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.