You're not gonna be nailed by me. Par for the course for you. But I do have a question.
Why did this resort take these family members' money, then turned around and denied them access to all amenities at that resort?
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."
--------------------------------------------------
Not if they use the property in any publicly commercial way, such as renting.
If it wasn't race related or they had any sort of a leg to stand on, why did they lose the case? Bad Lawyering?
Absolutely. Let the market decide.
About 10 years ago, a white couple attempted to rent a garage apartment from a black woman, who refused to rent to them because of their race.
She flat out told them that she didn't want to rent to white people.
Well, the couple got their panties in a wad over it and filed a suit. Of course, the black lady lost. A court decided that she had to rent to them even though it was HER garage attached to HER house on HER property.
What a jerk! Glad the family won.
"I wouldn't climb in a public pool if you paid me."
True, you'd be shocked how many kids are too lazy to get out of a pool to use the restroom to urinate. Facts can be ugly. Chlorine, it's your best friend.
I meant to ask why they settled if they had a case. 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.
"I am amazed that they didn't call police at the time."
It seems as though they didn't know the reason for the pool being closed. Sounds as though one or more of them suspected racism and went back day after check out to see if the pool was re-opened. Looks like they were right.
" I'd like to hear the other side of this story, if there is another side."
I *imagine* that the court that ruled in the family's favor heard the hotel manager's side...
Agreed again.
I guess he didnt wan't their blackness to come off in the water,
You're not gonna be nailed by me. Par for the course for you. But I do have a question.
Why did this resort take these family members' money, then turned around and denied them access to all amenities at that resort?
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.
In this particular case, I would say you're right that it was a clear violation of an implied contract between the business owner and the customer.
Dolphan aka Shaq ONeal, Guillermo II, Guillermo, et al, banned.
Now THAT'S a good argument.
-I'd like to keep clueless idiots off my property but they blend in with all the others.
-But then, where would you live?
Got me, LexBaird. I owe you one.
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.