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."
"It may be private, but if they're going to rent their property to others, you have to take into account the freedoms of others who may want to rent."
Unless the potential renters or customers are smokers, then discrimination is OK. In addition, your argument above is the foundation for forcing land lords to rent to people that participate in immoral behavior. For example, imagine forcing a Christian land lord to rent to a Homosexual or forcing them to enter a lease with Planned Parenthood.
"This is why the anti-discrimination act came along - to provide reason to the selection process."
Much more reason would have been applied to the process without government intervention. Yes racism is morally wrong, yes it is harmful to the victims and no it should never be tolerated. However, government intervention has done nothing but create more riffs. The progress made up to this point is more of a result of market needs and individual personal growth.
Take a look at "Applied Economics" by Thomas Sowell for a decent discussion on the topic.
(Gabz) The story would have been just fine without that paplum.
Why? Do you think that the hurt caused by that that kind of injustice is mentally dismissed like an inadvertant bump while in a crowd? I am sure those kids were looking forward to that pool. How do you think it felt for those kids to learn why they couldn't use it? How do you think it felt for those parents to have to explain it to them?
I disagree with affirmative action, Jessie Jackson, "reparations", Al Sharpton, Calypso Luie, etc. I think these "leaders" exploit real and imagined racism, in both directions, for personal gain. I agree with Bill Cosby; the African Americans in this country need to wake up and take responsibility for mess that many are in if it is going to be corrected. But it is ignorant to pretent that discrimination doesn't exist and that it doesn't hurt to be treated unjustly.
"You're talking about private property. This was a business."
Do you consider all businesses to be public property?
"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?"
Yes it should be within his right to bar anyone for any reason. Your second question indicates that you are aware of the more proper solution. The market would clearly not tolerate such stupidity, which would mean as a society we would eradicate these actions without government interference.
It is ignorant to acknowledge that discrimination exists but to pretend that it doesn't hurt to be treated unjustly because of it.
"Having observed many of these nuts over the last few years, both on FR and in local letters to the editor, I have to say that a special category of personality disorder ought to be reserved for these people. But that I mean not constitutionalists, or sensible constructionists, by any means, but for those who abandon any attempt at reasonableness or ordinary fairness for their obsessive and narrow-angled interpretations of the Constitution. Confronted with the complexities of today's world, I have no doubt that the founding fathers would have placed great emphasis on the desirability of non-discrimination by businesses and government, among other protections including rights of the unborn."
Whose sensibilities should set the standard? Yours? Hillary's? Jesse Jackson's? Osama's? Sadam's?
The Constitution is not a living document that is meant to be "interpreted" depending on the sensibilities of the times. When you take that stance, you end up using a "right to privacy" as the justification to a "right to abortion." At the same time you end up using "interstate commerce" potential to monitor what people ingest.
I certainly agree with you on that point...the family should be reimbursed their money. Beyond that...I see that this is an extended family of 100...they must spend some serious money at these reunions. The best revenge they could take would be to take a picture of all 100 all them together and mail it to the owner of this facility along with a note explaining what happened and why they will never spend their money there again and how each of the 100 of them will make sure that every one of their family and friends knows what happened there.
"A countersuit for the cost of the lawyers and legal fees would seemed to have been in order in they had a leg to stand on."
Not with the Jury Pools of today.
Number one, your question is leading and disingenuous, I don't know you, but I would hope it's beneath you.
Number two, you need to read the follow-ups before charging in with a question like that. I had already explained that businesses dealing with the public are different from private property under current law, in that discrimination is not allowed on the basis of race. I cannot open a diner that is open to the public and serve only white people. It's my diner, but I deal with the public in commerce.
I'm over this thread. The manager was an a$$ under any definition if he had no good reason for closing the pool. There are laws on the books that guarantee people equal treatment in commerce, as long as they behave themselves. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I can see where there would be arguments for and against those laws.
I love how it shakes out when these issues come up - if you disagree with the law, you're a racist. If you agree that the law was violated, you're a communist.
I'm neither.
Great post. It is precisely the reason that I am addicted to FR. Thanks for your input.
I don't think his level of intelligence is relevant here.
If the facts are true, he is a racist, and that is more important.
It is events like this that make my blood boil --- and, yes, I am white.
The irony is, this racist pig probably votes Democratic as well as the attendees.
"Well, then these same private property businesses shouldn't expect public benefit of police, fire, street, or sewer."
I could buy into that. So long as they became exempt from paying taxes. Kinda circular logic, huh.
This is not a criminal matter (as long as there is no violence). Police would tell them to go to court.
A little more info. on this subject
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/959984740.html
"I prefer enforcing the law."
Do you feel the same way about all laws? Abortion laws? Or do you feel some laws are just, while others are unjust?
The article does not say. But I cannot imagine that a family, while having a reunion, would use this for blackmail. If the pool were being repaired, there would be physical evidence of nondiscrimination --- clearly not the case here. Apparently, there were also witnesses of the manager inviting white guests to use the pool.
This should not be happening in America.
Well, we've talked about this. We came to pass the nondiscrimination laws. The actions of the association were illegal.
You also confuse association with commercial activity. You can associate with whomever you want in business life. But when you open a store for business --- that is not "association" but commerce.
I don't want my country to discriminate against anybody in business and public life. Do you?
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EksuGpTCc7IJ:www.lawyerscomm.org/projects/housing/myrtlebeach.pdf+baytree+III+%22Baytree+Plantation+%22&hl=en
Seems the units in question are condos and the owners of those condos lease them out. Guess those owners should be sued for breach of contract as Baytree is not a leasing agent and had no prior knowledge of the reunion.
Could it be because there were 100 of them, and not because they were black?
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.