Black man kicked out of racist bar. Cops don’t help, but social media does

[poopaskoopa]

I've often found that entire strip of Glenwood Ave is douchey, and I see that it hasn't changed much.

 

[Dari]

why?

The organization represents everything you don't.

 

[OutHouse]

The organization represents everything you don't.

explain. what do you know of the masons charter? what are you judging me by?

 

[Phokus]

Halik's news piece didnt own anybody and i posted why up above. try to keep up.

yea so. we are talking about a bar in the US, with US laws. why would you bring canada into this??

It's not about the laws i was responding to, it was about how trivially easy it is to catch.

Re-read what i was responding to:

What's completely wrong? A business can refuse access/service to anyone they want. They can make up any excuse they want. You think they are going to say its because he is black, I think not.

Keep up, ok?

 

[xj0hnx]

why?

Clearly because your opinion is different from his, and you posted pictures the invalidate his opinion

 

[Capt Caveman]

Yet there are numerous pictures of blacks, and other races besides whites in the bar. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit to me. One sided article is one sided.



Yes, you did make your way here.

Yes b/c it never could be conducted by select individuals that work there.

 

[Capt Caveman]

pathetic.

it was settled OUT of court mostly likely it was the cheapest route. 35K is chump change compared to all the legal fees on top of the fine IF they lost and i dont think they would have. they were NOT found guilty because it never went to trial.

the NY DA over stepped on this case.

Yet they are retraining all of their staff. LOL. Sad, you condone this behavior.

I know the Feds should have gotten involved since it was a civil rights violation.

 

[Dari]

explain. what do you know of the masons charter? what are you judging me by?

I was a member of the temple at 18th & Lavaca in Austin. The same one our president went to. Defending racists isn't honorable in any way.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yes b/c it never could be conducted by select individuals that work there.

So then the picture with the sign that says "We serve whites only" is just a stock photo there to be inflammatory, and it isn't a racist bar, just a couple people that work there are racist, and there is no policy of keeping out black people?

 

[woolfe9999]

LOL. Nothing in the law prevents someone from being a racist or discriminating.

False. Do you want me to start quoting Title VII? I'm willing to bet it's also illegal for private establishments to discriminate on the basis of race under NC state law as well.

Something you liberals should figure out. No law makes being a racist illegal and good luck enforcing one for discriminating against someone on private property. Unless there is a policy or signage that says no blacks allowed, they can kick out anyone they want and give whatever reason they want.

If you do something that subjects you to civil damages, you have broken the law. I'm not quite sure why you think that only criminal statutes can be "broken."

In this case, how are you going to prove they kicked him out simply because he was black? Simple, you can't. A confession is about all that's going to prove that and good luck getting that.

So you're saying that anyone can get away with racial discrimination so long as they use a non-racial pretext and do not admit to it? Here's a little primer on how you prove discrimination in cases like this: bring in other minorities to testify they were excluded, then bring in numerous white people to say they were let in despite not conforming with the rules used to exclude the minorities. For example, claiming to exclude people for wearing a t-shirt, but white people who wear t-shirts are let in. Or falsely claiming that a membership is required when white people are let in without "membership" and in fact there is no such thing as membership.

It isn't rocket science. You don't need a confession. Showing a pattern will do.

- wolf

 

[Capt Caveman]

So then the picture with the sign that says "We serve whites only" is just a stock photo there to be inflammatory, and it isn't a racist bar, just a couple people that work there are racist, and there is no policy of keeping out black people?

Not sure if serious. I hope no one believe that photo is from the bar. And if someone is discriminated, how do they know it's just an individual telling me that it's member's only when it's not or it's the bar's unwritten policy. Guess what, I"m going to blame the bar.

 

[Exterous]

Hmmm...the last 4 entries in their gallery all have at least one black guy wearing a t-shirt in them so it sounds like there is more to the story

As for the people getting in who 'dont meet dress code' (I am just basing this off of the clubs I have been to around here and in Vegas but) I have seen plenty of people get in when they violated the dress code because:
1) they gave the bouncer money
2) they know the guys at the door
3) their name is on the list
4) they brought hotties

so I would think that just claiming discrimination based on that alone would not be enough without verifying why they were let in when they didn't meet dress code but IANAL*

*I am still really confused on this 'dress code' as a ton of people white and black are wearing t-shirts in their pictures

 

[xj0hnx]

Not sure if serious. I hope no one believe that photo is from the bar.

No, but it was used to help paint the picture they want in your head when reading the "article". "Racist Bar", that has lots of pictures from it with people of all ethnicities makes me think that the people complaining are full of shit, and trying to make this into a story that it is not.

And if someone is discriminated, how do they know it's just an individual telling me that it's member's only when it's not or it's the bar's unwritten policy. Guess what, I"m going to blame the bar.

Maybe the several pictures of people of many ethnicities in the bar? Apparently it is not the bar's "unwritten rule".

 

[waggy]

it sure looks like the guy couldn't get in and now pissed.


IF (and it does nto look like it) the bar didn't allow them in because they are black (again doubtful) yes they would be in trouble. they can not do that and yes they would get fined and a serious risk of losing the liquor license. a PUBLIC club can't do that.

 

[xBiffx]

Actually, it seems it's really trivial to find out whether a bar has a racist policy or not in that article halik owned you with:



Also, a bar in canada was caught doing this because one of the black patrons used his cell phone camera to record the bouncers not admitting them and making excuses over their clothing, but white patrons had the same clothing and were getting let in. It's really really easy to figure it out. You're wrong, deal with it.

Every bit of that is circumstantial at best. Nothing proves definitively that they were not allowing access do to race. Like I said differential or even preferential treatment does not automatically mean discrimination.

 

[xBiffx]

False. Do you want me to start quoting Title VII? I'm willing to bet it's also illegal for private establishments to discriminate on the basis of race under NC state law as well.



If you do something that subjects you to civil damages, you have broken the law. I'm not quite sure why you think that only criminal statutes can be "broken."



So you're saying that anyone can get away with racial discrimination so long as they use a non-racial pretext and do not admit to it? Here's a little primer on how you prove discrimination in cases like this: bring in other minorities to testify they were excluded, then bring in numerous white people to say they were let in despite not conforming with the rules used to exclude the minorities. For example, claiming to exclude people for wearing a t-shirt, but white people who wear t-shirts are let in. Or falsely claiming that a membership is required when white people are let in without "membership" and in fact there is no such thing as membership.

It isn't rocket science. You don't need a confession. Showing a pattern will do.

- wolf

Perhaps you are missing my point. Due to the way the laws are written in regards to the rights of business owners anti-discrimination laws prevent nothing. Sure, the business isn't going to claim that they don't allow black people in the bar (unless they are stupid and this of course would be breaking the law) but they don't have to state this as the reason for not letting certain people in the bar. They can claim dress code, demeanor, any number of things. They are effectively discriminating but not calling it that. Hence the anti-discrimination law does or prevents nothing.

This is my entire point. There is no way to definitively prove in this case the person was getting kicked out because they were black. Only that the person getting kicked out was black. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I swear, the word 'racism' is like a bright light to a bug for many people.


The word racist/racism has been overused and abused so much that it baffles me how many people still flat out assume the accuser is correct in their statement.

 

[Capt Caveman]

No, but it was used to help paint the picture they want in your head when reading the "article". "Racist Bar", that has lots of pictures from it with people of all ethnicities makes me think that the people complaining are full of shit, and trying to make this into a story that it is not.



Maybe the several pictures of people of many ethnicities in the bar? Apparently it is not the bar's "unwritten rule".

And some racists are more subtle than others, especially nowadays with laws protection against discrimination. Group of 6(5 white, 1 black) they allow in b/c not allowing the black person would create suspicion but group of 3 blacks, they don't using some lame excuse. It's not all black and white.

 

[Ns1]

And some racists are more subtle than others, especially nowadays with laws protection against discrimination. Group of 6(5 white, 1 black) they allow in b/c not allowing the black person would create suspicion but group of 3 blacks, they don't using some lame excuse. It's not all black and white.

this

 

[emperus]

Like a moths to a flame. The same cast of chacracters who dont understand US history and how recent in our history racial animous was. But hey, these threads are useful for pointing out the bigots.

I especially liked this..

We'll probably never know since there's only one side represented here.

You're now bemoaning the lack of two sided representation but in the TM thread, you've been parotting the self serving statements of George Zimmerman.

Continue On

 

[xBiffx]

Like a moths to a flame. The same cast of chacracters who dont understand US history and how recent in our history racial animous was. But hey, these threads are useful for pointing out the bigots.

And we are able to spot those that like to turn everything into a race issue and over sensationalize it for brownie points. Only if you people actually saw that you do more harm than good with this cry wolf bullshit. By calling every single thing involving a white vs. non white racist, you do everyone a disservice with this nonsense by diluting the issue. The media throws around the word racist so much that now it has no meaning anymore when they use it.

 

[corwin]

You're now bemoaning the lack of two sided representation but in the TM thread, you've been parotting the self serving statements of George Zimmerman.

Continue On

So are you saying you're using the same base to argue from this time and it's OK but not in the other situation?

Continue on please...hypocrisy is amusing

 

[corwin]

You're now bemoaning the lack of two sided representation but in the TM thread, you've been parotting the self serving statements of George Zimmerman.

Continue On

So are you saying you're using the same base to argue from this time and it's OK but not in the other situation?

Continue on please...hypocrisy is amusing

 

[emperus]

And we are able to spot those that like to turn everything into a race issue and over sensationalize it for brownie points. Only if you people actually saw that you do more harm than good with this cry wolf bullshit. By calling every single thing involving a white vs. non white racist, you do everyone a disservice with this nonsense by diluting the issue. The media throws around the word racist so much that now it has no meaning anymore when they use it.

So an issue where a black person is denied entry to a bar which has a history of doing the same is not one of racism? Do enlighten us when someone should say something is racism. Or do you just feel people should come and check with you first.

 

[corwin]

So an issue where a black person is denied entry to a bar which has a history of doing the same is not one of racism? Do enlighten us when someone should say something is racism. Or do you just feel people should come and check with you first.

So you have witnessed this yourself then? You have more than hearsay and unsupported claims with which to back this up right? Or is it just the word of one person and unnamed others going along with it...

Seems like you're arguing the same line on the other side of the fence here, still racism but with no evidence at all...well, I guess it's the exact same after all