Posted on 06/29/2009 3:34:40 PM PDT by Lorianne
WALHONDING — A lawsuit filed by B&B Entertainment and Thomas George, owners of the adult cabaret business the Foxhole, was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. in a judgment filed earlier this month.
B&B Entertainment Inc. and George filed the lawsuit on Aug. 31, 2007, claiming New Beginnings Ministries “conspired with themselves and others to force their religion upon plaintiffs, their employees and their patrons to prohibit plaintiffs from the operation of their said lawful business, all with the purpose and intent to prohibit plaintiffs from the exercise of their Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, enterprise and religion.”
Pastor William R. Dunfee, Jeff Cline, Jackie L. Large, Jeremy M. Lyons, Jimmie Dale Couch, Jason D. Hurley, Bill Rah, Deputy (no first name listed) Simms, Sheriff Tim Rogers and Jane/John Doe (s) were named in the original lawsuit.
The suit alleges defendants trespassed; filmed patrons and employees entering and exiting the business; surrounded vehicles of employees and patrons and threatened “adverse consequences” when patrons insisted on entering the business; destroyed property and caused an explosion in the business’ Dumpster, among other allegations.
In regard to Sheriff Rogers and Deputy Simms, the lawsuit claimed the duo “failed and refused” to remove defendants and other protesters from private property, file charges as requested, and to protect the property and the business.
Over $150,000 in compensatory and punitive damages was requested, jointly and/or severally. An injunction ordering the protesters to cease further protests was also included in the suit.
A counterclaim filed by Dunfee, Cline, Large, Couch, Hurley and New Beginnings Ministries has yet to be decided.
The group, in the counterclaim, denies the vast majority of the allegations made in the 2007 lawsuit, including the suit’s claim the group is denying George his First Amendment rights claiming, that it does not involve “First Amendment rights of free speech through dance.”
The counterclaim states the group gathers outside of the Foxhole “to peacefully persuade prospective customers of the Foxhole not to patronize it.”
It claims conspiracy and civil assault and frivolous legal action against B&B Entertainment Inc. and George.
The defendants seek nominal damages; compensatory damages for actual injury suffered by defendants in an amount to be determined at trial; punitive damages to be determined at trial; reasonable attorney fees, and legal and equitable relief they may be entitled to.
Foxhole? Think they have any atheists in there?
I Don’t Wanna Get Drafted
Frank Zappa
My-y-y sister don’t wanna get drafted
She don’t wanna go
My sister don’t wanna get drafted
No-oh-woh-oh-woh...
Wars are really ugly
They’re dirty and they’re cold
I don’t want nobody
To shoot her in the fox hole, fox hole
“all with the purpose and intent to prohibit plaintiffs from the exercise of their Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, enterprise and religion.”
The Constitutional right to enterprise? I wish that was in the Constitution, but it isn’t.
I read this twice and still don’t understand it.
They’re running an “adult cabaret”—i.e., some kind of strip club or porn club or house of prostitution—and the local pastors have been outside on the sidewalk persuading customers to stay away from it.
I'm no lawyer but I think the strip bar was suing the protesters for trespassing and harassing patrons. The protesters countersued for harassing the harassers complete with physical threats.
I don't really want to be on either side of this one. If the business has a right to exist (local laws at issue here), it ought to have the right to use their property for legal uses free from harassment but you've got a lot of gray area in that.
There was a group that used to videotape local prostitutes, etc. and their customers then put the perps on local cable access. Is such "shaming" illegal? Particularly if they tape it from across the street?
I don't know but I'd probably come down on the side of "mind your own business." I'd much rather have roving bands of intolerance harassing drug dealers, car thieves, gangbangers and the like instead of the poor guy who just wants to get his jollies with a consenting adult.
Gratsi
“...I’d probably come down on the side of “mind your own business...”
-
Yes, that’s where I generally stand, also. Thanks
The only persuasive evidence in the suit would have been video, or at least customer testimony that they felt menaced and intimidated, harassed or threatened.
Issues would be if the club had a private or shared parking lot, what the police reports said about the resolution of complaints, etc. If the judge did not even consider these, the club has grounds for appeal.
The concept of “religious conspiracy” in the denial of civil rights is an interesting legal one, however. Think Fred Phelps and his loathsome group, or Muslim advocacy of discrimination and violence.
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.