Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Resort That Refused Black Family Pool Access Must Pay
US News ^ | 8/11/05

Posted on 08/11/2005 11:55:37 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

An extended African-American family, most of whom reside in Maryland, today announce the settlement of their discrimination claim against a vacation rental condominium resort in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, which barred them from using its swimming pool. Among other things, the settlement of the complaint filed by the Lawyers' Committee and the law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, provides the plaintiffs with monetary compensation, the amount of which cannot be disclosed under the agreement.

Over 100 African-American family members alleged that they were racially discriminated against when they stayed at Baytree III, part of the Baytree Plantation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for the Turner-Gray family reunion in July 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that shortly after they arrived for their family reunion weekend, Stuart Jenkins, property manager of Baytree III and president of the Homeowners' Association, padlocked and chained the entrance to the pool area closing it off to the reunion attendees. According to the complaint, the day after the reunion ended, Jenkins removed the padlock and chain and reopened the pool to guests, personally inviting white guests to use the pool during their stay.

"We selected Baytree as the site for our reunion in part because of its amenities, including the pool facilities," stated Gloria Turner-Simpkins, one of the plaintiffs who organized the family reunion. "But instead of being able to enjoy them, because of these discriminatory actions, we were humiliated and saddened, during what was meant to be an enjoyable family gathering," added Mrs. Turner-Simpkins.

In addition to monetary compensation, the Homeowners' Association agreed to issue a written apology to the family members, to conduct fair housing training for individuals involved in the day-today management of Baytree III, and to inform its members of its policy of non-discrimination.

"This settlement makes clear that such racist behavior and such blatant disregard for the law will not be tolerated," stated Charles Lester, a partner in the Atlanta office of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

"It is sad but true that in this day and age there are still those who want to stop African Americans from enjoying the same privileges as everyone else," said Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "While no amount of money can make these family members whole for the racist acts they had to endure and to explain to their small children, this settlement does give them some measure of justice."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: news; racism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-262 next last
To: trubluolyguy

I was disappointed not to see the settlement amount. Someone tell me why the families would not have fought for it


241 posted on 08/12/2005 12:20:24 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (I urge Roberts to support all sections of the Constitution which uphold abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan
I'm gonna get nailed for this but...private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property.

Even if you assume that, there is the matter of changing the qualitiy of amenities after they have been paid for based upon race. At the least that is fraud, based upon race.

242 posted on 08/12/2005 12:26:55 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NASBWI
That said, I work for a retail store. What if the CEO decided that he doesnt want Hispanic folks coming into our stores, are you saying that he should be within his right to bar them entrance? What do you think would happen to our company?

Actually, the case as described isn't that. It sould be as if the CEO decided that he doesnt want Hispanic folks coming into our stores, and took items out of each of their bags after they'd paid for them. This wasn't even barring them, but if described at all accurately, fraud based upon race.

243 posted on 08/12/2005 12:32:13 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property.

Thank you Mr Crow.

Not that I agree at all with what is done, but you distort what Jim Crow laws were: A GOVERNMENT ban on private businesses conducting free trade. It was not private businesses doing it on their own. It is an important distinction, and one which we all suffer for when that distinction is blurred.

244 posted on 08/12/2005 12:34:51 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
And since this was the case, the race issue is a sideshow. What we have here is a clear breach of contract, unless that contract specifically denied these family members access to the pool. I highly doubt that it did.

Private property rights is also a sideshow. It's a clear breach of contract. No matter where one comes down on race, this is a bad business practice. That should be vociferously condemned by all of us.

Amen.

245 posted on 08/12/2005 12:45:00 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Commerce clause was a bad argument.

Using the 14th Amendment is a pretty bad argument too...just on it's plain face.

246 posted on 08/12/2005 12:48:44 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: hispanarepublicana
Yes...freedom of association...private property rights and the basic natural right to be stupid...after all...who else but an idiot would, right off the bat, reduce his potential pool of buyers by deciding he's not going to sell to someone based on some arbitrary characteristic?

Well, then these same private property businesses shouldn't expect public benefit of police, fire, street, or sewer.

One does not necessarily follow from the other. That they engage in private racial discrimination is not the comparison - what this manager appears to have done - which is not provide services contracted for - would be a much clearer comparison.

247 posted on 08/12/2005 12:58:23 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82
But it's not against the law to be gay.

It was against the law in many places to be a practitioner of such acts - until it was overturned by the courts.

248 posted on 08/12/2005 1:04:09 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: lepton

"Using the 14th Amendment is a pretty bad argument too...just on it's plain face."

I don't disagree with you there.
A key difference between a strict constructionist and an originalist is that a strict constructionist looks to the plain words and applies them as they read in modern English. Where there is ambiguity, because a word may have changed meaning, the strict constructionist will accept testimony, perhaps (perhaps not) as to what the word meant when it was drafted. Essentially, the strict constructionist applies the "four corners rule" of contract construction to the Constitution.
The originalist looks to see what the framers meant when they wrote a specific clause. What were they concerned about? What were they aiming at? Why did they do it that way?
A strict constructionist has no use for the Federalist Papers, because the language of the Constitution is clear on its face, in plain English, and the language has not changed sufficiently to change its meanings. What the Founders thought they were doing is irrelevant to a strict constructionist approach, just as what the contractants thought they were doing is not relavent to four-corners contract construction. You read what they wrote, and that IS what they intended, if it's clear.

An originalist thinks differently. An originalist thinks that the federalist papers are important, because they tell us what the purposes of the various amendments are.

Example of the difference:

"Congress shall enact no law abridging the freedom...of speech."

So, can Congress pass a law that makes false advertising a crime.
A strict constructionist, who used only that one tool, would say "No." No means no. Congress can't pass laws restricting speech.

And originalist would look and see that Founders were concerned about political speech be repressed, and that the Common Law, in force in the colonies, did not permit fraud. He would be able to rule that Congress passing laws abridging fraudulent speech was not a violation of "free speech" as the founders intended it.

So, now lets look at a different amendment, abolishing slavery in the United States. Slavery is not defined. We might define slavery economically, but that is a modern definition. Slavery didn't just mean ownership. It meant deference of one race to the other, automatically. Query, if "slavery" as an economic institution could be practiced in the US, did that mean that anybody could own anybody?
No it most certainly did not.
Nobody could own a white person.
Nobody could own an Indian either.
The only people who could be owned were blacks.
This was not all spelled out in nice clear statutes. It was the legal fact.

So, a strict constructionist would look at the 13th Amendment, and if he was unwilling to inquire into what "Slavery" meant when the framers of the 13th Amendment wrote it in 1865, he might apply a modern, functionalist economic definition and assume that slavery MERELY meant that one person cannot own another. The originalist, however, would look at what "slavery" meant, not in the economic theories of 2005, but in the civil, legal and social structure of 1865. It meant property ownership of black humans, only, and included SERVILITY.
One discovers that the framers of the 13th Amendment, by slavery, meant "the badges and incidents of slavery". That's what they wrote about and discussed. They did not merely mean to abolish a property right, for slavery was emphatically NOT just a property right in 1865. It was ALSO the right over white overlords to demand obeisance and servility from black underlings. THAT TOO was abolished, and is contained in the meaning of the word "slavery" circa 1865.

Read in light of 1865, the 13th Amendment gives a good constitutional cause of action against excluding black people from public accomodations, and it was precisely under that constitutional authority, as it was intended to be, that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed a year later giving the federal government the power to enforce black civil rights against states and against individuals who opposed them.

Because slavery didn't just mean "I own you". It meant a whole lot more than that, in 1865. And the abolition of slavery was fully intended, in 1865, to abolish all of "that", not just break a property right.

So I agree that the 14th Amendment, on it's plain face, is a bad argument.
But the 13th Amendment, on its plain face, with the word "slavery" having its 1865 meaning is a strong argument for the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as well as the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871 and 1875)


249 posted on 08/12/2005 1:30:17 PM PDT by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
Now you confuse me: most "resorts" ARE private properties.

Okay, let me clarify. It was a pool that belonged to a homeowner's association. To use the pool, you had to be a homeowner, or an invited guest of same. And every homeowner's association has rules as to when and how many guests can use the pool, and may also require that they be accompanied by a homeowner.

In other words, if a private owner 'leased' their home to this crowd, it is unlikely that the rights to use the pool went along with the lease. A renter is not a 'guest' of the homeowner.

250 posted on 08/12/2005 2:13:03 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The article states that the pool was closed off to the family only.

I have learned that this was not a 'resort' but a bunch of privately owned condos. Home owners associations are under no obligation to make the pool available to guests of the homeowners, but they usually do, limiting them as to time and number of guests.

These individuals (more than 100 of them by the way) did a short term lease of some of the condos. Their deal was with the condo owner(s), not with the homeowners association who represents all the homeowners. They were under no obligation to allow the pool to be overrun by a bunch of people on a short term lease, leaving those who paid dues to have and maintain the pool unable to use it.

251 posted on 08/12/2005 2:17:11 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

Bay Tree isn't simply an association of private homeowners. They have a management company that rents condo units to families and groups and are therefore a public accomodation. It's the same as Hilton renting your family a room and then barring you from the pool.

It's wrong on every possible level.


252 posted on 08/12/2005 2:26:53 PM PDT by joeystoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Simply, I am stating that if we don't allow someone to benefit from government services, then we should not expect them to pay for these services. That's all.

Your point is well-stated, and I agree with you --- in part: this is the MINIMALLY stringent criterion that one may want to apply. In this model, or viewpoint, police protection is a club good: those that pay taxes (members of teh club) enjoy the benefits provided, and those that do not pay taxes are excluded. This is a consistent viewpoint, I agree. But I would not want to live in such society: police protection must be a public (not club) good, and, accordingly, all citizens must pay taxes and none must be excluded from the benefits provided.

253 posted on 08/12/2005 7:04:43 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
it is unlikely that the rights to use the pool went along with the lease. A renter is not a 'guest' of the homeowner.

The did, unless the lease expressly excluded use of the pool. A renter has more rights, not less, than a guest --- almost all of the owner, with the exception of transferring or significantly modifying the property.

254 posted on 08/12/2005 7:08:23 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

The did => They did, sorry.


255 posted on 08/12/2005 7:09:58 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
I won't defend this practice of discrimination in any way but I must have missed the payouts for the Republicans/Bush voters who were denied hotel rooms and refused employment after the 2004 election.

Or is it okay to discriminate on the basis of someone's political beliefs, just not religious beliefs or skin color? Watch out, the PC liberals are adding sexual fetish to that list of protected beliefs.

256 posted on 08/12/2005 9:23:50 PM PDT by weegee (The Rovebaiting by DUAC must stop. It is nothing but a partisan witchhunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NASBWI
I am not saying the family was being deceitful, I am sure one way or the other they felt discriminated against. They see every day on TV people telling them that there are roadblocks keeping blacks from voting so why should this be any different? The see that terrible case of the Black man dragged to death in Texas but I am sure they did not hear about the exact same thing happening to a white guy as well.

but it's highly unlikely that they would have won - at least, not on the grounds of discrimination.

They did not win anything this was a settlement! For one of two reasons...

1) They really did discriminate and knew they would lose

2) They did not want Jessie Jackson and his thugs coming down there and hurting business..

257 posted on 08/13/2005 8:15:27 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (If SCO wants to go fishing they should buy a permit and find a lake like the rest of us..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
The did, unless the lease expressly excluded use of the pool.

Actually, that's not true. A homeowner does not have the right to override the rules set forth by the homeowner's association. If the rules of the association allow leasing of the condo and any number of 'guests', then fine, but I very much doubt that is the case.

A renter has more rights, not less, than a guest --- almost all of the owner

However, a renter cannot override the rules of a homeowners' association with governs the facilities such as pools, clubhouses, public spaces.

258 posted on 08/15/2005 7:40:04 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
A renter has more rights, not less, than a guest --- almost all of the owner

I did not say that he can create rights (overriding the rules of the association): I said that he can transfer all rights of use and peaceful enjoyment that he, the owner, has himself.

259 posted on 08/15/2005 8:39:53 AM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
I said that he can transfer all rights of use and peaceful enjoyment that he, the owner, has himself.

Depends on what the rules of the homeowners' association are. I doubt ANY assocation would allow more than 100 'renters' crowded into a few condos to overwhelm their facilities.

260 posted on 08/15/2005 8:51:48 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-262 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson