You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 11, 2016, 06:06:45 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Oregon bar owner fined $400,000 for discriminating against transgender customers  (Read 6951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tamhansen

Quote
There 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.

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
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.

Offline Imogen

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')

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
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?

Offline Tamhansen

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.

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.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 08:04:39 AM by Katataban »

Offline 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.

Offline 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. 

Offline Neysha

His only problem was being honest.

Only stupid people act honestly when something substantial is on the line.

Offline Tamhansen

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.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 09:26:35 AM by Katataban »

Offline 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.

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.

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.

Offline ThePrince

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.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
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. 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 09:57:33 AM by kylie »

Offline 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.

Offline 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.

Offline Blythe

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*

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.

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.

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.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 11:10:25 AM by Blythe »

Offline 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.

Offline Slywyn

As you yourself said, this was a civil case. Intent is meaningless in this situation. He broke the law, end of story.

Offline 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.

Offline Blythe

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:

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.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2013, 11:27:33 AM by Blythe »

Offline 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.

Offline 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.

Offline 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.

Offline 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".

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
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.

Offline Slywyn

I was just going off of the story I read. Sucks to be wrong.