As for scoping out other reviews, Foursquare has some bemusing comments.

The Google Reviews mostly seem too old to be relevant. :(

There was one review on the Yellow Pages where an angry reviewer posted his private phone number apparently.

The local Fox 12 puts a face to the victims however.

Quote from: Ephiral on August 31, 2013, 07:58:48 PM
I admit, this one might be related to the T-girls. Weight it at maybe 50%.

It'll definitely be a change of atmosphere from bouncers escorting the T-girls to their cars and inviting gay male pool players every Wednesday and having a lesbian bartender to gangs of homophobic toughs harassing and scaring off clients with impunity.

QuoteAll emphasis is mine. I believe my argument is now substantiated.

Indeed it is. Hence no need for your baseless accusations of me arguing in poor faith. Like I stated before your over-reaction, I didn't have access to the filtered reviews. (or at least I'm unsure how to get access, it wasn't apparently upon 'quick review' how to do so)

Furthermore I'm not sure how the reviews (the non-filtered ones I can see anyways) can somehow show the bar in a negative light, as their average review is four stars. Maybe the unseen filtered ones are far more negative, I dunno. I just wish that when we cite Yelp reviews or other sources, we provide proper context and links and sourcing if we're only going to show a certain 'slice' of opinion. :(
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Sabby

The fine is excessive I think. I think the customers are in the right to sue, but almost half a million? Might as well have torched his whole bar. Unless I'm grossly underestimating what a good bar can earn in a year.

Neysha

Quote from: Sabby on August 31, 2013, 08:19:47 PM
The fine is excessive I think. I think the customers are in the right to sue, but almost half a million? Might as well have torched his whole bar. Unless I'm grossly underestimating what a good bar can earn in a year.

Hmm well it looks like they could purchase their own bar with that much money! :D

As for running a bar, here's a CNN article of one in Detroit.

Still it seems highly variable, with annual sales ranging anywhere from 200K to a million generally. So yeah, I'm assuming $400,000 is meant to break the business, at least as far as its current ownership is concerned.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Sabby on August 31, 2013, 08:19:47 PM
The fine is excessive I think. I think the customers are in the right to sue, but almost half a million? Might as well have torched his whole bar. Unless I'm grossly underestimating what a good bar can earn in a year.

I haven't read the verdict, but I agree with you. And with Kythia: from the look of this case, the lawyer helping the manager seems to have been an idiot.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Kythia

My particular favourite is the way he can't spell "witnesses" correctly.  That's the mark of a top notch legal mind right there.
242037

Callie Del Noire

Quote from: Sabby on August 31, 2013, 08:19:47 PM
The fine is excessive I think. I think the customers are in the right to sue, but almost half a million? Might as well have torched his whole bar. Unless I'm grossly underestimating what a good bar can earn in a year.

Particularly considering a license for one can run six figures in some areas.

ThePrince

My step dad used to own a sports bar and it made about half a million a year. But that depends on demographics, location, local laws, etc.

Friday and Saturday nights are generally your busiest so I can see why it would be a problem. But the bar is still in the wrong, you can't refuse service to people on the bias that they exist.

What they should have done was talk to these ladies, explain the situation and asked them to meet on a different day.

The local Leather folk have a bar that go to each week as there isn't a Leather bar to entertain them and its a Lesbian bar. They spoke with the owner and they meet on Wednesday and miss most of the regular crowd and everyone is happy with the situation.
RP Request Thread
O/O's
I am what I am. I am my own special creation.
So come take a look, Give me the hook or the ovation.
It's my world that I want to have a little pride in.
It's my world and it's not a place I have to hide in.
Life ain't worth a dam till you can say I am what I am.

kylie

Quote from: Callie Del Noire
Particularly considering a license for one can run six figures in some areas.
I don't know.  Another way of looking at it:  If someone has the means to come up with six figures to invest in the first place, then they may also have the means to pay a much smaller fine and go right on discriminating, as if nothing happened.  So if the fine is not heavy -- particularly when they are saying more or less "it's just good business" to push some people out -- why are they going to change??

    Also, they might have the credit or status such that they would prefer to simply shut down or restructure their business profile overnight (if there is something more "membership-only" that is legal), that is if they are interested in not being associated with this or that group.  Now if you think about that, then the state -- as the party interested in promoting equal access here -- is interested in making a big enough impact that the owner might wish to stay open to the general public and recoup the loss and get on with having profits in due time. 

In that scenario, there is a problem for the pursuit of equality: If the owner choses to simply fold the business or to simply reorganize in a way that excludes trans more from the get-go through a more culturally or legally accepted means, then we start running out of public establishments where they previously existed (i.e. 1. places that trans did frequent and 2. places that were supposed to be fully public on paper, if they hadn't gone and discriminated).  But the US is a largely credit-driven economy, so if they could afford that much and spent that much to set up in the first place, and they are probably making some profits as they are -- assuming the trans are not really just killing the whole place, and it has not been proven to my knowledge they are -- then that is one more public spot that may stay open and find itself interested in actually not discriminating anymore.
     

kylie

Quote from: ThePrince on September 01, 2013, 11:08:56 PM
What they should have done was talk to these ladies, explain the situation and asked them to meet on a different day.

The local Leather folk have a bar that go to each week as there isn't a Leather bar to entertain them and its a Lesbian bar. They spoke with the owner and they meet on Wednesday and miss most of the regular crowd and everyone is happy with the situation.
This can work in limited situations, but in this case it begs the questions:  What is it about that bar, that trans should have problems going there on a Friday night?  And what if Friday night is the one night they all have free to go out together?  Why do they have to be more inconvenienced just for being the minority?

      I don't know how the leather bar was setup or precisely what it offered that was or was not available elsewhere, and what the schedules of the people involved were like such that they could reach an agreement for weekdays...  I do think it's nice if everyone can agree on something that suits them in civil discussion.  But if people aren't all that civil in a given place, then we have to fall back on however to pursue some care for equality.

      For another example:  In a big enough city and a club with hundreds of fetish or orientation-based clientele, sure you can set aside a weekend for each group to pursue its orientation and kink because there are so very many of each of them, the club itself may be set up specifically for sex (among other often messy, highly physical if not borderline medical activities) and making a great deal of money off hefty entry fees from everyone (so even if numbers are small, they pay a whole lot), and they all agree that they don't want to see precisely what the others are doing (when it often comes down to very graphic sex of a particular flavor among other things)...

But in the case in question, I think we're talking about somewhere people go to sit with a few drinks and chat.  Maybe listen to music and play bingo.  I'm not sure if this really compares. 
 
     And then what if the preferred live band or bingo, what have you is only on Friday night? Etc.  What might the cost be of convincing a given group to come another night, if they could and were willing to?  Owners could fuss over that as a potential loss of profits, if they felt like it too... 
     

ThePrince

The biggest difference is communication. The owner called up one of the representatives of this group and told them that he didn't want them coming back on Friday nights. As the court records show, when he did that and told them not to come back, he broke the law. He doesn't matter why he didn't want them their on Friday, when he said "I don't want you coming here on this date because you are trans." he broke the law.

What he could have done was told them that they had a new policy where they only opened up their business for social groups once a month. Thus if they decided to continue coming each Friday curtain special services may not be available. Like they may not be apple to sit them all together or they may not be seated at a large table or something else. As long as the bar wasn't favoring other groups over the T-Girls this would be legal. Also the court documents noted that the T-Girls original bar had ask them only to show up once a month and they decided to change to bars. So maybe just asking them to show up once a month is legal, I'am not sure.

On a side note Leather bars are/where generally private places and thus they could allow who ever they choose into their domains. If they had to be public they would usually schedule dates where only Leather people would be allowed.
RP Request Thread
O/O's
I am what I am. I am my own special creation.
So come take a look, Give me the hook or the ovation.
It's my world that I want to have a little pride in.
It's my world and it's not a place I have to hide in.
Life ain't worth a dam till you can say I am what I am.

Ephiral

Quote from: ThePrince on September 02, 2013, 12:41:58 AMAlso the court documents noted that the T-Girls original bar had ask them only to show up once a month and they decided to change to bars. So maybe just asking them to show up once a month is legal, I'am not sure.
This one is actually easy to explain in two different ways. Either a) they decided at that time that it wasn't worth pursuing legal action, but changed their minds when they saw a pattern forming, or b) as at least one source indicates, they had been going to the P-club for four years when they were asked to leave - in 2012. The Oregon Equality Act came into force in 2008.

lilhobbit37

While I understand why the trans* community is up in arms at this, I feel that there is a lot of behind the scenes information, especially based on some of the reviews and comments that have been sourced. That perhaps it was more than "These are trans* people therefore I don't want them here."

I've seen in more than one public establishment either a sign or a message on a menu that they have the right to deny service for any reason. A belligerent customer therefore could be asked to leave rather than the establishment being forced to serve them.

From the sounds of some of the comments, these customers may have been creating a disturbance when they arrived.

If you went to a gay bar and 1/2 the bar was filled with straight couples who were quite happy with making those not straight uncomfortable, would it be wrong for the lgbt customers to be offended? Or is it only ok if it's a minority?

If these customers were doing something out of the ordinary, or getting drunk and out of control, or whatever, then the owner had a right to ask them to leave, regardless of their orientation or identities.

I am very curious about the fact that another bar asked them to stop coming, and they didn't sue that bar. Why is this bar different? Why did they leave the other establishment and find a new bar, without feeling that owner should lose his business, yet would close this bar down for doing the same, except not saying once a month? Is it not the same thing except that one owner was more focused on sounding nice while politely asking them not to return, while the other spoke plainly on the issue?

Edit: Also did it say anywhere why the first bar asked them to only come once a month? Was it for the same reasoning as this bar or for different reasons? I am wondering if it is the fact that they are trans* or if maybe their behavior is a problem, and it just happens that they are trans*.

Kythia

Quote from: Ephiral on September 02, 2013, 12:56:14 AM
This one is actually easy to explain in two different ways. Either a) they decided at that time that it wasn't worth pursuing legal action, but changed their minds when they saw a pattern forming, or b) as at least one source indicates, they had been going to the P-club for four years when they were asked to leave - in 2012. The Oregon Equality Act came into force in 2008.

2010 according to the court report.  (a) is still an option though.
242037

Slywyn

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 01:01:07 AM
If you went to a gay bar and 1/2 the bar was filled with straight couples who were quite happy with making those not straight uncomfortable, would it be wrong for the lgbt customers to be offended? Or is it only ok if it's a minority?

I think this is part of the problem. The fact that they're trans* should not, in and of itself, be part of the problem. This is why anti-discrimination laws exist in the first place. The owner should not have the right to kick them out 'because they're making the 'straight' customers uncomfortable by being trans*'. That's discrimination. That's what the laws are in place to prevent.

Yes it's 'okay if it's a minority' because noone is going to go "Well straight/white/male/etc people make me uncomfortable, I'm not going to that bar any more"
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Geil

One point I've not seen mentioned here: on the scale of the fine and whether the law is balanced in that respect or not, is that the fine was not $400,000 for discriminating against a trans person, it was somewhere between $20,000 and $50,000 - which does seem to me more like a balanced figure that will hurt a business's pocket and not immediately close it down.

This bar owner, however, discriminated against eleven people at the same time, and so has to pay eleven separate compensations. Hence the headline figure is the sum of all those smaller parts and is an order of magnitude higher than might be expected.

Poetry in Emotion
Variety is the spice of life - I'll have the vindaloo please.
A&A Games O&O

Kythia

That's a rather academic distinction though isn't it. It was one act he took, granted an act that affected multiple people, but he still only did one thing and is being landed with a massive fine.
242037

Slywyn

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 02:51:09 AM
That's a rather academic distinction though isn't it. It was one act he took, granted an act that affected multiple people, but he still only did one thing and is being landed with a massive fine.

To take the argument to an extreme, someone murders someone by shooting them. It was only one act, and yeah it affected multiple people, but it was only one thing. And they're hit with massive jail time or even death.

It was one act, but it was one act that affected many people. And they're not part of a family or other 'group' that can collectively 'partake' of the funds. Each person has their own settlement with the guy.

It's just like multiple people suing a bus company for an accident. One crash, one 'act', affects multiple people and they each get a settlement. It's not that strange of an occurrence.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Imogen

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 02:51:09 AM
That's a rather academic distinction though isn't it. It was one act he took, granted an act that affected multiple people, but he still only did one thing and is being landed with a massive fine.

And even more academic because one of the reasons he felt compelled to this act was because it happened to be this -group- that drove other customers away.



[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Kythia

I'm not saying its a strange occurrence.  What I am saying is that he took one action and got a fine, how precisely that fine is made up is not overly relevant.
242037

Imogen

Quote from: Slywyn on September 02, 2013, 02:57:09 AM
To take the argument to an extreme, someone murders someone by shooting them. It was only one act, and yeah it affected multiple people, but it was only one thing. And they're hit with massive jail time or even death.

It was one act, but it was one act that affected many people. And they're not part of a family or other 'group' that can collectively 'partake' of the funds. Each person has their own settlement with the guy.

It's just like multiple people suing a bus company for an accident. One crash, one 'act', affects multiple people and they each get a settlement. It's not that strange of an occurrence.

I'll take that analogy.

So we have this group of people wanting to get on the bus. They usually take a different bus but that one doesn't give as frequent service. So, they're on this bus...and over time, that bus has fewer and fewer passengers. The owner learns that this group in his bus keeps the other passengers away. He still needs to pay for gas, insurance, etc. He can't afford keeping that group in his bus. So he asks them to take a different bus in the future and he is foolish/honest enough to give the reason behind his request.

So, does this group say 'thank you for driving us this long"? No, they sue him for a huge amount of money.

Damned if you do nothing, damned if you are upfront. Lesson learned? Don't be honest with these people.
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Geil

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 02:51:09 AM
That's a rather academic distinction though isn't it. It was one act he took, granted an act that affected multiple people, but he still only did one thing and is being landed with a massive fine.
Can I go into a shop, take eleven bottles of whisky off the shelf, and only pay for one of them? I think not.

Anyway, the report seems to say that the fine was $5,000. The rest was compensation/damages, and one person's damage isn't affected by whether someone else suffered at the same time.

Poetry in Emotion
Variety is the spice of life - I'll have the vindaloo please.
A&A Games O&O

Kythia

But if you do go into a shop and take eleven bottles of whiskey, would you expect eleven shoplifting charges or just one?
242037

Imogen

Quote from: Geil on September 02, 2013, 03:06:54 AM
Can I go into a shop, take eleven bottles of whisky off the shelf, and only pay for one of them? I think not.

Anyway, the report seems to say that the fine was $5,000. The rest was compensation/damages, and one person's damage isn't affected by whether someone else suffered at the same time.

They suffered 20-40k worth of trauma because of a voicemail asking them not to come to the club because people have problems with their being transgender? While having a support group of 11 eleven people? Wow!

And it's not the bigots who stay away that get fined but the unfortunate messenger whose business is run into the ground because - unfortunately - a lot of people are still ignorant and stupid?

Yeah, this looks way out there.

Discrimination should be punished, but there were TWO victims of discrimination here, and the real perpetrator(if there was any) was the customer base that decided to not frequent this place anymore. And even that is shady ground. If I have to choose between visiting a bar or a bar that specifically has a reputation to cater to a gay/transgender audience I might visit the second place every now and then, but as I'd feel I might be out of place there, odds are that I'd choose no. 1.
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Geil

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 03:11:14 AM
But if you do go into a shop and take eleven bottles of whiskey, would you expect eleven shoplifting charges or just one?
I suppose I'd expect one charge, but any damages would be proportional to the ten unpaid for bottles.

Poetry in Emotion
Variety is the spice of life - I'll have the vindaloo please.
A&A Games O&O

Blythe

Quote from: Imogen on September 02, 2013, 03:04:51 AM
I'll take that analogy.

So we have this group of people wanting to get on the bus. They usually take a different bus but that one doesn't give as frequent service. So, they're on this bus...and over time, that bus has fewer and fewer passengers. The owner learns that this group in his bus keeps the other passengers away. He still needs to pay for gas, insurance, etc. He can't afford keeping that group in his bus. So he asks them to take a different bus in the future and he is foolish/honest enough to give the reason behind his request.

So, does this group say 'thank you for driving us this long"? No, they sue him for a huge amount of money.

Damned if you do nothing, damned if you are upfront. Lesson learned? Don't be honest with these people.

That analogy you provide in return to Slywyn does not hold up unless the aspect of the group keeping people away is a behavior that can be changed. If it is an intrinsic aspect of the group keeping people away, then the bus owner is literally assuming that the nature of what that group is (not what they are choosing to do) happens to be keeping people away.

Give a name to the group in your analogy. If you selected an ethnicity for the group in your example, say...the group was Hispanic and they were asked to leave because "people believe this bus is for Hispanic people," then that bus driver would be discriminating on the grounds of race. And yes, then they can sue. Possibly for a lot of money. *shrugs*

Replace "Hispanic" with "transgender" and "bus" with "club," and you have the P-club scenario, which was discrimination based on gender orientation, an intrinsic trait. 

It is not up to a customer to help a business market their image to convince more customers to go to a business. It is up to a business to successfully market themselves. That's why I don't care for any arguments that rely on "well, they can just go somewhere else." It essentially holds customers liable for a business' marketing. The club owner revamped the entire club image, I noticed. He was unable to correlate his loss in sales to the T-girls' presence, so...I don't know...maybe it was because his business simply needed to be marketed properly and handled better?

I will say this...if the club owner had been able to substantiate that unruly or unwarranted behavior from the T-girls was what drove off business (which he was unable to), then he would have been within his rights to ask them to leave....not based on their transgender status, but based on their behavior. But that wasn't the case in the voicemail he left them. He asked them to leave because he didn't want to be seen as a tranny bar, and honestly? That's not his customers' fault. He had other customers, and he was well-known as having an LGBT friendly establishment according to the court documents.....so why was he suddenly objecting to the T aspect of that equation? It makes no sense. As a business owner, he can ask unruly customers to leave. If there was a problem with their behavior, he should have asked them to leave based on that, not the "tranny bar" complaint he left in a voicemail to one of the T-girls named Cass.

But he didn't.

Geil

Quote from: Imogen on September 02, 2013, 03:15:35 AM
They suffered 20-40k worth of trauma because of a voicemail asking them not to come to the club because people have problems with their being transgender? While having a support group of 11 eleven people? Wow!
Compensation culture! * shrugs * I don't particularly like it either, but if the culture of law suits and damages is there, you can't exclude trans people from using it!

QuoteAnd it's not the bigots who stay away that get fined but the unfortunate messenger whose business is run into the ground because - unfortunately - a lot of people are still ignorant and stupid?

Yeah, this looks way out there.

Discrimination should be punished, but there were TWO victims of discrimination here, and the real perpetrator(if there was any) was the customer base that decided to not frequent this place anymore.
Yup - exactly what I put in my first post on this. The laws can only do as much as laws can do, and you can't prosecute someone for not doing something right, only for doing something wrong.

Poetry in Emotion
Variety is the spice of life - I'll have the vindaloo please.
A&A Games O&O

Florence

Quote from: Slywyn on September 02, 2013, 02:08:50 AM
I think this is part of the problem. The fact that they're trans* should not, in and of itself, be part of the problem. This is why anti-discrimination laws exist in the first place. The owner should not have the right to kick them out 'because they're making the 'straight' customers uncomfortable by being trans*'. That's discrimination. That's what the laws are in place to prevent.

Yes it's 'okay if it's a minority' because noone is going to go "Well straight/white/male/etc people make me uncomfortable, I'm not going to that bar any more"

I think more to the point, if straight people are IN a gay bar, its probably safe to assume they're not the sort of straight people that would make gay costumers uncomfortable. And if they ARE causing trouble by DOING THINGS that make the gay costumers feel uncomfortable (making homophobic remarks, guys trying to pick up lesbians, etc.) then yeah, kick them out if they're causing trouble. But their simple presence should not be a problem.

Likewise, if these transgender people were doing things that specifically made other costumers uncomfortable (existing not counting), then I could see grounds for their removal. Of course, that really boils down to what they did. I mean, we live in a world where wearing the wrong color shirt can make someone else uncomfortable. I simply object to them being removed if being transgender was the only reason it happened.

Gawd, every tiome I try to post there's a new reply. Busy thread tonight?
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

Imogen

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 03:17:59 AM
That analogy you provide in return to Slywyn does not hold up unless the aspect of the group keeping people away is a behavior that can be changed. If it is in intrinsic aspect of the group keeping people away, then the bus owner is literally assuming that the nature of what that group is (not what they are choosing to do) happens to be keeping people away.

Give a name to the group in your analogy. If you selected an ethnicity for the group in your example, say...the group was Hispanic and they were asked to leave because "people believe this bus is for Hispanic people," then that bus driver would be discriminating on the grounds of race. And yes, then they can sue. Possibly for a lot of money. *shrugs*

Replace "Hispanic" with "transgender" and "bus" with "club," and you have the P-club scenario, which was discrimination based on gender orientation, an intrinsic trait. 

It is not up to a customer to help a business market their image to convince more customers to go to a business. It is up to a business to successfully market themselves. That's why I don't care for any arguments that rely on "well, they can just go somewhere else." It holds customers liable for a business' marketing. The club owner revamped the entire club image, I noticed. He was unable to correlate his loss in sales to the T-girls' presence, so...I don't know...maybe it was because his business simply needed to be marketed properly and handled better?

I will say this...if the club owner had been able to substantiate that unruly or unwarranted behavior from the T-girls was what drove off business (which he was unable to), then he would have been within his rights to ask them to leave....not based on their transgender status, but based on their behavior. But that wasn't the case in the voicemail he left them. He asked them to leave because he didn't want to be seen as a tranny bar, and honestly? That's not his customers' fault. He had other customers, and he was well-known as an LGBT friendly establishment according to the court documents.....so why was he suddenly objecting to the T aspect of that equation? It makes no sense. As a business owner, he can ask unruly customers to leave. If there was a problem with their behavior, he should have asked them to leave based on that. But he didn't.


QuoteGive a name to the group in your analogy. If you selected an ethnicity for the group in your example, say...the group was Hispanic and they were asked to leave because "people believe this bus is for Hispanic people," then that bus driver would be discriminating on the grounds of race. And yes, then they can sue. Possibly for a lot of money. *shrugs*

I don't care if they were gypsy, hispanic, transgender or Dutch. If a group is a cause for decline of someone's business -whether this is their fault or not-, he should have a right to ask them to stay away. And as far as I can tell from the documents he asked it politely. He even gave a reason why his customers stayed away. In my point of view, that manager had -no- choice at all.

Discrimation is against the law, but what the T-girls pulled here goes against sense of justice I have. They may not have acted against the law but they acted against any form of common courtesy and respect to someone who -till that moment- was known as friendly to them and theirs.
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Blythe

Quote from: Geil on September 02, 2013, 03:26:00 AM
Compensation culture! * shrugs * I don't particularly like it either, but if the culture of law suits and damages is there, you can't exclude trans people from using it!

I can agree I'm not a fan of compensation culture either. *nod*

Hmmm, but that does make me think about the money:

I will admit I'm not sure $400,000 was a fair amount. After reading the court documents, Penner (the P-club owner) perhaps should have considered appealing, because it does seem like his lawyer was....not the smartest guy. I doubt $400,000 was strictly necessary or warranted. A much smaller amount still would have gotten the point across without such a harsh penalty on the business (the T-girls did have some good experiences there, after all, that they did talk about....it seems that Penner's voicemail asking them to leave about the "tranny bar" thing was what the stickler of the whole incident was).

Quote from: Imogen on September 02, 2013, 03:32:20 AM

I don't care if they were gypsy, hispanic, transgender or Dutch. If a group is a cause for decline of someone's business -whether this is their fault or not-, he should have a right to ask them to stay away. And as far as I can tell from the documents he asked it politely. He even gave a reason why his customers stayed away. In my point of view, that manager had -no- choice at all.

Discrimation is against the law, but what the T-girls pulled here goes against sense of justice I have. They may not have acted against the law but they acted against any form of common courtesy and respect to someone who -till that moment- was known as friendly to them and theirs.


I'm not sure a statement saying "discrimination is against the law" included after saying an owner can ask any "group" to leave is....logical. What that does seem to advocate is discrimination against a group.  :-\

What a business owner has the right to do is ask individuals to leave, so long as that owner asks within the confines of the law. Penner was not within the confines of the 2007 Oregon Equality Act. Business owners do not have the right to single out groups based on sex, gender, race, etc. as a basis for denying them entry into their establishments (and yes, that includes saying 'my business isn't doing well because group X exists here').

However....as I do not know enough about the history between the T-girls and Penner, I cannot reasonably make any statements about the T-girls' respect or courtesy. All I know from the evidence I've read is that Penner was unable to prove he did not discriminate against them, and the T-girls were able to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he did.


I would like to add that if I am stepping on any toes, my apologies. This is not my intent in the slightest.  :-\

Imogen

Quote from: Geil on September 02, 2013, 03:26:00 AM
Compensation culture! * shrugs * I don't particularly like it either, but if the culture of law suits and damages is there, you can't exclude trans people from using it!
Nope, you can't. But claiming they're on moral high ground is something else entirely.

Quote
Yup - exactly what I put in my first post on this. The laws can only do as much as laws can do, and you can't prosecute someone for not doing something right, only for doing something wrong.

Yep. That guy's business was doomed either way. At least now 11 T-girls can gloat and count their profit. Gawd, they'll be so loved in the next bar they'll visit. I hope for the owners of bars in that city they'll choose a well established LGBT friendly place, catering primarily to that minority.

[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Imogen

QuoteI'm not sure a statement saying "discrimination is against the law" included after saying an owner can ask any "group" to leave is....logical. What that does seem to advocate is discrimination against a group.

If he has no other reason than this group being of said origin/religion/whatever. It could be a knitting club for all care. IF that was the reason, I would agree.

That, however, was not the case. The reason was that their being such and such was detrimental to his business. Not by any fault of theirs. Or his. But there you have it.
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Blythe

Quote from: Imogen on September 02, 2013, 03:55:10 AM
If he has no other reason than this group being of said origin/religion/whatever. It could be a knitting club for all care. IF that was the reason, I would agree.

That, however, was not the case. The reason was that their being such and such was detrimental to his business. Not by any fault of theirs. Or his. But there you have it.

In other words, you just said the fact they were a certain group was the reason Penner believed them detrimental to his business. In other words, he singled them out specifically because they were transgender.

It should be kept in mind that Penner was not able to substantiate that his loss in sales was due specifically to the T-girls. What that means, to me, is that arguments made based on the fact the T-girls were supposedly harming his business are not valid. That was simply not proven. I don't think that Penner or any other business owner should be able to make claims like that and use them as excuses to make customers leave without backing those claims up....and genuinely feel an owner does not have a good reason to bar entire groups from a business for existing (the effects of them being there on other customers, so long as it is not a behavioral issue, is not the fault of the group being singled out).

I also think that if he believes his ruling to be unfair (and the only reason I could see it as such is the whopper of a fine he got, which admittedly is really large to me, not anything else about the case), he should appeal...with a better lawyer.


EDIT: Ah, and I am a little tired and getting rambling and carried away. Apologies to any I might have confused or upset, and I wish all of you nothing but the best as you debate this controversial topic.

Imogen

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 04:05:04 AM
In other words, you just said the fact they were a certain group was the reason Penner believed them detrimental to his business. In other words, he singled them out specifically because they were transgender.

It should be kept in mind that Penner was not able to substantiate that his loss in sales was due specifically to the T-girls. What that means, to me, is that arguments made based on the fact the T-girls were supposedly harming his business are not valid. That was simply not proven. I don't think that Penner or any other business owner should be able to make claims like that and use them as excuses to make customers leave without backing those claims up.

I also think that if he believes his ruling to be unfair (and the only reason I could see it as such is the whopper of a fine he got, which admittedly is really large to me, not anything else about the case), he should appeal...with a better lawyer.


EDIT: Ah, and I am a little tired and getting rambling and carried away. Apologies to any I might have confused or upset, and I wish all of you nothing but the best as you debate this controversial topic.

What other reasons would he have if not financial? It was stated above he was LGBT-friendly.
Quote
In other words, you just said the fact they were a certain group was the reason Penner believed them detrimental to his business. In other words, he singled them out specifically because they were transgender.

No, he singled them out because he believed they were detrimental to his business.

They were transgender. Others had a problem with that. They stayed away. His business declines.

Transgender -> stupid people have problem with that and stay away -> income declines -> manager asks group to leave.

Is that discrimination? If you go down the entire line, and just look at the final result and the first catalyst, you may be inclined to reason this is so.. But before we draw that conclusion lets look at that sequence again and leave that last bit out.. Still the same sequence.

Transgender -> stupid people have problem with that and stay away -> income declines.

Ergo, Transgender people are responsible for declines in income. (just going by that same reasoning, which I am NOT advocating)
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Tamhansen

As much as I am for the principle that business owners should be allowed to ban customers costing him business, I'd wager that if the man was running a bar where the majority of the patrons were racist, and he'd bar a group of Black or Jewish people for that reason he'd still be fined.

The transgenders saw an opportunity to profit from this bar owner's choice and ran with it. As happens way to often in these claim cultures. Most likely some ambulance chaser Lionel Hutz convinced the jury these people were now scarred for life, and the sheep blindly gave out the money. After all it's not their business that is now ruined is it.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Blythe

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 04:32:44 AM
Most likely some ambulance chaser Lionel Hutz convinced the jury these people were now scarred for life, and the sheep blindly gave out the money.

Kythia provided a link to the actual court document about this case in this thread. There is literally no need to make the statement you just did; I believe you should consider reading the link she provided and provide more informed commentary than this.

Tamhansen

okay so I missed one tiny link among all this. Get a life or something.

After reading the court transcript, my actual point remains. They smelled money and went for it. Not saying they are bad for it, just a product of the culture in which they live. That it was a judge instead of a jury handing out the money really doesn't change my point. 400 grand divided by eleven people that's 35k each.

ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Blythe

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 05:11:07 AM
okay so I missed one tiny link among all this. Get a life or something.

After reading the court transcript, my actual point remains. They smelled money and went for it. Not saying they are bad for it, just a product of the culture in which they live. That it was a judge instead of a jury handing out the money really doesn't change my point. 400 grand divided by eleven people that's 35k each.

Except the T-girls did not receive 35K each. The amounts were divided according to how much suffering, etc. each person had/could have proved. So not every T-girl received the same amount, if my knowledge is correct.

Please be civil, Katataban. Telling me to "get a life or something" does not further this discussion.

Also, to Imogen--I will try to respond to your point when I am more awake, I promise. Thank you for some courteous PMs exchanged with me, and thank you for debating and chatting with me.  :-)

Imogen

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 05:16:24 AM
Except the T-girls did not receive 35K each. The amounts were divided according to how much suffering, etc. each person had/could have proved. So not every T-girl received the same amount.

Please be civil, Katataban. Telling me to "get a life or something" does not further this discussion.

Also, to Imogen--I will try to respond to your point when I am more awake, I promise. Thank you for some courteous PMs exchanged with me, and thank you for debating and chatting with me.  :-)

Thank you, Blythe! I enjoy(ed) the PMs and the debate :-) Sweet dreams!
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Tamhansen

I just responded in kind Blythe that is all. If you expect civility, then first grant it.

And true it wasn't evenly divided, so I should have said Average of 35k each. Still a lot of money
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Blythe

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 05:21:16 AM
I just responded in kind Blythe that is all. If you expect civility, then first grant it.

And true it wasn't evenly divided, so I should have said Average of 35k each. Still a lot of money

Please state where I have been uncivil, and you will receive an apology, assuming I was uncivil. I merely pointed out a link you had not read and asked you to consider making comments in light of that information, which was not uncivil. It was a reasonable request, Katataban, made in good faith. So I have granted civility in this topic.

Tamhansen

it's a nice speech Blythe, but you know what. I'm not falling for it. You attacked me, I attacked you back. Simple matter. Now if you wanna feel all indignant about it, that's your problem, I'd rather go back to the topic at hand.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Blythe

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 05:26:47 AM
it's a nice speech Blythe, but you know what. I'm not falling for it. You attacked me, I attacked you back. Simple matter. Now if you wanna feel all indignant about it, that's your problem, I'd rather go back to the topic at hand.

Asking you to make a more informed comment in light of information you had not read is not an attack. I do not understand why you perceive it to be such.

Tamhansen

QuoteThere is literally no need to make the statement you just did;

you weren't asking my friend. You were being pedantic. I just missed a link and therefor missed some information unintentionally. This happens. As for what is civil and uncivil in a conversation. Ask ten people and get at least 11 different answers. I felt your pedantic remark was an attack on me. You felt my retort was one on you. Can we please get back on the subject before we derail this thread.

I still think the punishment the owner got for trying to save his business, whether it was a bad way to do it or not, was out of proportion. And the t-girls however the money was divided got a pretty sweet deal for simply getting kicked out of a bar for not fitting in.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Kythia

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 05:36:54 AM
I still think the punishment the owner got for trying to save his business, whether it was a bad way to do it or not, was out of proportion. And the t-girls however the money was divided got a pretty sweet deal for simply getting kicked out of a bar for not fitting in.

While I agree with the thrust of your argument, I can see that its a little more than simply "not fitting in". 

I've been kicked out of quite a lot of bars in my time (and my sister is legally forbidden from drinking in the city centre, I come from a classy family) and that's one thing.  These girls, though, talk in their depositions about blows to confidence - that they feel/felt they are being judged and that's another.  I imagine it takes a fair amount of confidence to go out dressed the way they were, and they have every right to do so.  Getting kicked from a bar (which is clearly what happened despite the rather pathetic excuse offered by the lawyer - see comments above re: idiot) for not fitting in could well be more, I dunno, traumatising for those people than for me.

Not that I've changed my position - I still think the owner was right to kick them, or at a minimum had every right to kick them - but I do think that simply saying they "didn't fit in" is minimising their experience a little.
242037

Imogen

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 06:25:04 AM
While I agree with the thrust of your argument, I can see that its a little more than simply "not fitting in". 

I've been kicked out of quite a lot of bars in my time (and my sister is legally forbidden from drinking in the city centre, I come from a classy family) and that's one thing.  These girls, though, talk in their depositions about blows to confidence - that they feel/felt they are being judged and that's another.  I imagine it takes a fair amount of confidence to go out dressed the way they were, and they have every right to do so.  Getting kicked from a bar (which is clearly what happened despite the rather pathetic excuse offered by the lawyer - see comments above re: idiot) for not fitting in could well be more, I dunno, traumatising for those people than for me.

Not that I've changed my position - I still think the owner was right to kick them, or at a minimum had every right to kick them - but I do think that simply saying they "didn't fit in" is minimising their experience a little.

That might be the engine behind all this. That probably hurt, especially after coming there for a year and perhaps considering that place as a 'safe' place. Seen in that light, being informed they were no longer welcome, may well have caused feelings of hurt, rejection and anger.

(To make sure: This is what I feel may have happened. Speculation, not fact. This is why I use the term 'may have caused' instead of 'must have caused')
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Kythia

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 04:05:04 AM
It should be kept in mind that Penner was not able to substantiate that his loss in sales was due specifically to the T-girls. What that means, to me, is that arguments made based on the fact the T-girls were supposedly harming his business are not valid. That was simply not proven.

What - hypothetically - if it had been?  If he could produce any piece of evidence you could dream of that this group were driving other customers away by their very presence.

Would you agree with his action then?
242037

Tamhansen

Quote from: Imogen on September 02, 2013, 06:45:15 AM
That might be the engine behind all this. That probably hurt, especially after coming there for a year and perhaps considering that place as a 'safe' place. Seen in that light, being informed they were no longer welcome, may well have caused feelings of hurt, rejection and anger.

(To make sure: This is what I feel may have happened. Speculation, not fact. This is why I use the term 'may have caused' instead of 'must have caused')


Sorry, I was oversimplifying there. But I've been barred from places because I was different. Either my sexual preferences, which I didn't even display but which people knew about. Being bisexual that is. Or even in one case for the fact that I was white. Are you hurt when it happens, sure. And these men/women (not being offensive but some of them use the male pronoun others the female) but I still don't understand why getting your feelings hurt merits such ridiculous sums of money. The man did not intent to hurt them after all, simply to save his dying business.

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 06:54:52 AM
What - hypothetically - if it had been?  If he could produce any piece of evidence you could dream of that this group were driving other customers away by their very presence.

Would you agree with his action then?

Yes. And these women should have as well. Are you saying they have the right to ruin this man's business, and his family, and the families of the employees just because they want to be in that place. In the end if the place goes belly up, they won't be able to visit it either.

I'm not saying that it's fair what happened to these people, but it wasn't this owner that disliked them, or they'd have been out first sight. He tried to accomodate them, but in the end it was killing his business.


before i get bashed again. The remarks were in case as Kythia said, he could prove his case. Although I think the court actually granted that they were detrimental to his business, or could be seen as such if I read the transcript correctly.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Florence

It boils down to, as has been pointed out I believe. If this had been black people, Jews, women, etc. It would be pretty hard to defend. Even if the presence of black people WAS ruining his business, it wouldn't change the fact that asking them to leave because they're making racist costumers uncomfortable would be a racist action, even if it wasn't motivated by racism (at least not directly).

Its also worth considering that if the presence of transgender people is ruining his business, it would likely have a similar effect to other bars in the area. If this is the case, then they'd find themselves eventually banned from every single bar in the region that isn't specifically targeting lgbt costumers. While its easy enough to argue that, well, they've still got THOSE bars, that just stinks an awful lot like segregation to me, even if it isn't directly enforced by the law.

I think its worth asking why this is a problem for this bar. If transgendered people being in a bar caused it to lose costumers, shouldn't we be seeing this story more often? It just seems to me that their simple presence in a bar shouldn't be significantly detrimental to sales, when the lack of stories like this would suggest that other bars don't seem to have as much of a problem with it.
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

Serephino

Okay, let's say for argument's sake the guy is not transphobic himself.  The problem really was transphobic people not going to his bar.  Well, that really sucks, doesn't it?  He could have done the right thing and try to pander more to non transphobic people, and let his place become an official 'tranny' bar.  Because, the thing is, gender identity, much like race and sexuality, is not something you can choose.  In fact, I think if trans people had a choice, they wouldn't be trans, because that would just make life so much easier. 

Instead, he chose to do the asshole thing and upset a group of people because he didn't like the image they were giving him.  And, unfortunately for him, not only was it a really dickish move, but it was illegal.  Because you can't choose gender identity it's discrimination, plain and simple.  I'm not a fan of the compensation culture either, but I don't feel bad for him.  If he would have found another way to deal with the issue that didn't break the law he wouldn't be having this problem. 

Neysha

His only problem was being honest.

Only stupid people act honestly when something substantial is on the line.
My Request Thread
Ons & Offs/Role-Plays Current and Past
FemDex: Index of Fictional Women
F-List Profiles: Constance Carrington, Damashi, SCP6969
Prepare For The Next Eight Years
Find me on Discord at: mnblend6567
Credit for Avatar goes to "LoveandSqualor" on Deviant Art. (and Hayley Williams)

Tamhansen

Quote from: Serephino on September 02, 2013, 09:09:19 AM
Okay, let's say for argument's sake the guy is not transphobic himself.  The problem really was transphobic people not going to his bar.  Well, that really sucks, doesn't it?  He could have done the right thing and try to pander more to non transphobic people, and let his place become an official 'tranny' bar.  Because, the thing is, gender identity, much like race and sexuality, is not something you can choose.  In fact, I think if trans people had a choice, they wouldn't be trans, because that would just make life so much easier. 

Instead, he chose to do the asshole thing and upset a group of people because he didn't like the image they were giving him.  And, unfortunately for him, not only was it a really dickish move, but it was illegal.  Because you can't choose gender identity it's discrimination, plain and simple.  I'm not a fan of the compensation culture either, but I don't feel bad for him.  If he would have found another way to deal with the issue that didn't break the law he wouldn't be having this problem. 




So what you are clearly saying is that the guy should have let his bar go to ruins, his own family and those of his employees destroyed, simply because it was the PC thing to do?

I seriously hope that you will never have to make the choice between your so called morals and feeding your family, but if you did, you'd know exactly why he made that choice.

It's nice to say these people got there feelings hurt and therefor the man is bad, but he took those actions to save his livelihood.
ons and offs

They left their home of summer ease
Beneath the lowland's sheltering trees,
To seek, by ways unknown to all,
The promise of the waterfall.

Vekseid

At the heart of this is a number of people who want to be considered human beings, in a world and time where many people do not agree with that notion. Including, I know, a not insignificant portion of this forum.

I have no magic words to make people feel comfortable with transsexuality. When one of my best friends came out to me, my response to her was "I still wish you were born a woman."

Her response was "I understand... so do I."

I've become more accepting of it... but I can't say I'm more comfortable. I don't really feel that is wrong - if a trans person who is comfortable with their birth gender is not trans.

I'm not going to weigh in on discussions about whether the fine was appropriate in amount, if it should have gone directly or the aggrieved, or how the bar owner was supposed to cope otherwise.




The tone and demeanor of some participants, however, is not acceptable.

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 05:11:07 AM
okay so I missed one tiny link among all this. Get a life or something.

Elliquiy has roughly one thousand transgender and intersexed members approved, the vast majority being the former. I am not counting fakers in this number.

Blythe is one of them. He shares a common struggle with the people referenced in this thread.

Thirty to forty percent of transgenders attempt suicide. About one in thirty suicides is successful. Trans people face overwhelming amounts of violence for being who they are, though thankfully the murder rate is not what some alarmists claim.

I don't know whether any given Liege or Champion in this thread has attempted suicide or experienced violence over this. I do know that they, and probably you as well, have had friendly interactions with people on this forum who have.

The life Blythe wants is a life denied him, in part through dehumanizing statements like this.

Every person on this forum deserves the right to be acknowledged and respected as a fellow human being. This is the right Blythe and others are fighting for, and this forum is not a place where that should be in the remotest question. I cannot tell people to accept transsexuals; that is something best done through osmosis - people who are uncomfortable and unaccepting slowly questioning themselves as they make friends. It hurts that I can do little but mediate and advocate... but it works, if both painfully slow and simply painful.

It is a refreshingly scarce portion of Elliquiy's population that has stepped so far out of the line of civility as you have, however. Your invective and content-light antics that follow would not be missed.

You owe Blythe an apology. Whether or not you are too small a person to do so, Blythe and others have done nothing to deserve this treatment. We do not plan to see it continue.

Quote from: Beguile's Mistress on August 31, 2013, 05:13:12 PM
My issue is that as groups gain freedom of expression and other privileges some seem to think the world owes them something beyond the basic respect and freedoms we all deserve. 

If using been makes you feel better feel free to do so.  I really don't care what your body is as I wasn't talking about it or that of anyone else.

Since, as usual, you seem to easily take offense where none is meant I'll leave you to your usuall methodology.  Good day all.

I realize that I've flipped out here before. I also realize that it is generally neither appropriate nor acceptable for me to do so. I've made some apologies for those incidents, possibly not enough.

If you cannot comport yourself in a discussion, please do the right thing and back out before reducing yourself to this. It wins you nothing.

ThePrince

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 03:11:14 AM
But if you do go into a shop and take eleven bottles of whiskey, would you expect eleven shoplifting charges or just one?

Just wanted to make a quick note that there is a difference between people and property.

All these hypothetical arguments don't really matter. It doesn't change the fact that when he called them and told them not to come back because they where trans, he broke the law and was punished accordingly.

Keep in mind that the T-Girls are not guaranteed these rewards, the establishment probably has the ability to fight these fines. But I'am not a lawyer so I don't know. I just know that having to fight someone in court is a pain and you don't just get a free money check afterwards and all your troubles are over.
RP Request Thread
O/O's
I am what I am. I am my own special creation.
So come take a look, Give me the hook or the ovation.
It's my world that I want to have a little pride in.
It's my world and it's not a place I have to hide in.
Life ain't worth a dam till you can say I am what I am.

kylie

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 09:22:08 AM
Are you saying they have the right to ruin this man's business, and his family, and the families of the employees just because they want to be in that place.

     Please provide some specific evidence, if available, of how exactly it has been shown that these people were in fact causing such harm through some unacceptable action that other groups are not generally allowed to take either. 

I have not read all the court documents or scoured for umpteen websites.  However, I do not recall anyone providing a direct link to any such evidence beyond the owner's generalizing say so (which has not been specific at all , when I've seen that).   

     Now if the only 'disruption' involved was how the owner, or possibly other clients, react to a minority, then that is what the law is there to resolve and to fine for.  Otherwise, we devolve to segregation and often, to smaller minorities having virtually no public space at all.  There I will remain of the opinion that it is a civil rights issue so there is a significant case to be settled. 
     

lilhobbit37

I think the thing that gets me the most is the only difference between this bar owner and their previous bar's owner was the words "once a month." Would they have rather that he falsely pretended he wanted them in his bar only once a month, rather than try to be honest and plain with them, possibly feeling he OWED them an explanation for this after their being loyal customers for four years?

Think about it from his point of view. For four years he works hard to make sure that all people of all identies feel comfortable in his bar. He sees this group come in every Friday. Sometimes just a few of them, sometimes a large group (as it said they ranged from 8-40 on a given night). Maybe when just 8 of them were there, it wasn't so bad, but 40 makes the bar seem like it's having a "theme night" (sorry if this sounds offensive but I don't know a better term to explain what I mean). Around here, there are straight clubs that have one night a week that is "gay night" to cater to the lgbt crowd. The rest of the week, they are a straight establishment, and prefer to remain as such. And yes, would ask a large lgbt crowd to come back on what they call "their gay fetish night" (because apparently being gay is a fetish).

So when this owner notices that other customers are starting to take it as such and they are finding other establishments for their Friday night, he needs to decide what to do. His business is losing customers. So he asks around, and the response is that his bar has become a tranny bar and they would prefer to take their business elsewhere because it made them uncomfortable for x, y, and z reasons.

Now, to prove to the court that his business was in fact declining, would it be fair for him to attempt to track down some of these ex-customers, who may or may not still be friendly towards him after leaving his business, so that they can explain why they left?

Numbers don't show reasons, people do. But to ask this man to try and track down all or any of the customers who changed establishments, especially if he had an incompetent lawyer, seems to be asking an awful lot.

It isn't the trans* groups fault. Possibly. Again, without hearing testimony from the customers who left, it is hard to say if they were behaving in a way that wouldn't be acceptable regardless of their gender identity.  But assuming it wasn't anything they did, because simply being trans* isn't offensive, and isn't a behavior nevermind an offensive one, it wasn't their fault.

However, neither is it the owners fault. He is watching his business slip through his fingers, and the only reason people are giving is that this is now a tranny bar. Not that he needs to renovate this, or change that. The reason he is being told that customers are leaving is that this establishment is no longer just a bar, but a bar that caters specifically to a certain crowd, and therefore those that don't fit into that category are finding somewhere else to drink.

Is it fair to the group? No. Is it fair to the bar owner? No. This is a lose-lose situation for the bar owner. He has to make a decision on whether this loyal group of customers is enough to keep his business running, and the answer he comes up with is no, they aren't. If he continues to cater to them, his business will decline to the point where he is forced to close.

So instead he feels forced to ask them to leave. Keep in mind, this is after 4 years of seeing them every Friday, of making sure they are happy there (because obviously if they have been coming for 4 years, they LIKED going there), and of providing them a safe place to be themselves.

But he feels like there is no longer an option, and he asks them to find somewhere else to go, because it is simply hurting his establishment too much to continue to allow them there.

Again, it is NOT fair to the group. However, I don't feel it is fair to the bar owner either. If he had a problem with them being trans* he wouldn't have spent 4 years providing them services.

As someone who has worked out in the world, I can say that 4 years of seeing a customer weekly, even just as a cashier, you get to know them. He could probably tell you what some of them ordered on a regular basis. They may or may not have had a "spot" that was theirs, that they always tended to gravitate towards. He was used to seeing them every Friday. I can't imagine that it was an easy thing for him to come to the conclusion that he needed to ask them to leave.

He did NOT do it out of malice, or hate, or anger. He did NOT do it to be hurtful. He didn't use slurs or derogatory accusations. He did NOT allow them to have violence done against them. He did not resort to one of many tactics that would have hurt them emotionally or physically. Instead he politely explained his situation and why he was doing what he was.

Did it hurt them? Of course it did. They are human beings and were told they were no longer welcomed in the place they have visited every week for 4 years. They were hurt. They were offended. And then they sued him.

And claimed trauma? I'm sorry, but for four years this man gave them a safe enjoyable place. How is that traumatic? Is it hurtful that he has asked them to no longer return? Yes, it is. But hurt is a human emotion that everyone feels at one time or another. It is a HEALABLE pain. If this group is that traumatized over one simple request, I do believe that it comes from a lifetime of judgement, not this one man.

So to make him responsible for all that pain added together seems unfair. For four years he welcomed them. That is not trauma. For four years he served them, kept his bar safe for them, gave them an enjoyable experience. That is not trauma.

For five minutes, he asked them not to return. THAT is trauma. But is that worth 400,000? One request after 4 years of fair and just treatment?

I don't think so.

Slywyn

1) His bar was restructured and renamed something like a year after the T-Girl group was asked not to return. This in itself almost proves that the T-Girls were not the reason the bar was declining. The T-Girls were not asked to leave because they were causing him financial trouble.

2) 400,000 is a pretty huge fine, yes. But the fine was not 400,000. As someone else mentioned the actual fine was like 5,000 which is a much more reasonable number. The 400,000 figure is not a fine, but an amount awarded by a court to a number of defendants. And it was not 400,000 to each defendant. It was 11 defendants, each bringing their own arguments to a case, whose individual damages happened to add up to 400,000. Each person only received something like 25,000, which is again a much more reasonable number. There were just 11 similar settlements. That is why the number is so big. It has nothing to do with a fine.

3) Regardless for his reasons for doing so, he asked for a group of trans* to leave because they are trans*. That is discrimination. It is against the law. That is why the fines and the settlement happened. Intent means nothing.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 06:54:52 AM
What - hypothetically - if it had been?  If he could produce any piece of evidence you could dream of that this group were driving other customers away by their very presence.

Would you agree with his action then?

*cough*

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 03:41:07 AM
What a business owner has the right to do is ask individuals to leave, so long as that owner asks within the confines of the law. Penner was not within the confines of the 2007 Oregon Equality Act. Business owners do not have the right to single out groups based on sex, gender, race, etc. as a basis for denying them entry into their establishments (and yes, that includes saying 'my business isn't doing well because group X exists here').

Er....no. No, I would not agree, as I still believe he was wrong to ask a group to leave based on his biased perception of their gender orientation.

And to me, that applies to any and all groups.

Quote from: Katataban on September 02, 2013, 07:59:49 AM
But I've been barred from places because I was different. Either my sexual preferences, which I didn't even display but which people knew about. Being bisexual that is. Or even in one case for the fact that I was white.

And if you were being barred solely on the basis of your sexual orientation or your skin color (yes, white people are still people and a group), then......what happened to you was wrong in my book.

Quote from: Slywyn on September 02, 2013, 11:04:01 AM
3) Regardless for his reasons for doing so, he asked for a group of trans* to leave because they are trans*. That is discrimination. It is against the law. That is why the fines and the settlement happened. Intent means nothing.

And Imogen, in case you are reading, this sums up my rebuttal to your last result/catalyst argument. It does not matter the motives behind singling out trans* individuals. The fact is....he singled them out for just being that way. And that was still wrong.

EDIT:

Received an apology via PM from Katataban, which I accepted. Thank you, Katataban. Still respect you, sir.

Also, thank you, Veks. I mean that. Thank you so much.

lilhobbit37

Actually from when I took law in college, intent IS everything.

Mens reas (not sure on the spelling) is required for any criminal lawsuit. Unfortunately in this country not for civil suits.

If Person A kills Person B, but had no intention, they CANNOT be convicted of murder. Thus the lesser charge of manslaughter.

If Person A is mentally incapable of intention (special needs/below a certain age), they CANNOT be tried, because intent can not be proven, and therefore they are incapable of standing trial.

This man did redo his bar a year after. This does NOT prove the trans* group was not the problem. It only proves that after a year his business had not returned. A reputation does not disappear overnight. If it had the rep of a trans* bar, new customers were not coming in, and old customers were not returning, and therefore the owner was forced to take a drastic action and redo his entire bar to try and attract people back.

This doesn't prove they were or were not the problem. It only proves that their leaving didn't instantly revive his business.

And I don't care if it was 10k per person. There was not enough trauma from this one action to justify even 1 thousand in my opinion. Again, he was polite, and explained his reasoning, which while unfair, was not in and of itself traumatizing in that degree. Not fair, but not worth thousands, or hundreds of thousands.

I hope I'm not coming across as rude or offensive, as that isn't my intent at all. I respect people as they are, no matter what their identity or orientation.

I've been discriminated against for being gay. And it sucks. I'm not denying discrimination doesn't suck. But do I feel that I should have a quick buck off someone who WASN'T rude, but discriminated against me none the less? No.

It isn't that they couldn't, it's that in my opinion they SHOULDN'T have.

He could have done so much to make them leave, that would have technically let him get away with it unscathed, but made their life miserable. He could have gone out of his way to make them uncomfortable, and make them WANT to go elsewhere because of his treatment of them. He could have let other customers be cruel to them and scare them away, and say he can't watch everything all the time or some bull.

He did none of those things. He took the higher ground and spoke to them frankly and directly. And while that may have hurt their feelings, I do not feel they deserve thousands for it.

Slywyn

As you yourself said, this was a civil case. Intent is meaningless in this situation. He broke the law, end of story.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

ThePrince

According to the court documents the Friday night revenues went down to about 80k. So the total fines amount to about a month worth of Friday night revenues when the business was doing poorly. So perhaps 400k isn't necessarily an exuberant amount.
RP Request Thread
O/O's
I am what I am. I am my own special creation.
So come take a look, Give me the hook or the ovation.
It's my world that I want to have a little pride in.
It's my world and it's not a place I have to hide in.
Life ain't worth a dam till you can say I am what I am.

Blythe

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 11:14:56 AM
Actually from when I took law in college, intent IS everything.

He did none of those things. He took the higher ground and spoke to them frankly and directly. And while that may have hurt their feelings, I do not feel they deserve thousands for it.

Okay....let's take intent into account in this instance, just in case.

His intent was to specifically bar them because they were transgender. His perception of the effect they were having on his business because they were transgender is not relevant, because he singled them out specifically over being transgender in regards to his business and revenue. While he was good to them before, he suddenly othered them powerfully. His intent was still wrong, in my opinion.

For those that keep saying the T-girls should have just gone elsewhere, how many places must one go to just to be afforded a basic right of a human being, the right to enter a business and offer patronage to it just like everyone else? How many places must they be unfairly barred from just to make others comfortable? Acceptance of transgender people is not going to occur by fencing all trans* people off and forcing them elsewhere. That's only going to continue perpetuating a cycle of intolerance.

However....you mention you don't think they deserve thousands for it.

I would like to mention that I have repeatedly stated that I thought $400,000 was somewhat excessive. I think it would have been possible for the T-girls to make their point about discrimination over a much smaller sum.

EDIT:

Quote from: Finn MacKenna on September 02, 2013, 09:03:28 AM
It boils down to, as has been pointed out I believe. If this had been black people, Jews, women, etc. It would be pretty hard to defend. Even if the presence of black people WAS ruining his business, it wouldn't change the fact that asking them to leave because they're making racist costumers uncomfortable would be a racist action, even if it wasn't motivated by racism (at least not directly).

Its also worth considering that if the presence of transgender people is ruining his business, it would likely have a similar effect to other bars in the area. If this is the case, then they'd find themselves eventually banned from every single bar in the region that isn't specifically targeting lgbt costumers. While its easy enough to argue that, well, they've still got THOSE bars, that just stinks an awful lot like segregation to me, even if it isn't directly enforced by the law.

I think its worth asking why this is a problem for this bar. If transgendered people being in a bar caused it to lose costumers, shouldn't we be seeing this story more often? It just seems to me that their simple presence in a bar shouldn't be significantly detrimental to sales, when the lack of stories like this would suggest that other bars don't seem to have as much of a problem with it.

This. Especially the parts I bolded/colored for emphasis. This states my opinion as clearly as I can make it.

Slywyn

These sorts of damages aren't usually just numbers pulled out of thin air. They're generally designed to hurt. They wouldn't be damages if they didn't impact his business in some way.

And, yes, I think the fact that his bar continued to decline for a year to the point that he had to rename and restructure does a lot toward proving that the T-Girls weren't a problem.

1) They'd been coming there for four years. IF they had an impact, it would have shown up much sooner.

2) He was already considered "LBGT" friendly. This is in itself enough to show that they weren't going to do anything to his bar by being there, which puts lie to his excuse of 'well they were making the other lbgt customers(As he was a lbgt-friendly bar) uncomfortable'.

3) They were gone for a year by the time he restructured. If your business hasn't recovered in a year, you are doing something wrong. It has nothing to do with who is in the bar, if you have gotten rid of the 'offending' parties.

The T-girls were asked to leave because they were trans*, it's not a difficult concept. It had nothing to do with his business. If anything he tried to use them as a scapegoat for why his business was failing, and it backfired.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

lilhobbit37

And I wasn't trying to sound as though I disagreed with you!

I understand where they are coming from, but the way they are going about it is wrong in my opinion. He took the higher moral ground in the way he dealt with it, wrong or not, whereas they, while on the higher legal ground, are being unscrupulous in response.

He hurt them, so they take every dime they can from them.

Revenge won't give them a place to feel safe and comfortable. Instead other bars will look for ways to bar them without stepping on the law, for fear of what this group may decide to do to them if they feel discriminated against. So they will find ways to bar them legally, but still firmly, simply not stating the reason is their trans* status.

I just feel this case isn't going to help anybody. It hurts the bar owner, but in the end it makes this group seem more money-oriented rather than truly trying to change the way trans* are treated.

Had they sued him for a smaller amount, because, lets face it, he did what he did in the most polite and least offensive way possible, I might not have been so affronted. And for those saying a slap on the wrist won't change anything, neither will this.

The first bar got away with it by saying one night a month was appropriate for them.

So all this tells bars is to be more dishonest in their methods, not that they need to be less discriminating.

Slywyn

You don't pick your damages in a civil case. The 'jury' or judge decides how much to award you. They're not any more money-grubbing than anyone else who brings a civil case against someone for discrimination.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

lilhobbit37

Thus why I said seem more, not were. I do not believe they went in with money as the goal. However, due to the large amount of money awarded, that is what the average person sees. And other business owners will see that, and be afraid of this group, because they "might be next".

Kythia

Quote from: Slywyn on September 02, 2013, 11:30:42 AM
These sorts of damages aren't usually just numbers pulled out of thin air. They're generally designed to hurt. They wouldn't be damages if they didn't impact his business in some way.

And, yes, I think the fact that his bar continued to decline for a year to the point that he had to rename and restructure does a lot toward proving that the T-Girls weren't a problem.

1) They'd been coming there for four years. IF they had an impact, it would have shown up much sooner.

2) He was already considered "LBGT" friendly. This is in itself enough to show that they weren't going to do anything to his bar by being there, which puts lie to his excuse of 'well they were making the other lbgt customers(As he was a lbgt-friendly bar) uncomfortable'.

3) They were gone for a year by the time he restructured. If your business hasn't recovered in a year, you are doing something wrong. It has nothing to do with who is in the bar, if you have gotten rid of the 'offending' parties.

The T-girls were asked to leave because they were trans*, it's not a difficult concept. It had nothing to do with his business. If anything he tried to use them as a scapegoat for why his business was failing, and it backfired.

1) They'd been coming for 18 months

2) Evidence was presented about complaints he'd received about the group

3) They were gone three months by the time he restructured the bar.

All of these are simple statements of fact, easily checkable.  As is the fact they were asked to leave because in his opinion at least they were interfering with his business.  We have the documents proving it.
242037

Slywyn

What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 11:43:59 AM
2) Evidence was presented about complaints he'd received about the group

This is valid; weren't some of those complaints about the state in which they were leaving the bathroom? I'm all for trans* folk like me getting access to the right bathrooms, but some of the complaints were about hygiene, right, among other things (from both stories I've read and from that document I read, if I'm recalling right)? I've seen people 86'd from places over things like that, and about being loud, etc. So why didn't Penner just ask them to leave based on their behavior alone, not the fact they made his business look like a "tranny bar" (thus singling them out just based on their trans* status)?

If he would have barred them due to a behavioral issue (which is within his rights), then that is a whole 'nother can of worms, because a business owner does have the right to bar anyone for inappropriate behavior. But that would have had exactly nothing to do with their gender orientation. It would have been a behavioral thing.

The way he asked them to leave made it clear he was asking them to leave based on their gender orientation. He could have just said, "There have been complaints about your behavior and bathroom hygiene and conduct, so I am asking that you do not return." And that would have been both legal and moral.

But singling them out as the reason his business was failing over being transgender was not moral nor legal of him.

Kythia

I would argue that it was more moral.

He wanted them gone because a transgender group was interfering with his business.  He could have done so in two ways:

1) Being honest with the "leader" about his intent and motivation
2) Making up some excuse - even if a justified one - to ban them in a fairly underhanded way

Would you prefer he'd made up some excuse or searched around for another reason to ban them?  Slipped round the discrimination laws?
242037

lilhobbit37

It's quite possible he thought he was being more polite than saying,

"You piss all over the seats and it's unacceptable so please go elsewhere."

But I totally understand what you are saying.

Slywyn

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 11:57:08 AM
I would argue that it was more moral.

He wanted them gone because a transgender group was interfering with his business.  He could have done so in two ways:

1) Being honest with the "leader" about his intent and motivation
2) Making up some excuse - even if a justified one - to ban them in a fairly underhanded way

Would you prefer he'd made up some excuse or searched around for another reason to ban them?  Slipped round the discrimination laws?

The fact remains that he asked them to leave for being trans*. Which is neither moral, nor right. Yes, if he had 'made up' a reason(If they were really being disruptive he wouldn't have had to do so), it would have been skirting the law. But the fact remains that he didn't, and he asked them to leave because they were trans*. Which is discrimination and breaking the law.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 11:57:08 AM
I would argue that it was more moral.

He wanted them gone because a transgender group was interfering with his business.  He could have done so in two ways:

1) Being honest with the "leader" about his intent and motivation
2) Making up some excuse - even if a justified one - to ban them in a fairly underhanded way

Would you prefer he'd made up some excuse or searched around for another reason to ban them?  Slipped round the discrimination laws?

I don't follow your logic. It is not moral to use a label regarding identity for a group and blame that label as the reason they are interfering with his business.

He does get kudos for at least being honest about why he didn't want them there. But I don't think being honest somehow makes his action justifiable.

Banning them based on behavior that would be agreed upon as unacceptable no matter who did it would not have been underhanded nor an excuse. It would have been a justified reason to bar individuals from his business in a legally acceptable way that would have had nothing to do with being transgender.

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 11:57:28 AM
It's quite possible he thought he was being more polite than saying,

"You piss all over the seats and it's unacceptable so please go elsewhere."

But I totally understand what you are saying.

I'm willing to concede that he thought he was being polite. But again, his intent doesn't so much matter here as the way it was carried out. If he'd been forthright about whatever actual behavior (within the power of the T-girls to change, such as their decorum or their hygiene) was hurting the business (and not focusing on their transgender status), he could have had a very legal and moral reason to bar them entry.


But he didn't do that.


What I don't understand is that the P-club was portrayed as very LGBT friendly, and that acronym includes the T. Which he decided wasn't okay.

I don't think a business should be advertising as LGBT friendly if they want to bar the T part of LGBT. >.<

Kythia

I'm not sure he advertised as that.  LGBT friendly has come from Slywyn, nowhere else that I can see.

My point is that the reason he wanted them gone isn't because of bathroom issues.  Sure, he could have claimed it was, but it wasn't.  What you seem to be saying is that if you have a group of transgender individuals affecting your business then do not in any circumstances be honest with them, just find some other reason to ban them. 
242037

lilhobbit37

I will agree with you completely on that point Blythe. IF he was advertising as lgbt friendly, and not T friendly, then there is a HUGE problem.

However, it seems that while he was lgbt friendly, it wasn't an advertised thing, he just chose to try to be kind to all individuals in his bar regardless of their identity or orientation.

Slywyn

He is well known in the area for being a LGBT-friendly business owner. It's in one of the articles that I read. It was even used as part of his defense if I read it correctly.

My point is that if he wanted them gone for being trans* it is still discrimination no matter how he went about getting them banned. He just happened to ban them for being trans* in a way that got him in trouble with the law.

QuoteWhat you seem to be saying is that if you have a group of transgender individuals affecting your business then do not in any circumstances be honest with them, just find some other reason to ban them.

That is a ridiculous argument. And if you wanted someone gone for being trans*, almost no matter how you went about it, you could get hit for discrimination because that is what you are doing.

Yes, it would have actually been preferable if he had said something like "We don't want you to come back because you're destroying the bathrooms" or something similar because that is not discrimination. What he did was discrimination. This is not difficult to grasp.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 12:14:01 PM
I'm not sure he advertised as that.  LGBT friendly has come from Slywyn, nowhere else that I can see.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021731073_transgenderpenaltyxml.html

Penner made accomodations for gay patrons, even had a gay dance night:

Quote
Penner denied last year that he is biased. He said he had once hosted a weekly dance night for gays and that a gay pool team had practiced in the bar.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/08/bureau_of_labor_and_industries_1.html

Quote"We said at the hearing he was an idiot when he said that," said Jonathan Radmacher, Penner's lawyer. "But he has a track record of decades of being supportive of the LGBT community.

And there used to be escorts to take the T-girls out to their cars, which I'm assuming was something provided to other LGBT patrons. He was pretty clearly advertising himself as LGBT friendly. So yeah...there was a case made for Penner and his business being LGBT friendly.

Also, that court document you provided, Kythia. Page 11, number 4. Penner was displayed as LGBT friendly with his business as part of the case under "Findings of Fact: The Merits."

So yeah, he advertised LGBT events openly and was known for being LGBT friendly.

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 12:16:32 PM
I will agree with you completely on that point Blythe. IF he was advertising as lgbt friendly, and not T friendly, then there is a HUGE problem.

However, it seems that while he was lgbt friendly, it wasn't an advertised thing, he just chose to try to be kind to all individuals in his bar regardless of their identity or orientation.

It does seem to be advertising. "Gay dance night" was an actual event he held, which I'm assuming the bar would have advertising to increase revenue on that night. That advertises to the G part, certainly.

So yes, LGBT friendly. The claimed to even hold "fame" nights in the court document for transgender people.

Kythia

Quote from: Slywyn on September 02, 2013, 12:19:46 PM
He is well known in the area for being a LGBT-friendly business owner. It's in one of the articles that I read. It was even used as part of his defense if I read it correctly.

You don't.  His defence was rather laughable (that he wasn't banning them from the bar, simply asking them not to come on a Friday night any more) but it wasn't that.

Now.  Blythe is saying that if the reason he had banned them was because of toilet issues then that would be fine.  I agree with him up to a point.  The point where I leave, and what I'm getting at, is that the toilet issues were, apparently, not severe enough for a banning. 

He could have made them so, banned on that grounds, but that wasn't the issue he had with the group.

It seems from my reading of Blythe's comments that he's saying that the bar owner should have used the toilets reason to get a group he wanted gone, gone.

Blythe - you posted while I was typing.  The first two are LGB, the "T" has been inserted - your comment about him ignoring the T doesn't apply.  The final, Im not sure where you're going with.  His bouncers used to escort guests who felt unsafe to their cars therefore its LGBT friendly?  That seems a stretch.
242037

lilhobbit37

It also goes a long way in saying there is more going behind the scenes than we may be aware.

Someone who escorts patrons to and from their cars to keep them safe, is NOT someone who would randomly discriminate those same individuals.

I'm getting the idea there may be much more to this than meets the eye.

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 12:26:36 PM
Now.  Blythe is saying that if the reason he had banned them was because of toilet issues then that would be fine.  I agree with him up to a point.  The point where I leave, and what I'm getting at, is that the toilet issues were, apparently, not severe enough for a banning. 

He could have made them so, banned on that grounds, but that wasn't the issue he had with the group.

It seems from my reading of Blythe's comments that he's saying that the bar owner should have used the toilets reason to get a group he wanted gone, gone.

Blythe - you posted while I was typing.  The first two are LGB, the "T" has been inserted - your comment about him ignoring the T doesn't apply.  The final, Im not sure where you're going with.  His bouncers used to escort guests who felt unsafe to their cars therefore its LGBT friendly?  That seems a stretch.

Gah, I was editing and then you posted. Sorry if my reply looks weird now. >.<

But he showed having LGBT events such as "gay dance night," "fame nights" for "gay, lesbian, and transgendered" persons according to that court document. How is that not advertising as LGBT friendly?

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 12:28:56 PM
It also goes a long way in saying there is more going behind the scenes than we may be aware.

Someone who escorts patrons to and from their cars to keep them safe, is NOT someone who would randomly discriminate those same individuals.

I'm getting the idea there may be much more to this than meets the eye.

Exactly. I have nothing against Penner. In fact, I think if he found the ruling unfair, he should appeal, which is his right. But I think there's something we're not seeing here, because he was displaying his business as LGBT friendly and suddenly had problems with the very customers he was trying to attract.

Makes no sense to me.  :-\

lilhobbit37

And for that very reason is why I question the whole case.

Because it is so obviously not adding up. And it makes me wonder what is being covered up and by whom and for what reason.

Slywyn

I think there's something else going on too, but unfortunately for him he decided to focus on the trans* aspects of the individuals he chose to ban, rather than any other problems they might have been causing. If they really were being disruptive and causing giant messes in the bathroom he should have banned them for that, rather than ban them for being trans* as he did.

Unfortunately for us, all we're seeing is "He banned them for being trans*".
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Kythia

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 12:32:55 PM
And for that very reason is why I question the whole case.

Because it is so obviously not adding up. And it makes me wonder what is being covered up and by whom and for what reason.

I did notice - and this verges into conspiracy theory - that Penner won a case a few weeks before these charges were lodged against BOLI.  Then the commissioner of the department brought charges against him; which is specifically stated as not the usual way to proceed.

Penner said he thought that the two were related, I remain unconvinced.
242037

gaggedLouise

There are lots of ways a person, or a group of people, can act obnoxiously or make others feel stared out, pushed to the sidelines or kind of uncomfortable without bumping into what would be legally offensive. Pointing at others - strangers in the same room - and cracking jokes about them, burping and making gestures, talking so loud that the rest are forced to listen to the conversation three tables away, or regularly bringing in people who are being a bit difficult socially while they (the hangarounds) are not ordering more than a beer or two over the whole evening. Any bar owner dreads that kind of thing.

We don't know enough about what went on for the plain reason that journalists refrain from giving any specific details in this kind of story (as pointed out by myself earlier in this thread). If it's a sensational murder you may get a lot more detail, but in this kind of thing it's very rare for news media to offer much detail even though they may have picked up a good deal. They don't want to risk getting pulled into new lawsuits or bad publicity, or they want to give a certain spin to the story - the Huff is a fairly liberal news source, but not  infallible.

Okay, I suspect the real reason Penner became disenchanted with the T-girl group could be that he considered they hijacked the place on friday nights. Took some of the best seats, acted up, cracked mean jokes at the expense of the other guests and really outstayed their welcome. I've seen that kind of thing happen on social occasions nd at clubs a couple times and it's almost impossible to counter if there isn't a backstage area where both sides agree to talk and find a solution, to make a deal out of sight of the others. If it's a couple acquaintances or guests whom the host doesn't really know personally, I mean privately, it's near impossible to solve the issue by saying "look, you shouldn't do this, do that, talk so loud" and so on - it will only trigger replies along the line "but I saw this other guest doing the same thing three weeks ago and they didn't get kicked out!"

Yeah, maybe the discomfort to the other guests had something to do with this group being trans. The bar man was honest enough, or non-shrewd enough, to imply some of this when he told the T-girls they would have to make their visits a bit more scarce (he may not have flatly banned them for good at first; I think that's a grey area in what we get to know). But the unease, or transphobia (again, a grey area: feeling uneasy or weary about somebody's attitude or the jokes they make in your presence doesn't mean one is transphobic) seems to have been on the side of some of his guests, not part of his own outlook. And it's likely that it was more centered on somebody's actions and attitudes - those of the T-girl group, of the people they brought along, or interactions between the transwomen and the other guests - than about their being TGs. If the idea is that he had a duty to keep running the bar and hold it open to them as a charity operation, even though what wnet on was seriously hurting his business, then I beg to differ.

Maybe the T-girls felt they had a right to push others to the sidelines because they had experienced being pushed aside and snubbed in the past. IMO that doesn't hold water, one is not entitled to make other people extras in your own show just because they are straight white men or whatever.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Kythia

Quote from: Slywyn on September 02, 2013, 12:33:42 PM
I think there's something else going on too, but unfortunately for him he decided to focus on the trans* aspects of the individuals he chose to ban, rather than any other problems they might have been causing.

Huh?  So what you're saying is he should have found some other reason to ban them, not them being trans?  Is that not the very argument you dismissed as ridiculous?
242037

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 12:35:16 PM
I did notice - and this verges into conspiracy theory - that Penner won a case a few weeks before these charges were lodged against BOLI.  Then the commissioner of the department brought charges against him; which is specifically stated as not the usual way to proceed.

Penner said he thought that the two were related, I remain unconvinced.

Weird....what was that case about? I'm kind of curious.  ???

(Also, much kudos to you for debating with me. And any apologies to you if I'm stepping on toes while we do so; it's been pretty enjoyable reading what you post and having a chance to talk about it. ^^)

Slywyn

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 12:48:17 PM
Huh?  So what you're saying is he should have found some other reason to ban them, not them being trans?  Is that not the very argument you dismissed as ridiculous?

He should not have banned them for being trans at all. IF there was another problem they were causing, he should have banned them for that. Because he did not and we have not seen anything to the contrary in a statement from him or by him, all we can conclude is that he said the equivalent of 'yo trannies, get out'. IF they had been causing a problem, he should have said "Yo T-Girls, you are being distruptive and making a giant mess of the bathroom, so don't come back".

One of those is discrimination. One is not. He used the one that is discrimination. That is where the problem lies.
What Makes A Shark Tick ( o/o's )

"True friendship is when you walk into their house and your WiFi automatically connects." - The Internet, Probably

I'm just the silliest, friendliest little shark that ever did. Sure, I have all these teeth but I don't bite... much.

Kythia

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 12:50:42 PM
Weird....what was that case about? I'm kind of curious.  ???

(Also, much kudos to you for debating with me. And any apologies to you if I'm stepping on toes while we do so; it's been pretty enjoyable reading what you post and having a chance to talk about it. ^^)

Back taxes from a previous owner

And you're certainly not stepping on my toes.  I'm sat at work with nothing to do because someone who "urgently" needed to speak to me three hours ago still hasn't got back to me.  I have nothing else to do ;D

EDIT:  Wages, sorry, not taxes.
242037

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 12:52:51 PM
Back taxes from a previous owner

And you're certainly not stepping on my toes.  I'm sat at work with nothing to do because someone who "urgently" needed to speak to me three hours ago still hasn't got back to me.  I have nothing else to do ;D

EDIT:  Wages, sorry, not taxes.

Huh. Yeah....I do think it's a stretch for Penner to claim his ruling was somehow influenced by the events of that other case, which had nothing to do with the T-girl one. I just don't think he has any evidence beyond pointing a finger and saying the equivalent of "Well, Avakian has a grudge against me!" Er....I don't think it's a grudge if commissioner Avakian is just doing his actual job.

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 12:35:16 PM
I did notice - and this verges into conspiracy theory - that Penner won a case a few weeks before these charges were lodged against BOLI.  Then the commissioner of the department brought charges against him; which is specifically stated as not the usual way to proceed.

Penner said he thought that the two were related, I remain unconvinced.

So....I think I agree with you. I'm not convinced those cases are related, either.

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 12:52:51 PM
And you're certainly not stepping on my toes.  I'm sat at work with nothing to do because someone who "urgently" needed to speak to me three hours ago still hasn't got back to me.  I have nothing else to do ;D

3 hours wait for "urgently" needing to speak? Geez..... T_T I'd be dying of boredom in there. /end derail.

Oniya

Basically, 'making a mess of the bathrooms' is a complaint that has nothing to do with gender.  If he found out that a certain cis-gendered individual was making a mess of the bathrooms, then that person could be banned from the establishment as well (although it would be hoped that a quiet word with the individual would be enough to ensure proper manners.)

Note that I am not singling out people with penises here.  I've been in plenty of ladies rooms that have been visited by the dreaded 'hover plague' or the habit of putting toilet paper on the seats and then forgetting to dispose of it when 'business' was complete.  (And yes, there were times when there was no possibility that the offender was other than a bio-female.   :-X Raised in a barn, I tell you.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

lilhobbit37

Or the feared monthy visitor needs.

I was a janitor and *shudder* women can be pigs. Dirty and disgusting pigs. *nods*

Kythia

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 12:58:02 PM
Huh. Yeah....I do think it's a stretch for Penner to claim his ruling was somehow influenced by the events of that other case, which had nothing to do with the T-girl one. I just don't think he has any evidence beyond pointing a finger and saying the equivalent of "Well, Avakian has a grudge against me!" Er....I don't think it's a grudge if commissioner Avakian is just doing his actual job.

So....I think I agree with you. I'm not convinced those cases are related, either.

3 hours wait for "urgently" needing to speak? Geez..... T_T I'd be dying of boredom in there. /end derail.

Yeah, and its not like it was Avakian who would have got that money.  Doubt he gives a toss whether he won or lost.

I did some filing and am now making a giant paperclip chain.
242037

Blythe

Quote from: Oniya on September 02, 2013, 12:58:24 PM
Basically, 'making a mess of the bathrooms' is a complaint that has nothing to do with gender.  If he found out that a certain cis-gendered individual was making a mess of the bathrooms, then that person could be banned from the establishment as well (although it would be hoped that a quiet word with the individual would be enough to ensure proper manners.)

Note that I am not singling out people with penises here.  I've been in plenty of ladies rooms that have been visited by the dreaded 'hover plague' or the habit of putting toilet paper on the seats and then forgetting to dispose of it when 'business' was complete.  (And yes, there were times when there was no possibility that the offender was other than a bio-female.   :-X Raised in a barn, I tell you.)

The hover plague is an epidemic that appears to have no cure. O_o

Much sadness. T_T

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 12:59:30 PM
Or the feared monthy visitor needs.

I was a janitor and *shudder* women can be pigs. Dirty and disgusting pigs. *nods*

*shudders along with her*

I used to clean both restrooms and the unisex one when I worked at a fast food place. I can safely announce that a little bit of my love of humanity died after realizing what state of the bathrooms were in after 10 p.m. I think we can all agree that no matter whichever group one is a part of, if the bathroom looks like a hurricane hit it after a person used it, then that is a problem which has nothing to do with what group one falls into....just has to do with basic hygiene.

There were walls hit by the splatter where I used to work....the horror....what was seen cannot be unseen.... *shudders*

Quote from: Kythia on September 02, 2013, 01:02:02 PM
Yeah, and its not like it was Avakian who would have got that money.  Doubt he gives a toss whether he won or lost.

I did some filing and am now making a giant paperclip chain.

*nod* Pretty much my thoughts exactly about Avakian, so Penner's claim there about it affecting the T-girl place is really invalid. We definitely agree on this.

Intensely off topic but relates to paperclip chains



Do you have time to make some paperclip staircase coverings?  ;D


*cough* Well....I derailed quickly.... >.<  Sorry about that, everyone.

*carefully flees the thread*

Oniya

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 02, 2013, 12:59:30 PM
Or the feared monthy visitor needs.

That was what I was referring to by 'no possibility that the offender wasn't a bio-female.' 

Blythe, I used to follow a LiveJournal called 'customerssuck'.  All I have to say about the tiny-text is 'exactly' and 'fitting rooms'.

The point I was trying to make is that citing 'bathroom issues' as a reason for the ban is not necessarily discrimination, if it is applied across the board, and if that was a complaint people were making.  (And no, leaving the seat up is not a 'bathroom issue'.  Frequently, I've been in a restroom where the cleaning staff has just gone through, and the seats were up so that they could reach the bits under the rim better.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Blythe

Quote from: Oniya on September 02, 2013, 01:33:27 PM
Blythe, I used to follow a LiveJournal called 'customerssuck'.  All I have to say about the tiny-text is 'exactly' and 'fitting rooms'.

The point I was trying to make is that citing 'bathroom issues' as a reason for the ban is not necessarily discrimination, if it is applied across the board, and if that was a complaint people were making.  (And no, leaving the seat up is not a 'bathroom issue'.  Frequently, I've been in a restroom where the cleaning staff has just gone through, and the seats were up so that they could reach the bits under the rim better.)

*carefully goes and finds that LiveJournal*

But hmmm, yes, I can agree with your point, Oniya. *nodnod* I may have missed the nature of the bathroom complaints (been shifting through a lot of info in this thread and with sources here). If the nature of the complaint was just leaving the seat up, then I can agree, that's not really a "bathroom issue."

But yeah, should be applied across the board. And in the case of the T-girls discussed in this topic, their gender status should have had nothing to do with it. If it was a ban about the bathroom, all Penner should have done was ban each offender as an individual based on their bathroom issues using a standard that applied to every customer fairly.

EDIT: Added that second paragraph for clarity's sake. Was somewhat in danger of initially contradicting myself.

mia h

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 01:38:09 PM
If it was a ban about the bathroom, all Penner should have done was ban each offender as an individual based on their bathroom issues using a standard that applied to every customer fairly.

While it sounds a reasonable solution how would you actually implement it?  How do you know exactly who the offenders are?
You can't put cameras in to monitor what's going on because would cause a whole other set of legal issues, and is it reasonable to expect the business to employ some kind of bathroom monitor to inspect the place after each person comes out?
If a particular group of people is repeatedly causing problems and it's not all of that group but just a portion that you can't identify then isn't most pragmatic solution to ban the entire group?
And while Penner might screwed the pooch in it's execution it seems possible that he wasn't banning transgendered customers he was banning customers who were transgendered.

Quote from: ThePrince on September 02, 2013, 11:20:46 AM
According to the court documents the Friday night revenues went down to about 80k. So the total fines amount to about a month worth of Friday night revenues when the business was doing poorly. So perhaps 400k isn't necessarily an exuberant amount.
That's 80k revenue not 80k profit, obviously I have no idea what the costs but assume for a second that for 6 days a week the bar breaks even but on Fridays it makes 20% profit so 16K profit which would be 6 1/2 months worth of profit.
If found acting like an idiot, apply Gibbs-slap to reboot system.

Oniya

Many places have security cameras outside of restrooms.  Combine that with a sign inside saying 'If the restroom facilities were lacking in any way, please notify the manager' (often used to report clogged toilets, lack of paper towels/toilet paper/hand soap), and that's pretty much all you need.  Customer complains, the incident gets noted (and attended to) and the security tapes can be cued up to the appropriate time stamp to see who goes in and out.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

lilhobbit37

And one of the complaints mentioned was that they were leaving stall doors open while they were using the restroom. I don't care if you are a male, female, or transgender. If I entered a public restroom and walked by a stall where someone was publically taking a piss, I'd be uncomfortable. The fact that the individual might also be biologically male would make me even more uncomfortable and I would not be likely to return to that establishment because of that incident, not because I have a problem with transgendered people but because that would put me in a situation I did not want to be in.

Florence

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 03, 2013, 02:22:29 PM
And one of the complaints mentioned was that they were leaving stall doors open while they were using the restroom. I don't care if you are a male, female, or transgender. If I entered a public restroom and walked by a stall where someone was publically taking a piss, I'd be uncomfortable. The fact that the individual might also be biologically male would make me even more uncomfortable and I would not be likely to return to that establishment because of that incident, not because I have a problem with transgendered people but because that would put me in a situation I did not want to be in.

Of course, it comes back to the fact that these, in and of themselves, are valid reasons to ask them to leave. People thinking it was turning into a tranny or gay bar is not.
O/O: I was going to make a barebones F-list as a rough summary, but then it logged me out and I lost my progress, so I made a VERY barebones F-list instead: Here.

Blythe

Quote from: lilhobbit37 on September 03, 2013, 02:22:29 PM
And one of the complaints mentioned was that they were leaving stall doors open while they were using the restroom. I don't care if you are a male, female, or transgender. If I entered a public restroom and walked by a stall where someone was publically taking a piss, I'd be uncomfortable. The fact that the individual might also be biologically male would make me even more uncomfortable and I would not be likely to return to that establishment because of that incident, not because I have a problem with transgendered people but because that would put me in a situation I did not want to be in.

I can get behind your reasoning. I would also be uncomfortable at someone taking a public piss, regardless of gender orientation. And if Penner had just asked them to leave based on that instead, I would have supported that, because it would have had nothing to do with the T-girls being transgender, just being really rude. Rudeness is something that anyone can be guilty of.

Its a shame Penner put his foot in his mouth, though. It looks like he might have had a legitimate reason to ask them to leave that would have had nothing to do with their transgender status, and he still chose to focus on that status. *sigh* Boggles my mind, that does.

Quote from: Finn MacKenna on September 03, 2013, 02:33:50 PM
Of course, it comes back to the fact that these, in and of themselves, are valid reasons to ask them to leave. People thinking it was turning into a tranny or gay bar is not.

You keep ninja'ing me with things I agree with. *laughs*

Kythia

Sorry, Blythe, I want to come back to something you said earlier.  To refresh your memory:

QuoteWhat - hypothetically - if it had been?  If he could produce any piece of evidence you could dream of that this group were driving other customers away by their very presence.

Would you agree with his action then?

Quote from: Blythe on September 02, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
*cough*

Er....no. No, I would not agree, as I still believe he was wrong to ask a group to leave based on his biased perception of their gender orientation.

And to me, that applies to any and all groups.


(I've snipped bits for space.  Original exchange is here)

I think this is the crux of my problem with the situation and I just wanted to expand it a little.

These girls were out having a drink, socialising and supporting each other.  A right everyone has, certainly.  Penner, in my hypothetical, was running a bar which was going out of business.  You feel that these girl's right to drink with their friends overrides Penner's right to run his business?  What I'm getting at is that what they were doing wasn't overly important in the grand scheme, and frankly could have been done anywhere.  Penner was supporting himself, possibly a family (not sure, not seen one mentioned), paying bills, etc.  But you feel that his right to do that is less important?  Am I understanding you right?

As I say, I think this is the problem I have here.  In case its not obvious, I don't.
242037

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 03, 2013, 05:56:47 PM
Sorry, Blythe, I want to come back to something you said earlier.  To refresh your memory:

(I've snipped bits for space.  Original exchange is here)

I think this is the crux of my problem with the situation and I just wanted to expand it a little.

These girls were out having a drink, socialising and supporting each other.  A right everyone has, certainly.  Penner, in my hypothetical, was running a bar which was going out of business.  You feel that these girl's right to drink with their friends overrides Penner's right to run his business?  What I'm getting at is that what they were doing wasn't overly important in the grand scheme, and frankly could have been done anywhere.  Penner was supporting himself, possibly a family (not sure, not seen one mentioned), paying bills, etc.  But you feel that his right to do that is less important?  Am I understanding you right?

As I say, I think this is the problem I have here.  In case its not obvious, I don't.

Penner has a right to run his business within the confines of the law. His bar going out of business is not the fault of these girls' being transgender, and he made it seem that way. He may ask the girls to leave if they are doing something other than existing that is ruining his business, and that would be within his rights. But yes, the girls have a right to drink where they want, so long as their behavior is appropriate. When/if the behavior is out of line is when Penner is within his rights as a business owner to ask them to leave based on their behavior and nothing else.

What they are doing is important in the grand scheme, because just existing and supporting his bar with their business is not a problem. The T-girls should not be penalized by Penner for lack of business (by being asked to leave/being banned); that is not their fault. They cannot be held accountable for his other customers leaving just by existing. They should only be held accountable for actions they actually committed..... which has nothing to do with them being transgender.

Your argument relies on punishing the T-girls by forcing them to leave a business for doing nothing wrong, in my opinion. And that would be wrong no matter what group it involved.

EDIT: Keep in mind, that doesn't mean I don't feel bad for Penner. I understand he has a livelihood and a family to support. But penalizing customers that he was trying to attract to his business (which was known for being LGBT friendly with it's gay dance night, gay fame night, and trans* fame night) is an exceedingly foolish and wrong thing to do, in my opinion.

Kythia

Quote from: Blythe on September 03, 2013, 06:06:37 PM
Your argument relies on punishing the T-girls by forcing them to leave a business for doing nothing wrong, in my opinion. And that would be wrong no matter what group it involved.

It does, yes.  To an extent, at least.  But it seems to me yours relies on punishing a business (far more severely, as well, which is the crucial point) that has done nothing wrong.

But meh.  As I say, that was my major problem and it seems like we're not going to agree on it.  Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, though.  Enjoyed our conversation.
242037

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 03, 2013, 06:13:59 PM
It does, yes.  To an extent, at least.  But it seems to me yours relies on punishing a business (far more severely, as well, which is the crucial point) that has done nothing wrong.

But meh.  As I say, that was my major problem and it seems like we're not going to agree on it.  Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, though.  Enjoyed our conversation.

I can agree to disagree; I see where you are coming from--I am arguing more from a civil rights stance, and you are arguing for the rights of businessmen (both sides of which have merit to some degree). Thank you for debating with me, Kythia. I really appreciate it.

EDIT: (Remember that I did mention several times in this thread that I thought the fine was excessive, so I do think the punishment is a bit severe, that the point could have been gotten across for a smaller amount of money and still make the point about civil rights on behalf of the T-girls)

Kythia

Quote from: Blythe on September 03, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
I can agree to disagree; I see where you are coming from--I am arguing more from a civil rights stance, and you are arguing for the rights of businessmen (both sides of which have merit to some degree). Thank you for debating with me, Kythia. I really appreciate it.

EDIT: (Remember that I did mention several times in this thread that I thought the fine was excessive, so I do think the punishment is a bit severe, that the point could have been gotten across for a smaller amount of money and still make the point about civil rights on behalf of the T-girls)

Ha, can't seem to leave this alone.  It's not quite the rights of businessmen per se.  Its a weighing up of the harm done to either side.  My view is that the bar and bar owner in my hypothetical is harmed far more by the situation continuing than the girls are by being booted. 

I wish I had the willpower to not have typed that.  I'm weak, Blythe, weak. 
242037

Blythe

Quote from: Kythia on September 03, 2013, 06:25:34 PM
Ha, can't seem to leave this alone.  It's not quite the rights of businessmen per se.  Its a weighing up of the harm done to either side.  My view is that the bar and bar owner in my hypothetical is harmed far more by the situation continuing than the girls are by being booted. 

I wish I had the willpower to not have typed that.  I'm weak, Blythe, weak.

Except him booting the T-girls sets a bad precedent for every single transgender person who wants to frequent a business in Oregon. I feel that in my hypothetical, a victory for Penner would have set a legal precedent for business owners to discriminate against transgender individuals in Oregon. So I feel that transgender people in Oregon would have been far more harmed by a victory from Penner than Penner and his bar are harmed by his loss.

*cough*

Dang it, Kythia. I'm weak, too.  :'( *headdesks* As I said, I think we are agreeing to disagree, which I'm okay with. I can understand how you came to your reasoning--I just don't agree.  :-\

Kythia

Yes but what about....

Nah, Im just messing with you.  Thanks for talking to me, and yeah, agree to disagree sounds best.  I can see your argument and its a solid one, just not one I agree with.

Here - as a thank you for talking to me have a creepy looking doll:



First hit on a google image search for "Blythe"
242037

Blythe


Rogue

Just want to say... I love it when you two debate. :)

My opinion: Owner was a dumbass. Chose to say it was because they were trans and not because of the behavior they were exhibiting. On a more important level, he may even believe it's because they were trans and the behavior was linking to this.... Which is still stupid, but leans a lot more towards the discriminating bit.

The girls already said that they'd be happy to have this case continue as long as possible, even if it meant not getting money. Simply because they want the coverage for Trans rights. :)

Owner is going to suffer for his dumbass behavior, even if he doesn't end up paying the fines/damages. He's going to be boycotted by a large number of people who may have otherwise dropped by. This is ridiculously bad press. Business is going to die, regardless of the money he pays.

My opinion. Unfortunately, not as eloquent as I'd like but I'm tired and just spent like an hour reading everything. :D

Sethala

Apologies for bringing this topic up again, but I have a couple thoughts of my own...

First off, the size of the group.  Now, full disclosure, I'm in a small town in the middle of nowhere.  But when I read some of the quotes saying that the group was sometimes as big as fifty people, my mind just boggles.  In pretty much every restaurant here, a fifty person group would mean closing up shop to everyone not part of that group, and possibly only fitting half of the group at a time, for the smaller ones.  If he's used to getting large groups of people that order some of the pricier drinks, and now suddenly has his bar full of this group where most only order a few beers, and the customers that usually spend more money don't come in simply because it's too crowded, business is going to tank - hard - while the group is doing nothing offensive but not spend enough money on drinks.  Even some of the larger places I've been to in Minneapolis, a fifty-person group would make the place severely crowded on an otherwise-normal Friday evening.

And how do you fix that, exactly?  Do you add a minimum price someone has to pay before they can stay in the bar?  Do you just talk to the main members of the group and tell them "sorry, you guys don't spend enough money here, so you need to go"? 

Now, I realize that fifty was the larger end of the group, but it looks like it's not just this one small group of people that comes in and acts offensive, it's a large group that may be acting offensively, especially if they outnumber all the other customers in the bar and act as if it's "their" bar.  Now yes, he shouldn't have said anything about them being "trans*" causing it, but it's not unlikely for someone talking about it to slip up.  Especially if this may not have been the only time he tried to talk to the group, he may have been exhausted (or just frustrated) enough to not choose his words carefully.

Oniya

"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

kylie

Quote from: SethalaEspecially if this may not have been the only time he tried to talk to the group, he may have been exhausted (or just frustrated) enough to not choose his words carefully.

     Leaving a message that he doesn't want it to become thought of as a "tranny" or "gay" bar is not just being careless.  It's actively saying he's aware of a certain kind of negative stigma that can be attached to a group and he thinks it's in his interest to either submit or subscribe to the part of society that pushes that stigma.  Maybe he's rather careless not to know that this could be illegal.

      If he wants to set minimum spending to gain predictable income, then I suppose yes that's a cover charge and he can notify everyone of that publicly, not just call one group directly and privately specifically to discourage them.  Or perhaps provide more features and events that attract (or require, if legal) more the type of money he wants.

     
     

Sethala

Quote from: Oniya on September 10, 2013, 07:06:11 AM
I've seen a lot of bars that have a 'cover charge'.

Oh yeah, I forgot some places do that.  Don't have any bars like that anywhere near where I live, to be honest.  That might have fixed things, though that might have pushed out his other customers as well.

Quote from: kylie on September 10, 2013, 08:58:56 AM
     Leaving a message that he doesn't want it to become thought of as a "tranny" or "gay" bar is not just not being careless.  It's actively saying he's aware of a certain kind of negative stigma that can be attached to a group and he thinks it's in his interest to either submit or subscribe to the part of society that pushes that stigma.  Maybe he's rather careless not to know that this could be illegal.

      If he wants to set minimum spending to gain predictable income, then I suppose yes that's a cover charge and he can notify everyone of that publicly, not just call one group directly and privately specifically to discourage them.  Or perhaps provide more features and events that attract (or require, if legal) more the type of money he wants.

Yeah, you're probably right.  I just don't like the thought of him being fined enough to possibly shut down his business for good; it reeks of a "if I can't have it no one can" mentality on the part of the T-girls.

Anyway, I'll say that I really don't know anywhere near enough about bars and such to add much more to the topic, so I'll bow out and lurk for now.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Sethala on September 13, 2013, 03:13:21 PM
Yeah, you're probably right.  I just don't like the thought of him being fined enough to possibly shut down his business for good; it reeks of a "if I can't have it no one can" mentality on the part of the T-girls.

Yeah...that's kind of how a discrimination free, egalitarian society works. If everyone doesn't have it, then no one does.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


gaggedLouise

Quote from: DarklingAlice on September 25, 2013, 09:31:49 PM
Yeah...that's kind of how a discrimination free, egalitarian society works. If everyone doesn't have it, then no one does.

The tricky spot with that position is: while you could argue that it's the right of any grown-up in a country like the U.S. to drink out on the town (in general, as in "I'm free, white and twenty-one!") it's not an absolute right for any citizens to be allowed to drink with your gang in a specific bar. Or even to be allowed into any given bar. The owner (and the bouncer he's hired, if there is one) has the final say on who gets in.

In this case the owner told those t-girls they were not welcome anymore, at least not as a group, and he referred to them by their sexual orientation. What else was he supposed to have done to make it clear what particular circle of people he wished to restrict a bit? Calling every one of them by phone wouldn't have been practical, a bar owner almost never knows the phone numbers or personal whereabouts of even his recurrent customers. I think it's plain the article in the HP has selected away a good deal of what happened up to the point when he banned them, to drive their own spin, and that's not so uncommon for media outlets today. It's a long, long time since you could say "It's got to be true and accurate because I read it in the newspaper"

If the bar owner wanted to turn a faltering business around, and thought the t-girls and the people they brought along had made the place seem unwelcoming to other guests, then it's not an idea that would have popped into his head overnight. Most likely it's something he saw happening slowly over some time, and likely with a number of "brand damage factors" which he linked to this particular bunch of guests. I'm sorry but he has every right to protect his business. Put bluntly, some of his language in explaining what he did may have been sexist, but the actions themselves were not.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

DarklingAlice

It is the right of the proprietor of any business to refuse service to any individual or even an organization. However, they do not a right to blanketly discriminate against an entire class of people. We've been there, done that, and decided that it's a bad idea. And since not everyone can see the wisdom of that, we have a legal system to help things along. This is why you see significantly fewer "No Colored Allowed" signs around these days.

What disturbs me most is that I doubt this would be in any kind of question were this another minority group.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


gaggedLouise

Belonging to a particular group, which happens to be a minority group and sometimes (not always) an informally repressed group, does *not* set you free from the need to behave responsibly, sensibly and without pushing others into the corners. I'd agree with Sethala that the story reeks of an "If it can't be mine then nobody can have it" attitude.

The difference between open, legallly sanctioned discrimination and spotty, informal bans is vital too. In the old south up to the sixties, or in South Africa before 1991, signs like "Whites Only" and segregated workplaces and schools were everywhere and they were upheld by law. If a bar owner, or a couple of them, decide to ban people from the local trans person (or LGBT) community, that isn't anywhere near the same as full-on segregation. And in this case, the real reason doesn't seem to have been their being trans, but that they made a nuisance of themselves and discouraged other customers.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Sethala

QuoteWhat disturbs me most is that I doubt this would be in any kind of question were this another minority group.

I think that's because LGBT is the only minority group that has a bar culture surrounding it.  (I say that as in, I hear about "gay bars" or "trans bars" a lot but I pretty much never hear of "black bars" or "asian bars" - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as my hometown is too small to have any real "bar culture" to speak of.)

Quote from: DarklingAlice on September 25, 2013, 10:14:47 PM
It is the right of the proprietor of any business to refuse service to any individual or even an organization. However, they do not a right to blanketly discriminate against an entire class of people. We've been there, done that, and decided that it's a bad idea. And since not everyone can see the wisdom of that, we have a legal system to help things along. This is why you see significantly fewer "No Colored Allowed" signs around these days.

As far as I can tell from the article and the conversation here, the owner has banned "a specific set of people that are trans", not "all trans people".  If it was the latter, I would agree with you, 100%.  But I think that's where the disconnect lies, to be honest.  I suppose the question is, if a random trans person that wasn't a part of the group decided to go to the bar after the group was banned, would there be any problems?  If that random person would still be banned from the bar, or be harassed by the owner and staff, then I agree, there's a problem.  But if he would be able to go in, have a drink, chat with some people, and have a generally good time?  Much less of a "discrimination" case here, in my opinion.

DarklingAlice

Quote from: Sethala on September 25, 2013, 10:47:43 PM
As far as I can tell from the article and the conversation here, the owner has banned "a specific set of people that are trans", not "all trans people".  If it was the latter, I would agree with you, 100%.  But I think that's where the disconnect lies, to be honest.  I suppose the question is, if a random trans person that wasn't a part of the group decided to go to the bar after the group was banned, would there be any problems?  If that random person would still be banned from the bar, or be harassed by the owner and staff, then I agree, there's a problem.  But if he would be able to go in, have a drink, chat with some people, and have a generally good time?  Much less of a "discrimination" case here, in my opinion.

I concur completely. This would be the litmus test of discrimination. But based on the reasoning presented by the proprietors that they do not wish to be seen as running a 'tranny' bar or gay bar, I have to conclude that this is exactly what they are saying.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Blythe

I'm kind of curious. The owner mentions he doesn't want his bar to be perceived as a "gay bar" or a "tranny bar," but only a group of trans* individuals were asked to leave.

Does anyone know if the bar owner asked anyone gay to leave? Gender =/= sexuality, so the T-girls were barred on gender orientation. I'm just curious if any individuals who were gay but not trans* were denied access as well?

kylie

     When he goes amd puts "gay" and "tranny" in the same sentence like that, I'm not sure we can assume that he treats gender as something apart from orientation. 

I rather suspect he's blurring them, or perhaps he's acting on the assumption that someone else will.
     

Imogen

Quote from: kylie on September 26, 2013, 02:01:29 AM
     When he goes amd puts "gay" and "tranny" in the same sentence like that, I'm not sure we can assume that he treats gender as something apart from orientation. 

I rather suspect he's blurring them, or perhaps he's acting on the assumption that someone else will.

Yeah! He said that!

Let's NOT look at his actions, or the fact he's hosted them for a year! Let's ignore that the group in question had been asked to leave by others in the past. Let's not take into account that his bar had a reputation as LGBT friendly.

He put 'gay' and 'tranny' in the same sentence like that: he's racist, facist bigot and that's all there's too it!
[tr][td]
[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Woo's and Won'ts / Absences
Stor-E Writers Registry[/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[/tr][/table]

Chris Brady

Quote from: Blythe on September 25, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I'm kind of curious. The owner mentions he doesn't want his bar to be perceived as a "gay bar" or a "tranny bar," but only a group of trans* individuals were asked to leave.

Does anyone know if the bar owner asked anyone gay to leave? Gender =/= sexuality, so the T-girls were barred on gender orientation. I'm just curious if any individuals who were gay but not trans* were denied access as well?
Here's the thing, how would he know if they were Trans or Gay?  Unless they somehow brought attention to themselves.  Men and women go out in groups all the time of all sorts of sexual orientation and genders, so how did he know?  Well, in this case, they brought attention to themselves.

Part of the issue with the outrage over this (and I'm not saying that I've seen it here, but I've seen it on another site) is that we're not always given all the facts, and even if we were, we don't always accept them.

Reminds me of an article a ways back about a pair of lesbians who got kicked out a McDonalds.  At first, the McD's got lambasted and vilified for kicking these poor Lesbians, and when a Catholic priest praised the McD's then all hell broke loose.  But it turns out, that according to several other eyewitnesses, the two ladies were making out in ways that no one (of any orientations) should in a family restaurant, and that they were kicked out because of their behaviour, not their orientation.  The more that got reported, the less we heard about the outrage surrounding it.  Until we forgot it.
My O&Os Peruse at your doom.

So I make a A&A thread but do I put it here?  No.  Of course not.

Also, I now come with Kung-Fu Blog action.  Here:  Where I talk about comics and all sorts of gaming

gaggedLouise

Quote from: Blythe on September 25, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I'm kind of curious. The owner mentions he doesn't want his bar to be perceived as a "gay bar" or a "tranny bar," but only a group of trans* individuals were asked to leave.

Does anyone know if the bar owner asked anyone gay to leave? Gender =/= sexuality, so the T-girls were barred on gender orientation. I'm just curious if any individuals who were gay but not trans* were denied access as well?

The trouble is that newspapers (and the Huff Post is effectively an established newspaper) typically do NOT give that kind of information away to the readers, even if they have trustworthy information, written or oral, in this kind of story. News outlets often know or learn of a lot more than they share with the readers. They don't want to get embroiled in new court cases or media feuds on slander, finger-pointing, allegations of covert sexism, classism or negative portrayal ("bashing") of a certain city or whatever, so they typically don't hand out the details beyond the relatively small part that they judge necessary to keep the story together - or to create the spin they want.

In cases such as O.J. Simpson or Bernie Madoff, you'll find that some newspapers give a lot of detail, sometimes detail that's later found to have been invented or exaggerated. In most ordinary courtroom battles and crime stories, much less detail and next to none about precisely how someone behaved. That's just how news outlets operate and it's what you learn at media colleges.

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

Kythia

Quote from: Blythe on September 25, 2013, 11:45:27 PM
I'm kind of curious. The owner mentions he doesn't want his bar to be perceived as a "gay bar" or a "tranny bar," but only a group of trans* individuals were asked to leave.

Does anyone know if the bar owner asked anyone gay to leave? Gender =/= sexuality, so the T-girls were barred on gender orientation. I'm just curious if any individuals who were gay but not trans* were denied access as well?

According to the court records, yes.  It was the Rose City somethings that were banned, not all of whom were T-girls or had other gender identity issues.  One of the aggrieved was the boyfriend of a t-girl (IIRC he's the last one named but too lazy to check).  The T-girls absolutely weren't banned on gender orientation, that's made pretty explicit by both sides.
242037

DarklingAlice

The problem with claiming they weren't banned on the basis of gender identity and orientation is that it flies in the face of what the proprietors actually said.

As a thought experiment, imagine the Rose City Somethings were a group of young black people. Let's say that they were disruptive. Let's say they were bad for business. Let's say they were making other patrons uncomfortable. Let's even say that maybe they were even maybe doing something actually illegal. As the proprietor you can say: "Hey, you can't do X, Y, or Z here." or "You can't have your specific group here unless you make some kind of arrangement with the owner." or "X, Y, Z, specific people are banned." or "The Rose City Somethings are not welcome in this bar." Or a slew of other perfectly valid reasons to exercise your legal right to refuse service to these individuals. But I think we can all agree it would be repellent to say "You can't be here because we don't want this bar to be associated with niggers."

If what you mean is that you don't want a specific group in your bar there are multiple non-offensive, non-discriminatory ways to make that statement. They chose the offensive, discriminatory one. I think that's telling.
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant, and wrong.


Kythia

My issue is that the Rose City somethings were not an entirely T-girl organisation.  In fact, they predominantly catered to crossdressers.  He said he was worried about the place becoming a "tranny bar".  Presumably tranny being transvestite.

In short, this was a clothing issue.  That's what I was getting at very early in the thread when I talked about bikers.  They weren't banned for gender identity: that's not what the owner said they were banned for, that's not what they claimed they were banned for and that's not what the court case found they were banned for.

However, his policy was found to disproportionately and unfairly affect those with gender identity issues, hence him being found guilty (or liable or whatever the hell the term is for a civil case).  As I've mentioned before, I don't particularly agree with the ruling but even the ruling as is didn't suggest they were banned for gender identity issues.
242037

kylie

Quote from: Kythia
My issue is that the Rose City somethings were not an entirely T-girl organisation.  In fact, they predominantly catered to crossdressers.  He said he was worried about the place becoming a "tranny bar".  Presumably tranny being transvestite.

In short, this was a clothing issue.  That's what I was getting at very early in the thread when I talked about bikers.  They weren't banned for gender identity: that's not what the owner said they were banned for, that's not what they claimed they were banned for and that's not what the court case found they were banned for.  However, his policy was found to disproportionately and unfairly affect those with gender identity issues, hence him being found guilty (or liable or whatever the hell the term is for a civil case).  As I've mentioned before, I don't particularly agree with the ruling but even the ruling as is didn't suggest they were banned for gender identity issues.
... and ...
Quote
According to the court records, yes.  It was the Rose City somethings that were banned, not all of whom were T-girls or had other gender identity issues.  One of the aggrieved was the boyfriend of a t-girl (IIRC he's the last one named but too lazy to check).  The T-girls absolutely weren't banned on gender orientation, that's made pretty explicit by both sides.

     Link to documents and quote some parts you got this from, please? 

Obviously the court disagreed at some level when they leveled the fine...  But I'd like to know exactly what you're referring to.  This is asking us to buy a wholesale summary of 'all' the documents, with no direct citations.
--------------------------------------------------------------
 
     Beyond that:  A society having gender issues, does not require all the people in the room to have and be concerned with that issue 100% and nothing else, that minute, for it to be a potential basis for discrimination.  There is also no hard and fast rule that every issue is only about gender OR orientation OR community ideas about how to talk (or not) about sex in public.  You also seem to think that clothing choices of a TV are not comparable to any gender issues trans would ever be concerned about -- and I disagree completely.  In fact, many of these things overlap too.  So it's possible to end up discriminating against a group labeled as being "about" one, while looking supposedly at another. 

     But here, it sounds to me like you are saying:  If in fact, some of them were trans and some were tv or cd....  Therefore, you conclude that because there was a mix in the group where some identified as "transgender' and some didn't, the decision couldn't have had anything to do with gender on the owner's part just because some of the people banned -- you think -- weren't at all concerned about gender?  I'm skeptical.  Now if the court says there was discrimination but it wasn't about gender issues, then I dunno mayyyybe -- but please show me where. 

By analogy:  If there are 4 black people and 1 white person in a group and they're asked to leave and told people will think the place is becoming a "ghetto," I honestly don't care what people in the group did or didn't think about race.  It's entirely possible race wasn't on their mind at the time because they have lives to lead and things to do, too.  Better, there might be some people in the analogous group who are only part black, don't have "dark" skin so much as a more celebrated tone of soft mocha -- but they have a few habits more common to black communities.  That is similar to how American society, in a quite derogatory light, sees TV's in relation to trans and gender issues.  But  I wonder what was the owner thinking when he said "ghetto" directly to them, referring to them all as a group that he would -- positively -- deal with as a unit, and made it part of his justification. 

     And again, if you say having some tv/cd and some trans means there cannot be gender discrimination, then that is creating a very neat excuse for discrimination against trans groups, if you ask me.  What's the difference between a non or pre-op trans and a cd/tv?  Who is going to check under the pants to see which this is -- the court doctor?? Show me that all trans were never cd or tv, and show me that all trans may never cross dress...  On and on and on.  Bear in mind also, that it's the owner who is going to do the effort at banning.  Again, it doesn't matter so much what how many people in the group say they are or not.  Objectively, there's loads of room for discrimination based on gender issues.  Whether it's nasty or careless, and how many people in the group identify as what particular shade of orientation or gender, does not change that.

     What you wear can be a gender issue -- particularly so long as others insist upon treating it as a gender issue.  There isn't so much acceptance of transvestites and they don't have the same level of legal protection as transgender (in this sort of discussion, saying transsexual actually starts for once to seem more clear!).  But clothing is gendered and you  still end up with a situation where essentially, someone is picking on someone over gender presentation.  Whether he's looking at people changing sex, only taking hormones, or simply wearing feminine or masculine clothing without trying or managing to "pass" as male or female at the time...  It's all a gender problem.  It's all about what sort of performances (clothing, talk, displays of affection, what have you) people accept with what bodies or histories.  Now in effect drawing a false division between trans and tv/cd when in fact they may be together regularly and for some good reasons (!), it seems to boil down to just:  But, but, transvestites are not treated as nicely as transgender!  That's true.  That may be a convenient systemic explanation for part of the discrimination -- but still discrimination.  And btw, often still about gender too. 

     I suppose you might find more to fuss about whether there are enough precedents for the law to even recognize transvestites as people to be treated as a class for that purpose, or not...  Although the federal government has started to at least recognize the activity of some less conventional choices of gendered dress as worthy of protection alsoThat is true even though I believe, they've been thinking of MtF trans in the cases I'm aware of.  But if it applies to them, how can it not apply to TV's?  Seems to me for the federal government to act that way, would violate equal protection, etc.  [Edit: Wrong.  I forgot.   There was a case where a "plain old" (my " and sarcasm intended with the point) woman was defended against allegations that her attire failed to conceal her ample curves at work...  Still a gender problem!  Okay, if it applies to a woman, how long can it not apply to TVs or CDs and meet "equal protection" when what it protects is a right to choice of dress?]  So it's more a problem that more commonly, if anything people think TV's and CD's (particularly the "M dressing too feminine" angle) deserve to be dissed, or oh that just can't be helped.

     How you talk about sexuality, or what you display in public can be an orientation issue and I would say, also a gender issue too -- again, is it okay for women who "pass" to hug and laugh and joke about sex, but maybe not for those who don't "pass"?  If in fact trans groups or gay groups are sometimes more vocal and visible or more sex-positive in public, that's one thing.  But it's some work to prove that other types of people are not allowed to do something precisely comparable in that space, or why what the trans/tv what have you does is unacceptable precisely.  Particularly after many months of them attending the place.
     

Kythia

*sigh*

Really Kylie?

The link to the documents I've already posted once and frankly reading them yourself isn't a particularly unreasonable thing to ask. 

In fact, having read the conversation might even be considered by some to be a prerequisite.
242037

kylie

Quote from: Kythia on October 01, 2013, 12:53:37 PM
The link to the documents I've already posted once and frankly reading them yourself isn't a particularly unreasonable thing to ask. 

In fact, having read the conversation might even be considered by some to be a prerequisite.
You appear to enjoy making your own rules and procedures for the conversation -- sometimes in ways that are obviously impractical -- without addressing my substantive points at all.   

You said:
QuoteThe T-girls absolutely weren't banned on gender orientation, that's made pretty explicit by both sides.
(I'm thinking there, you actually meant "based on gender identification" - as opposed to say, based on sexual orientation.  "Gender orientation" is kind of unusual language.)

          I asked you to cite where the parties say it was not a question of gender discrimination. 
          If you know they said that, then you could at least say what section of this 57 pp. document you found it in (although, what pages would be ideal).  The legal documents have a lot of jargon and formality, and they are 57 pp. long.  They also happen to involve a fair bit of pain and tension and complexity to report on -- as you should know, if you actually read them.  So for you to demand that others read them all if they want to check what you're asserting came from those documents -- with the apparent  presumption that if they do, they will reach your conclusions about the whole thing when you have not cited any particular passages...  That is probably asking rather much of quite a few people here.  We don't all come to Politics to be quizzed on whether we read every single word that others did of however many treatises they feel like.  Sometimes we want to get on to the point -- do things make sense to us, or not.

          Now, having read several parts of the document closely, I still think you're probably misrepresenting people. 
           From what I am seeing so far, the "T-Girls" (multiple members, as a group, varieties of more particular identity notwithstanding) are not saying that.  They are saying they felt there was discrimination against "transgender" and related gender presentations. 

I also rather suspect some of them would laugh at the court decision for trying to define "transgender" as a singular sexual orientation.  I sort of do.  That part is just a conceptually messed up vehicle, and it boggles my mind, precisely how anyone else could reasonably use it as a precedent.  But if there was discrimination, at least it's a vehicle that ends up at a reasonable place.

Btw, there is actually some language on p. 3 in the Findings, running that the case involved "sex, sexual orientation, and [once "and", once "or"] gender identity."  That could confuse things a bit there.  I'm not honestly sure whether it's boiler plate that goes with any prosecution under these laws...  Or, just maybe someone woke up and realized yeah, these things are probably linked somehow anyway, so let's be safe and use the inclusive language here... 
           

          Now for examples.  Doing my best to type this out, as I don't have a neat way to copy text from the PDF.  You say everyone agrees no gender identity was at issue?  Well, that's not what these people felt at the time.  So, now that you've effectively demanded I give evidence first when all you gave was a blanket claim -- will you show me your evidence?   

Victoria Nolan pp. 25 (line 23) -- page 26 (line 19): 
          As I understand it, Nolan was then actively considering having the sex reassignment procedure.  What many people would call (and some people might say it only  after the fact) a pre-op trans.     
          "The voicemails were the first time Nolan experienced a business, as opposed to an individual, 'taking exception' to her and made her fearful that this would keep happening to her in public establishments.  She had just 'locked in' her surgery date for sexual reassignment surgery when she heard the voicemails and began to question if she could handle this type of occurrence...  Whenever she walked into a new public place, she wondered whether she would be helped or asked to leave."

Amy Lynn, who had been dressing "as a woman for her entire life," and in public in that fashion from sometime in 2008 (unspecified, but a year or two perhaps before the case): 
(p. 18 lines 7-8, 16-21) 
          "She felt angry at first... then hurt, when it seemed like everything was going so well.  She was offended by the voicemails and would not have gone back to the P-Club after that for any reason.  After hearing the voicemails, she quit going out for almost three months, during which time she dressed as a woman at home but stopped going out in public dressed as a woman.  She lost 15 pounds during that time and limited her socializing."

Kelley Davis (p. 20, lines 3-9)
           "Previously Davis had been asked to leave several places because she is transgendered and the voicemails were 'just another one  on top of the ones that I've already had happen' and 'another example of being transgendered in this society and being told that you don't belong.'"


          Looking at what the plaintiffs actually submitted to the court, at least so far: I don't see how you conclude that they were not talking about issues of gender identity.  What each of them happened to identify as at the time isn't the problem -- the problem is that what the owner said and did made them feel there was discrimination against a certain gender presentation, or against a range of identities they might wish to take on, and/or for which they felt some sympathy.

          I wonder if maybe, you went looking for some narrow thing -- you wanted plaintiffs to either say some precise magic words, "gender identification issue" or else, you're happy to assume that isn't what they meant.  But as with many socially difficult issues and painful personal experiences, people often talk around what they experienced exactly, but --if you are aware of the gender issue -- then the significance of the situation for that issue, is staring you right in the face.  If a woman says she felt "trapped" or "violated" but doesn't say the word "rape" or "assault" are you going to argue just based on that oh, it couldn't have been rape...?  Much like that. 

     

kylie

          Finally, I really can't get over your claim that if they had any internally varied gender presentations, there could not have been gender discrimination against them all as a group. 

Quote from: Kythia
My issue is that the Rose City somethings were not an entirely T-girl organisation.  In fact, they predominantly catered to crossdressers.  He said he was worried about the place becoming a "tranny bar".  Presumably tranny being transvestite.

In short, this was a clothing issue.  That's what I was getting at very early in the thread when I talked about bikers.  They weren't banned for gender identity: that's not what the owner said they were banned for, that's not what they claimed they were banned for and that's not what the court case found they were banned for.  However, his policy was found to disproportionately and unfairly affect those with gender identity issues, hence him being found guilty (or liable or whatever the hell the term is for a civil case).  As I've mentioned before, I don't particularly agree with the ruling but even the ruling as is didn't suggest they were banned for gender identity issues.

         More btw here, but:  Huh....  You said first it was found to affect those with gender identity issues -- but then the court documents (p. 36) also seem to say, according to the court, perhaps it was more about sexual orientation.  Which is nonsensical to me once they say that "transgender" is the orientation in question -- just maybe it was actually somehow, indirectly discrimination against gays, if they prefer to go there? -- but it does make for some confusion.  Now be all that as it may...

          How in the world is clothing -- particularly, cross-dressing not a gender identity issue??!  I believe it all but screams "gender" in the wording: Crossing, well, what did you think?  And here we have a group that in the court documents, even might be interpreted as specifically including cross-dressers in the very same category as "transgender."  It seems like you bought the court's claim it wasn't most obviously gender in question -- which I don't...  Yet apparently, you threw out what the T-Girls (or if you prefer, just maybe their legal team) apparently say their identity as a group would actually involve -- even though that was also available for consideration in the document (p. 27):

"Transgendered persons include transsexual persons, persons who are undergoing or in the process of undergoing gender transition, people who may live part time as one gender and part as the other, people who cross dress by wearing clothing typically associated with the other gender, and people who appear 'gender non-conforming.'"

          Granted not even many trans would really buy into such an inclusive definition.  But in this case, it seems the T-Girls as a group did just that.  Yet here you are saying, oh but clothing choices can be picked over -- that isn't gender discrimination, because cd's are potentially called "trannies" -- but not trans.  Well, that's your demanding that they pick an identity box you already recognize, and refusing to consider some gender options they actually care about.
     

Kythia

Quote from: kylie on October 02, 2013, 02:55:03 PM
          You appear to enjoy making your own rules and procedures for the conversation -- sometimes in ways that are obviously impractical -- without addressing my substantive points at all.   

Dear lord, Kylie.

You resurrected a week dead thread to ask for links to documents that were posted and discussed at length a month ago.  You've done similar in other threads and then, when it was pointed out to you that you clearly hadn't read what people had said, you claimed that you didn't see why you had to.

This is why you have to.  I didn't address your "substantive points" because you'd made it pretty clear you hadn't read any of the conversation before and so I didn't bother reading them.  I'm not made of free time, and the odds were overwhelmingly that they would be a pointless rehashing of an old conversation. 

This isn't imposing my own rules, Kylie, this is simply pointing out that if you are joining a conversation where the entire past history is easily available then people will be irritated when you utterly ignore it and even defend the fact you did.  Haven't read your substantive points.  I'm gonna now, actually, but didn't at the time because everything about the start of your post showed you had no idea what the conversation was about and the start is where I, well, started.

I'm honestly trying to explain here, Kylie.  I've written and rewritten this a few times to tone down any potential offense (as opposed to, I dunno, instruction I guess) that's in it and if there's still some then I apologise. 

But that's why I ignored your post, Kylie. 

Edit:  meaning altering typo
242037

kylie

          Yes, I realize it's all very comfortable to give some quip about how you talked about something weeks or months ago -- totally in spite of the fact that the question at hand was because of something you said quite recently, and my questions are about those direct quotes.  And saying no one should be allowed to respond a week later about a political issue?  That's just petty. 

You say what everyone, all parties to the case, said means just one thing:  I don't believe some of them said so at all, and that is a fundamental fact of the whole case.   So, if they did say that, can you show me.   That's it.  To me, those are pretty obvious and pressing questions.  It doesn't matter when I read it -- and here, you are still going on with this recently!  I really don't see how insisting that someone go back to some unspecified place ages earlier makes it any clearer.  I think your recent (as far as I could tell, your current) language is at best strange and in the question of what the parties (as a whole) said, simply mistaken.

          If you say something that sounds really incorrect or problematic, yeah people are going to show up and challenge you on where you got it.  At that point:  All this l the fuss about, "Oh, why didn't you ask sooner, surely we have said all that could ever need to be said' actually makes you sound less reasonable to me . 

By the way, I actually think that sort of 'but it's all been covered' is sometimes used more to prevent anyone having a serious enough conversation to get excited, rather than saying anything much about what actually transpired.  This isn't some court of law where everything must only be introduced once, where everyone must agree or shut up at once, and we have a baliff to make sure, and a Quiz Nazi to check who memorized what for how long.  And if it were, all these direct quotes people are firing for pages on end, would be completely illegal.

          I'll be happy to await an answer.  That is at your leisure, even.  I may not notice if it's a year later, of course.  But in any case, I also won't come around trying to claim you have some pattern of being obnoxious if you have other things in life you'd like to do for a while.
     

gaggedLouise

Quote from: kylie on October 02, 2013, 03:03:28 PM
         More btw here, but:  Huh....  You said first it was found to affect those with gender identity issues -- but then the court documents (p. 36) also seem to say, according to the court, perhaps it was more about sexual orientation.  Which is nonsensical to me once they say that "transgender" is the orientation in question -- just maybe it was actually somehow, indirectly discrimination against gays, if they prefer to go there? -- but it does make for some confusion.  Now be all that as it may...

          How in the world is clothing -- particularly, cross-dressing not a gender identity issue??!  I believe it all but screams "gender" in the wording: Crossing, well, what did you think?  And here we have a group that in the court documents, even might be interpreted as specifically including cross-dressers in the very same category as "transgender."  It seems like you bought the court's claim it wasn't most obviously gender in question -- which I don't...  Yet apparently, you threw out what the T-Girls (or if you prefer, just maybe their legal team) apparently say their identity as a group would actually involve -- even though that was also available for consideration in the document (p. 27):

"Transgendered persons include transsexual persons, persons who are undergoing or in the process of undergoing gender transition, people who may live part time as one gender and part as the other, people who cross dress by wearing clothing typically associated with the other gender, and people who appear 'gender non-conforming.'"

          Granted not even many trans would really buy into such an inclusive definition.  But in this case, it seems the T-Girls as a group did just that.  Yet here you are saying, oh but clothing choices can be picked over -- that isn't gender discrimination, because cd's are potentially called "trannies" -- but not trans.  Well, that's your demanding that they pick an identity box you already recognize, and refusing to consider some gender options they actually care about.


Kylie, not all mtf crossdressers wish to be considered female or to step inside womanhood - as in: changing one's ingrained behaviour, some of one's ways of talking, exchanging part of (or all of) the mental and social power relations your-self is entwined in, all of those...to "female mode". To some, it's the displacing and sort of constructed, the theatre bit that makes the central turn-on. And if that's what it is about, I doubt that it should be seen as touching at the root of that person's gender, or their perception of their own sex.

Most people who are into mtf crossdressing on any level enjoy the feel of female clothing, its colourful repertory, fabrics, the potential for wowing others, or the delicious, frankly erotic turn-on from wearing hose and skirts; but to some the clothing isn't the main thing, it's about leaving masculinity as gender behind and making yourself at home inside being a woman. And being accepted for it (which is often quite hard in vanilla society, we all know that). Yes, I want that aspect and I think it's what you want too, but I've known crossdressers who were not at all interested in being treated like girls beyond a very theatrical level.

Consider Bowie as Ziggy Stardust! We'll leave his bisexuality claim aside, he still cut an amazing figure in female gear. Did he want to be seen as a woman, period? Did he even want Ziggy to be considered a woman, even if it were a "constructed", consciously styled lady? No, likely not, even if he wore his hair long and flowing years before he got into this. He was doing crossdressing in a way that sort of wanted not to fully pass. It's not something I pass judgment on, and I love Bowie, but it's different to when you want to be seen and spoken of as a woman, have sex like a woman, get somehow used to seeing your own kind in seductive and half-nude poses on billboards and glossy ads everywhere, or seeing women getting casually ignored and jibed at and realize that "now I am one of them, we're in the same crowd" (whether one has actually gone through SRS and/or hormones or not), want to share and endure what a woman may have to do and endure*.

I admit 'T-girl' often implies some "hardcore genderbending", persons who really want, or feel a need, to shed maleness and present themselves as women, 'real women', but it seems to be clear that the Rose City group included different kinds of people, including some who were not TG or crossdressers at all, but ordinary gays and bisexuals.



*I'm not implying that anyone would have to be female to take a stand against sexism, discrimination and gender-based violence. Of course not - just as not only blacks need to respond to anti-black oppression and racism. But the dynamic of someone's personal response changes some way for most of us if you're feeling "this is my own kind getting spat upon, belittled or beaten up".

Good girl but bad  -- Proud sister of the amazing, blackberry-sweet Violet Girl

Sometimes bound and cuntrolled, sometimes free and easy 

"I'm a pretty good cook, I'm sitting on my groceries.
Come up to my kitchen, I'll show you my best recipes"

kylie

          Yeah, Louise, I wouldn't dispute a lot of that as far as it goes -- but it doesn't make me satisfied with the way Kythia tried to explain (and I think, rather dismiss) the whole case.  First, if you look at the complaints of the T-Girls I quoted, those say to me that they stopped or felt threatened in certain social settings, certain gendered behaviors.  They do not read to me as only saying "Look, I lost a sexual outlet and dropped into depression" etc. (although that would be bad enough).  They suggest a lot more than that to me. 

          Are you trying to say that this only applies to a few people in the group, and not all of them -- that some, probably more of the cd's, only lost a sexual outlet and not a social one?   In general...  I'm kind of skeptical when we're talking about a bar, a social setting where people mainly sit around and chat -- not some fetish club where they mainly go at it on the furniture! But, I can see how some (I would say, really some more exclusive and more conventional) trans will be more sympathetic to that point of view.  So, if you want to pick a really narrow definition of trans that would exclude cd's from the group on the rationale that too many cd's are getting more sexual thrill than "permanent" gender transformation what have you, you can go there.  And in doing so, perhaps you'd neglect the fact that in this case, the group constructed itself to include cd's and TV's -- along with self-identified trans! -- explicitly. 

          But I still think there are bigger issues at stake here.  To be fair, much as you say: I for example, may find it easier to "get excited" by clothing than to pass.  And sure, there are some people who say they aren't women inside, or never have any interest in passing.  I myself have a lot more "why do I have to choose" times on the whole.  That isn't really the central issue for me here, though. 

          The question is could it be gender discrimination.  That is a social arrangement wider than what that one person feels -- it's simply a question of whether some of this discrimination falls under gender.  In other words, what are people looking for or not when they think "gender discrimination." 

          You have to recognize that socially, it's less acceptable and less feasible for many on the MtF side to transform or to attempt passing at all.  It doesn't all happen in some kind of vacuum where sexual interest obviously preceded social and gender interests for everyone.  Social pressures full of gender expectations were crafting all of that at the same time!  So again I say, it's not just a question of how the person identifies themselves.  It's a question of how in the society, people can decide to single them out and push them out.  And there, you get gender.  I think that is also part of why the documents end up at some places saying this was a problem for sexuality "or," and at other places (not far away at all) "sexuality and" gender.

           As I understand it this is a group that was together for a reason, that chose to include people identifying as cd, tv, pre-op, non-op, post-op whatever.  And I imagine that is part of why the documents offer that definition of trans as including cd's.  Now I grant you it isn't the most popularly accepted definition and it may be a definition that some trans -- in their fear of being confused with those cd's who may be "too sexual" or "not woman enough," will prefer to reject.  But I think it's useful here because it encourages us to think about what common issues did bring all these people together in the same place:  They are not simply issues of sexual orientation.  At the least, they are often gendered too.

          If you see otherwise in the documents by all means point it out to me how...  But I will venture, many of these things cannot logically be reduced to involve only sexual orientation:  Why don't various people want cd's (or TV's, or much the same even trans they read as "too masculine" I dare say) in the women's bathroom...  Who exactly may have been talking "too much" about sex (not just what kind of topic)...  Does the word "tranny" really refer only to cd/tv, or could it just as easily refer to trans?  (How do you know for sure who passed for whose gaze?)  I bet we could find some more. 

          Here it isn't even a question of who among the T-Girls identified as what.  These are things that in the whole society, are gender problems too.  Someone crossed a line, broke some gender rules (a bunch of someones in the group broke lot of them, probably -- trans or cd quite regardless in my opinion!), and someone freaks out.  That's it.  Whether or not you or Ziggy or whoever wants to see cd/tv as "woman enough" to be involved with gender in a way that whatever standard you prefer will accept them as "trans", doesn't sway me.  Quite regardless of that...   The society at large does treat them, probably right in alongside some of the trans identifying as 100% woman and dying to be so) as gender violators.  Thus, we get a case about gender discrimination.  That's all.