♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Aug 31, 2013 17:20:21 GMT
www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/30/oregon-bar-owner-to-pay-400g-to-banned-cross-dresser/?test=latestnews#ixzz2dTjfuWB6 QUOTE: Oregon bar owner to pay $400G to banned cross-dresser
Aug. 30, 2013 PORTLAND, Ore. – A bar owner has been ordered to pay $400,000 to a group of cross-dresser he banned from his club last year. The Oregonian reports the Bureau of Labor and Industries civil rights division imposed the penalty against Chris Penner, owner of the Twilight Room Annex. Penner had told members of the Rose City T-Girls they could not return to his bar. The penalty is the first imposed under the 2007 Oregon Equality Act. The law protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender Oregonians in employment, housing and public places. The order also requires Penner to pay a $5,000 civil penalty. The complaint lists 11 aggrieved persons, 10 of whom self-identify as cross-dressers.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Aug 31, 2013 21:48:03 GMT
These were not "cross dressers", which is a derogatory term FOX used here to express its hatred of such people. They only reported on it at all to capitalize on similar feelings among their audience. Why people go to FOX "News" at all ever is a mystery, but one thing is certain, its viewers dont care if what they walk away with is disinformation, bigotry, distortion, lies...
These were actually transgenders (the difference is that "cross dressers" are often straight men who put on womens clothes for a sexual thrill, while a transgender is someone gender challenged, ie, born with a tragic birth defect. And they are protected by law, BECAUSE they are genuine, not just "cross dressers".
That said - and this may surprise you - I dont see why the bar doesnt have a right to refuse service at its discretion. I dont see why it should even have to explain itself actually. Having read further elsewhere besides FOX *frowny face*, I found that the bar owner's business was suffering because these patrons were giving other patrons the impression that it was a gay bar, and they were leaving over it. I think that's a legitimate concern.
The bar had been very good to these people, every friday night for two years. They would even walk them to their cars, so they were safe.
The problem for the bar owner is we do have laws against discrimination, so I really dont know how to marry these opposing thoughts, but... he should have just talked to these trans-women, who should have then understood the guy's problem, after having been nice to them for as long as he could. And they should have just left and not sued and went elsewhere.
And i mean look at the amount they were awarded! Should they really PROFIT from this?
Should they?
How much did this bar owner actually "hurt" them?
It seems more likely to me an opportunistic lawyer asked for the most money he could, so he could make the most - and THAT isnt about right and wrong at all.
|
|