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."
You are, of course, within your rights to disagree with those laws.
"Businesses are private property."
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?
And my disagreement with those laws are based on private property rights and freedom, not race, as I was accused of earlier.
Thank you Mr Crow.
The store's management would probably be charged with some violations of unconstitutional federal laws...but what should happen is that decent people stop patronzing the store, people protest outside the store and the store is forced to change its policy
Yes, the owners should be withing their rights to deny access to whomever they please, and, your company would probably lose a lot of business and go down the drain.
But, it shouldn't be up to the Gov't to make sure you practice good business practices at all times.
"What do you think would happen to our company?"
Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? Your CEO could make that decision and should be entitled to. That said, it would be a stupid move. If being mean and stupid were against the law, Cindy Sheenan would already be in prison.
"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, that being the case, maybe the law should be changed, so that people can discriminate based on whatever, and idiots should be barred from operating businesses. /sarc
Seriously though, if the laws were changed to reflect your belief of freedom of association, I feel that there'd be a lot more segregation going on, which I thought was something this country was trying to move away from. I'm sure there are many people in this country (of all races) who would love to be able to discriminate for such petty reasons.
The best businesses get repeat business.
"Thank you Mr Crow."
Jeez, grow up, Mr. PC police. Race is not what he was talking about and you know it. Nobody here is saying the property manager was even remotely right in what he did. We are discussing private ownership of property and yes, people should be allowed to direct the use of their property as they see fit and be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Oh, my, it's hard to believe this kind of thing still goes on and on this scale - a big resort town like Myrtle Beach and a large group? Did he know they were a black family when he took their reservation? It was ok for him to honor their reservation and bill them, but not okay for them to swim, even though that is included in the fee? Did he think he could get away with it? And this, after North Carolina worked hard to rebuild tourism and counter claims by the NAACP. Yikes. What an idiot.
On that point, I agree with you, Dolphan. I was trying to be careful not to accuse you of racism.
I agree that the laws are out of synch with the constitution, but for now people like the resort manager have to work with the laws we have. He could have even put up a credible defense if he had said "with all the children and no lifeguard at the pool, I can't afford the liability or risk."
One thing is certain, though. You will NEVER hear the real other side from the MSM.
Remember last month when some hoity-toity store in Paris wouldn't let Oprah in - AFTER HOURS - along with her entourgage? The MSM tried to convince us it was racism on the part of the store.
Same thing here.... The MSM will holler the race card all day long.... Why? God only knows.
But maybe 100 people in that pool area is a safety code violation. If not, it should be. Maybe that family was causing noise in the pool area after 11 PM? There could be a dozen valid reasons why they were denied access to the pool.
But if you leave it to the MSM, you will only hear what they want you to hear.
"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."
I'd like to keep clueless idiots off my property but they blend in with all the others.
Could you help me out with that:
*Hands Dolphan a t-shirt printed with "Clueless Idiot" *
Now put that on and stay off my property.
Yeah but refusing to allow black people to use the pool when you allow white people to use it is clearly a civil rights violation. We don't want to go back there. Don't hide behind that "PC" crap.
But then, where would you live?
This is a BUSINESS- a RENTAL PROPERTY- which is governed by certain laws, including those against racism.
The days of "white's only" businesses are OVER.
This is not about property rights.
yes if it happened as stated, but I am wondering what is the safe capacity of the pool? and how many from a family of moer than 100 were trying to use it?
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.