Another 1A infringement in Portland, OR. This is godlessness.
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - A Portland bar owner must pay $400,000 in damages to a group of transgender patrons he asked to stay away, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed Wednesday.
The state Bureau of Labor and Industries ordered the penalty in 2013, saying the bar violated a law that prohibits discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation or gender identity.
In 2012, Chris Penner, owner of a bar formerly known as the P Club, left two voice messages for a member of the Rose City T-Girls, an informal group of transgender customers that frequented the bar every Friday night.
The messages said to stop visiting because business had declined in the 18 months since the bar became the group’s gathering spot. Penner said people were incorrectly assuming the P Club was a gay bar or “tranny” bar.
“People are not coming in because they just don’t want to be there on a Friday night now,” he said in one message. “In the beginning sales were doing fine, but they’ve been on a steady decrease so I have to look at what the problem is, what the reason is and take care of it.”
Penner’s attorney, Jonathan Radmacher, said his client might continue the legal fight. He said Penner merely expressed a desire and did not refuse service to anyone who came to the bar, drawing a contrast with bakeries that have declined to make cakes for same-sex weddings.
“Originally, the Rose City T-Girls approached his business and asked if this is going to be a problem and they said, ‘No.’” Radmacher said Wednesday. “In essence, he was going back to them and saying, ‘This is a problem for my business.’ We think he’s got a constitutional right to make that inquiry.”
The Appeals Court disagreed that the voicemails represented protected speech. Its opinion, written by Judge Douglas Tookey, said arguments presented by the respondents were “unpreserved, undeveloped or unavailing.”
The opinion does not name the patrons who were denied service, aside from Cassandra Lynn, the T-Girl who received the voicemail messages. The opinion states there are 11 aggrieved people in the case.
Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian praised the court decision, saying in a statement his agency is committed to ensuring people are not denied access “based on who they are or who they love.”
I don’t see a denial of service, they really stretched to make it. Be anxious to know if the Oregon BOLI went after the first bar that actually denied them.
I think next appeal would be Oregon Supreme, surely they are smarter than those bozos.
BTW, from what I read Oregon has one FUBARED court system.
Hey, I’m with 7.62 on this. It is a bullshit case. He didn’t refuse them service, he phoned them and asked that they not return, he did not say ‘if you do we won’t serve you.’ They had originally asked if they could come there AFTER ANOTHER BAR kicked them out. He said yes. So since they asked, seemed to me he should be able to at least ask them not to.
A private business is perfectly within their rights to do this.
It is enforceable upon any citizen, even those who have taken the time and trouble to obtain conceal weapon permits in addition to their second amendment rights.
But if you dress in a way that many find bizarre, drives away customers and threatens your personal livelihood and ability to provide for yourself and your family…the business owner has “NO SAY” and can actually be sued.
The double standard is once again astonishing.
Wonder how long before individuals are sued for similar discrimination because they prefer not to patronize an establishment where they feel uncomfortable because it is frequented by transgender individuals.
Some people won’t be happy until every business looks like Studio 54.
I don’t get it. In Portland, it’s okay to refuse service to police officers. In Minnesota, it’s okay for Muslim cab drivers to refuse service to people carrying pork products or women with uncovered heads. It’s okay for establishments to prohibit both open and concealed carry on their property. But now it’s illegal to refuse service to a group of disruptive people simply because they’re part of an all-the-rage group?
It goes beyond that in this case. The T-Girls originally set the basis of the relationship by asking if it would be okay for them to meet there on Friday nights. They represented themselves as a club. The owner was asking that the club not come back. It was based on complaints from other customers about restroom usage - I’d imagine primarily females or their dates that didn’t want to be subjected to looking at male junk in the restroom.
Maybe this guy didn’t do it right, but from what I read: gay pool tournaments, saying yes to their initial request, it wasn’t that he was all icky about the transgender thing, rather the behavior of the transgendered customers that was disrupting his business.
Basically what this case tells me is that in Oregon, a business owner can not ask his customers to be good guests, and must allow his business to become a de facto clubhouse for any group that wishes to take it over.
Remember back in the old days when lawyers weren’t allowed to advertise? No, read this:
Note that the ABA: realized that a court was a place where parties can “inflict heavy losses on one another”. The ABA wanted to prevent the bringing forth of cases wherein there was no basis for their claim. Another fear was that the legal profession would be viewed as a common trade rather than the noble profession they believed they were part of. They also believed that the public could not protect themselves against false advertisements that they thought would go hand in hand with allowing advertising. The bar also argued that legalizing advertising would cause more and more people to pursue a career in law. This was a result of a study that showed that between the years of 1951 and 1971 the number of lawyers increased by 326%. They also believed that an increase in advertising would promote a larger client base and would make it harder for lawyers to serve their clients.
And thus began the slippery slope, lawyers get much of the money out of settlements, in order to facilitate increased case load, paralegals do much of the work, etc. IMO very few lawyers today ‘love the law’ they view it as a way to make money.
