|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
May 28, 2009, 1:56 PM
Post #51 of 103
(5556 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: acorneau wrote: While a warning/explination would have been the professional thing to do, you have to remember that a business can choose whom they do business with at will. I'm sure you've seen the signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Well, they exercised their right.  And of course those signs are complete bullshit, with no legal standing. Jay Huh? It's a private business. I'm not sure I understand your point. See this, for example. Jay One should read closely what one posts as a source to backup one’s point. Otherwise one has the risk of their french fart hoisting them. (IAAAGL) Thanks for the link Jay, as you see it explicitly states that: In reply to: Yes, however they (restaurants) are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status. A rock wall is not a “public accommodation” and therefore can refuse anyone. Can you prove (1) that a climbing gym is not a public accommodation under common and statutory law, and (2) the fact that it is not means the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone without cause? Jay
You'll have to wait until I get to a different IP so I can create my troll account of JT512s_Google_Byoch. If it takes me too long to do so, may I recommend using the phrase "public accommodations definition" with google. Also, note the difference between ADA and civil rights.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
May 28, 2009, 2:08 PM
Post #52 of 103
(5543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
In reply to: You'll have to wait until I get to a different IP so I can create my troll account of JT512s_Google_Byoch.
Haha. I have no idea who is right, nor do I care. But that's a +1 my friend ... a +1, indeed.
... signature worthy.
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
May 28, 2009, 2:59 PM
Post #53 of 103
(5519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
Can you prove it is a public accomodation? Neither can I because I haven't had access to legal libraries since I quit law school and I'm not gonna go look through books because that point is somewhat irrelevant. If we assume that it is a public accomodation then you still might want to pay attention to this sentence from your cited example:
"These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory."
Whatever courts are allowed to find they are also aloud to not find. So arbitrary refusals of service may, or may not be found discriminatory, assuming someone actually takes it to court. What they're looking at is whether it violates the Civil Rights Act. This situation does not seem to do so. Unfortunately, the only way to really get to the bottom of that point would be to find relevant case law. I'm too lazy to do something to which I already know the answer, it depends.
By reading your cited example I would guess that the case law revolves around three things, probably a few more but like I said, I have no relevant case law to base it off of, just your cited example.
1. Is it a place of public accomodation?
2. Can the reason for refusal of service be considered by a reasonable person as extremely arbitrary?
3. Did the presence of the refused person somehow detract from the safety, welfare, or well-being of other patrons or the establishment itself.
In our current situation it's really hard to tell because it's obvious we don't know the other half of what's going on. The simple failure to pay up for membership could easily be considered to detract from the well being of the establishment.
Either way, I think you have no idea what you're talking about till you find some relevant case law to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
May 28, 2009, 3:25 PM
Post #54 of 103
(5497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
GunnerFrits wrote: You guys do know that I am a female.... This is in reply to ppl going off on tangents about the word platonic.
Well, in common parlance, it means affectionate, albeit non-sexually. A platonic relationship, by that definition, is a very close one that is absent all of the romantic trappings that are implied by the term "relationship".
The original definition of a platonic relationship was one in which the love between the two people had transcended (although not necessarily excluded) sex.
I think, in this case, you were looking for the word "civil", which is nowhere near as loaded.
I was just making fun of a temporary lapse in diction though, not trying to imply anything.
|
|
|
|
|
fishclimb
May 28, 2009, 3:34 PM
Post #55 of 103
(5489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2008
Posts: 30
|
If the gym requires a membership then your presence is voluntary. Membership/admission, doesn't that make it a private club? Therefore they don't have to follow the rules of the public forum.
I remember a case where a kid wasn't allowed into the Boy Scouts because he was an admitted atheist. The kid's family sued the Boy Scouts. They lost because the Boy Scouts is a voluntary club and may "discriminate" if you aren't in line with their vague requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
May 28, 2009, 3:46 PM
Post #56 of 103
(5483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
IsayAutumn wrote: GunnerFrits wrote: You guys do know that I am a female.... This is in reply to ppl going off on tangents about the word platonic. Ah ha! Now this is getting interesting. Also, what is a French fart?
Petard. Use Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
|
Chinchen
May 28, 2009, 4:11 PM
Post #57 of 103
(5458 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2009
Posts: 114
|
Did you dump him in middle school?
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
May 28, 2009, 4:25 PM
Post #58 of 103
(5447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
I did. No luck. Thanks for clearing it up.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 29, 2009, 1:29 AM
Post #59 of 103
(5362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
jmeizis wrote: Can you prove it is a public accomodation? Neither can I because I haven't had access to legal libraries since I quit law school and I'm not gonna go look through books because that point is somewhat irrelevant. If we assume that it is a public accomodation then you still might want to pay attention to this sentence from your cited example: "These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory." Whatever courts are allowed to find they are also aloud to not find. So arbitrary refusals of service may, or may not be found discriminatory, assuming someone actually takes it to court. What they're looking at is whether it violates the Civil Rights Act. This situation does not seem to do so. Unfortunately, the only way to really get to the bottom of that point would be to find relevant case law. I'm too lazy to do something to which I already know the answer, it depends. By reading your cited example I would guess that the case law revolves around three things, probably a few more but like I said, I have no relevant case law to base it off of, just your cited example. 1. Is it a place of public accomodation? 2. Can the reason for refusal of service be considered by a reasonable person as extremely arbitrary? 3. Did the presence of the refused person somehow detract from the safety, welfare, or well-being of other patrons or the establishment itself. In our current situation it's really hard to tell because it's obvious we don't know the other half of what's going on. The simple failure to pay up for membership could easily be considered to detract from the well being of the establishment. Either way, I think you have no idea what you're talking about till you find some relevant case law to back it up.
I get the impression that you think you are arguing against my position, when you seem to be making my point for me.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 29, 2009, 1:33 AM
Post #60 of 103
(5359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: acorneau wrote: While a warning/explination would have been the professional thing to do, you have to remember that a business can choose whom they do business with at will. I'm sure you've seen the signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Well, they exercised their right. And of course those signs are complete bullshit, with no legal standing. Jay Huh? It's a private business. I'm not sure I understand your point. See this, for example. Jay One should read closely what one posts as a source to backup one’s point. Otherwise one has the risk of their french fart hoisting them. (IAAAGL) Thanks for the link Jay, as you see it explicitly states that: In reply to: Yes, however they (restaurants) are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status. A rock wall is not a “public accommodation” and therefore can refuse anyone. Can you prove (1) that a climbing gym is not a public accommodation under common and statutory law, and (2) the fact that it is not means the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone without cause? Jay You'll have to wait until I get to a different IP so I can create my troll account of JT512s_Google_Byoch. If it takes me too long to do so, may I recommend using the phrase "public accommodations definition" with google. Also, note the difference between ADA and civil rights. Hope this helps.
Actually, the onus is on you to back up your claims.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
miavzero
May 29, 2009, 3:47 AM
Post #61 of 103
(5342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Posts: 624
|
jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: acorneau wrote: While a warning/explination would have been the professional thing to do, you have to remember that a business can choose whom they do business with at will. I'm sure you've seen the signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Well, they exercised their right. And of course those signs are complete bullshit, with no legal standing. Jay Huh? It's a private business. I'm not sure I understand your point. See this, for example. Jay One should read closely what one posts as a source to backup one’s point. Otherwise one has the risk of their french fart hoisting them. (IAAAGL) Thanks for the link Jay, as you see it explicitly states that: In reply to: Yes, however they (restaurants) are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status. A rock wall is not a “public accommodation” and therefore can refuse anyone. Can you prove (1) that a climbing gym is not a public accommodation under common and statutory law, and (2) the fact that it is not means the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone without cause? Jay You'll have to wait until I get to a different IP so I can create my troll account of JT512s_Google_Byoch. If it takes me too long to do so, may I recommend using the phrase "public accommodations definition" with google. Also, note the difference between ADA and civil rights. Hope this helps. Actually, the onus is on you to back up your claims. Jay
Wow Jay,
I leave for a year and you still haven't gotten over trying to win little-man arguements.
Quick, show us how clever you are . 5, 4, 3,...
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
May 29, 2009, 3:59 AM
Post #62 of 103
(5340 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
miavzero wrote: jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: acorneau wrote: While a warning/explination would have been the professional thing to do, you have to remember that a business can choose whom they do business with at will. I'm sure you've seen the signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Well, they exercised their right. And of course those signs are complete bullshit, with no legal standing. Jay Huh? It's a private business. I'm not sure I understand your point. See this, for example. Jay One should read closely what one posts as a source to backup one’s point. Otherwise one has the risk of their french fart hoisting them. (IAAAGL) Thanks for the link Jay, as you see it explicitly states that: In reply to: Yes, however they (restaurants) are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status. A rock wall is not a “public accommodation” and therefore can refuse anyone. Can you prove (1) that a climbing gym is not a public accommodation under common and statutory law, and (2) the fact that it is not means the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone without cause? Jay You'll have to wait until I get to a different IP so I can create my troll account of JT512s_Google_Byoch. If it takes me too long to do so, may I recommend using the phrase "public accommodations definition" with google. Also, note the difference between ADA and civil rights. Hope this helps. Actually, the onus is on you to back up your claims. Jay Wow Jay, I leave for a year and you still haven't gotten over trying to win little-man arguements. Quick, show us how clever you are . 5, 4, 3,...
Nah, I just killfile idiots like you now.
*plonk*
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
May 29, 2009, 5:12 AM
Post #63 of 103
(5317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
It's a minor disagreement. The signs aren't complete BS. I can in fact refuse service to anyone I please I just have to have a reason. I thought you were saying they had to have a good reason. I guess that's the only thing I disagree with. It doesn't have to be a good reason. It seems like the standards can be pretty low.
|
|
|
|
|
apeman_e
May 29, 2009, 10:52 AM
Post #64 of 103
(5279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Posts: 212
|
well, luckily, it's not winter, so you can go climb real rock instead.
By the time winter rolls around again, tensions will be calmed and you can address the ban again.
PS I don't believe you're giving us the whole story...
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
May 29, 2009, 11:21 AM
Post #65 of 103
(5276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: acorneau wrote: While a warning/explination would have been the professional thing to do, you have to remember that a business can choose whom they do business with at will. I'm sure you've seen the signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Well, they exercised their right. And of course those signs are complete bullshit, with no legal standing. Jay Huh? It's a private business. I'm not sure I understand your point. See this, for example. Jay One should read closely what one posts as a source to backup one’s point. Otherwise one has the risk of their french fart hoisting them. (IAAAGL) Thanks for the link Jay, as you see it explicitly states that: In reply to: Yes, however they (restaurants) are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws. Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status. A rock wall is not a “public accommodation” and therefore can refuse anyone. Can you prove (1) that a climbing gym is not a public accommodation under common and statutory law, and (2) the fact that it is not means the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone without cause? Jay You'll have to wait until I get to a different IP so I can create my troll account of JT512s_Google_Byoch. If it takes me too long to do so, may I recommend using the phrase "public accommodations definition" with google. Also, note the difference between ADA and civil rights. Hope this helps. Actually, the onus is on you to back up your claims. Jay
Hmmmm... It seems you made the first claim with no backup. Then when gumby-burns came in with the ever witty “huh”, you posted a link which, when closely read seemed to contradict your point. I pointed that out and you counter with a “prove it”. To which I retorted “look it up”. And now the onus is on me? Ok. Fine, be that way.
“Public accommodation” in the civil rights act was originally intended to specifically focus on the egregious behavior in the south in 1964. As such, it was focused on “food, lodging, fuel, and entertainment”. In such a definition a climbing gym would not apply.
http://public.findlaw.com/...nation-overview.html
However, with the passage of ADA the definition of “public accommodation” was expanded to include “a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation” as such a climbing gym would apply. http://www.law.cornell.edu/...0012181----000-.html
“Clubs” are excluded from “public accommodation” for civil rights only apply when the group defines the rules of membership. Companies that charge a membership are not a “club”. However, a “night club” can be selective of people who get into the club. A business may specifically select for gender (i.e. a women’s only hair salon) provided it is not a “public accommodation”.
And yes, it gets murky.
If you are not a public accommodation you can refuse anyone on your private property for any reason. If you are a “public accommodation” for civil rights you cannot refuse anyone based on race or gender. You can refuse for other reasons (i.e. you stink or your climbing stinks) , but these cannot be based on race / gender. Posting a sign does not change that fact. If you are a “public accommodation” for ADA you must accommodate disabilities which is why weight lifting gyms have doors that open with the press of a button.
If a public accommodation refuses service for an individual, proving a race / gender bias is difficult as the business may have a “reason” that is not tied to race / gender. However, if the rule is applied differently based on race / gender or if the rule is a de facto race / gender bias than the business is violating the civil rights act. The challenge is that it usually takes a pattern of individuals who have be discriminated against to prove the point. If the OP feels they were refused service on the basis of gender or race, they might have a case in that they could push the “public accommodations” (depending if the Rock Wall has a food area or what not) or at least go as far as the discovery phase and force the gym to put on paper the “real reason”. Talk to a real lawyer.
Please also note, that hour the manager spent in their office they may have been waiting to hear back from a real lawyer with an opinion about kicking someone out.
Hope this helps
J_G_B
|
|
|
|
|
8flood8
May 29, 2009, 12:28 PM
Post #66 of 103
(5260 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1436
|
GunnerFrits wrote: There aren't any local crags near by and the closest climbing gym is pretty far. I can't just up and move yet, so if I want to climb my only viable option is getting back into this gym. There would be no tension on my part. Even before being banned I had stopped going to the gym if I knew that the manager would be there. I didn't want any problems I just wanted to climb. Same thing now. I can overlook unwarranted banning, or set aside the slander they have committed. I JUST WANT TO CLIMB!!!
save your overpriced gym membership for a few months and build your own climbing wall. then you wont have to pay anymore at all. screw those guys
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
May 29, 2009, 2:55 PM
Post #68 of 103
(5198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: gumby-burns 
No offense ment?
TIT Machine
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
May 29, 2009, 3:23 PM
Post #69 of 103
(5177 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: gumby-burns No offense ment? TIT Machine
forgiven. 
|
|
|
|
|
madrasrock
May 29, 2009, 7:28 PM
Post #70 of 103
(5114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2005
Posts: 79
|
GunnerFrits , you are missing the most important part of this unfortunate situation the accusation of “inappropriate in front of kids”. Your reputation is a thousand time more important than going climbing at a gym.
So you need to write a letter to the owner, stating that if he or any one working for his company ever repeat or spreads rumors about you and inappropriate behavior in front of kids. That you will be contacting your laws for legal action, agents him and his company. You need to send this certified UPS mail, so he has to sign for it, and you keep it as long as you live.
Rick
|
|
|
|
|
GunnerFrits
May 29, 2009, 7:53 PM
Post #71 of 103
(5097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2009
Posts: 12
|
Thats exactly what angered me the most after i had left non-chalantly. When he told me i was banned he just said that he didn't feel comfortable with me being there; interpretted: we don't get along so its best we're not around each other. But when I left is when i found out that he was smear campaigning my reputation. That is the moment i called him and asked for some kind of proof to his accusation and he said that i needed to grow up and get over it, and then he hung up.
The thing is, nobody believes his insane accusation (other than the owner who is his friend). I'm actually known for the exact opposite because I use to go out of my way to climb with parents, belay them and their kids, and climb with the team. Hence, why the coach was flabergasted when i asked him if he even ever heard of such a rumor.
My big mistake was not getting in contact with the manager as soon as the incident occured. Waiting for things to cool down could have possibly been perceived by the owner as a sign of my guilt/admittance. And now, its a closed loop because there is no getting thru the manager, and the owner is ignoring me.
|
|
|
|
|
fishclimb
May 29, 2009, 8:23 PM
Post #72 of 103
(5077 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 3, 2008
Posts: 30
|
I would steal his pets and make chalk bags out of their hides.
I don't like defamation of character. It is very cowardly.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
May 29, 2009, 9:38 PM
Post #73 of 103
(5054 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
GunnerFrits wrote: You guys do know that I am a female.... This is in reply to ppl going off on tangents about the word platonic.
Ummm.....do you usually make out with/fuck people randomly? I mean, it's fairly safe to assume that this does not happen in most settings that you don't have to say it.
Although it might help in getting your banning revoked??
Seriously though, you must have been pretty offensive to be banned as a woman. Usually females can get away with a lot of stuff that guys can't. Although of course women are usually better behaved than this anyhow ;)
|
|
|
|
|
msiddens
May 29, 2009, 9:45 PM
Post #74 of 103
(5044 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2003
Posts: 130
|
Johnny_Fang wrote: do you climb with a potato in your pants? that's gotten me almost kicked out of too many gyms to mention. the uncomfortable part is when i have to prove it's not a potato.
That's awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
May 29, 2009, 9:50 PM
Post #75 of 103
(5041 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
Every time I hear the word awesome now, I can't help but think of this:
Touch my awesome button:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yff3jH8NECs
or Captain Awesome from Chuck!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMmwvPxPKYQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
