+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 116

Thread: Ruling on racist "white only" pool sign stands

  1. #1

    Default Ruling on racist "white only" pool sign stands

    I guess we don't need the civil rights act anymore according to the cons. I mean, society has moved past racism and segregation according to our "liberty loving" friends. But wait whats this? I though the civil rights act was outdated and "oppressive"? Will the tea baggers support this unconstitutional and illegal pool owners actions? Most likely.

    COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) A Cincinnati landlord who claimed a black girl's hair products clouded an apartment complex's swimming pool discriminated against the child by posting a poolside "White Only" sign, an Ohio civil rights panel said Thursday in upholding a previous finding.

    The Ohio Civil Rights Commission voted 4-0 against reconsidering its finding from last fall. There was no discussion.

    The group found on Sept. 29 that Jamie Hein, who is white, violated the Ohio Civil Rights Act by posting the sign at a pool at the duplex where the teenage girl was visiting her parents.

    The parents filed a discrimination charge with the commission and moved out of the duplex in the racially diverse city to "avoid subjecting their family to further humiliating treatment," the commission said in a release announcing its finding.

    An investigation revealed that Hein in May posted on the gated entrance to the pool an iron sign that stated "Public Swimming Pool, White Only," the commission statement said.

    Several witnesses confirmed that the sign was posted, and the landlord indicated that she posted it because the girl used chemicals in her hair that would make the pool "cloudy," according to the commission.

    Hein told the commission she received the sign from a friend, and Ronnell Tomlinson, the commission's housing enforcement director, said at Thursday's hearing it was an antique. The sign says "Selma, Ala.," at the bottom, followed by the date "14 July 31."

    The girl's father, Michael Gunn, in brief comments Thursday, described his shock last spring when venturing out for a lunch break by the pool.

    "My initial reaction to seeing the sign was of shock, disgust and outrage," Gunn said. He also told the commission that his daughter was saddened months later to learn the reason they moved from the apartment complex "was in a way related to the color of her skin." Gunn declined to speak with reporters.

    Hein's attorney, who informed the commission by email Wednesday that Hein would not attend the hearing, did not return phone and email messages Wednesday and Thursday from The Associated Press. A recording on Thursday said Hein's voicemail was full and could not accept messages.

    "I was trying to protect my assets," she told the commission's housing enforcement director in a Sept. 27 interview.

    Racial discrimination has particular resonance in Cincinnati, whose population is 45 percent black, far higher than the rest of Ohio, which is about 12 percent black. Surrounding Hamilton County is 26 percent black.

    Cincinnati was the scene of race riots in April 2001 when police and demonstrators clashed in a blighted neighborhood following the shooting of a black suspect by police.

    The commission's statement said that its investigation concluded that the posting of such a sign "restricts the social interaction between Caucasians and African-Americans and reinforces discriminatory actions aimed at oppressing people of color."

    It still would be possible for the parties to reach a settlement overseen by the commission before any legal action is taken.

    If those discussions don't bear fruit, the commission would issue a formal complaint and refer the matter to the Ohio attorney general's office, which would represent the commission's findings before an administrative law judge. That judge would determine any penalties, which could include a cease-and-desist order and punitive damages.

    Any decision by the administrative judge could be appealed to Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in Cincinnati.

    http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-panel-sti...151624022.html

  2. Stand Taller and Look Better with the LUMOback Posture and Activity Coach. <LINK> Learn More Here! </LINK>

  3. Default

    Thank god for common sense.
    What the hell was that woman thinking?
    Any deity who claims to be all powerful and perfect puts them self into the Big Rock Paradox:

    "Can an omnipotent being create a rock so big not even they can lift it? If not then they are not truly omnipotent, and even if they can, the fact they cannot lift it also means they are not omnipotent."

  4. #3

    Default

    The guy is a nut. And what you're trying so desperately?

    Some timely advice for empty suit Barack Hussein Obama, from a man far wiser than him:

    "A real leader does not need to point, he is content to lead."

    Henry Miller, author

  5. Default

    I would rather know who is racist. Why hide it? It makes it easier to know who to (*)(*)(*)(*) with.
    Last edited by WatcherOfTheGate; Jan 13 2012 at 02:03 AM.
    Im happy that you're so appalled
    Don't stand for anything at all
    Just listen to your whining, accusations
    Your petty provincialism

    And I don't think I wanna be subject to your morality

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Montoya View Post
    I guess we don't need the civil rights act anymore according to the cons. I mean, society has moved past racism and segregation according to our "liberty loving" friends.
    As a libertarian, I stand with Ron Paul's views regarding the Civil Rights Act. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate how a private citizen runs his/her business.

    But wait whats this? I though the civil rights act was outdated and "oppressive"?
    It is not "outdated," but it is clearly oppressive: Why can't a private citizen run his/her private business as he/she sees fit?

    If the public is outraged (as they should be) over the racism, then people will stop going to her pool (especially in an area with a 45% Black population). The free market will take over, and someone will open a pool that allows access to people of all skin colors, hence leading the racist pool owner's business to fail.

    Will the tea baggers support this unconstitutional and illegal pool owners actions? Most likely.
    Her actions are illegal (due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964), but clearly not unconstitutional. In fact, it is the Civil Rights Act that is unconstitutional.

    Have you read the Constitution? I doubt it. I guess it's just far easier to unjustifiably demean the "Tea Baggers," right?

    I also find it comical that you left-wingers are so holier-than-thou regarding this issue of race relations, and yet its folk like you that vehemently support racist institutions like affirmative action, which is nothing more than a racist system of advantage supported by the government and universities. Talk about hypocrisy.

  7. #6

    Default

    Good ruling. I hope that woman has lost a lot of business over this. She should be ashamed.
    Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby, beloved pet:
    15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

    "The Futures Not Set; There Is No Fate But What We Make For Ourselves" - John Connor: Terminator 2.
    http://mywinterstorm83.livejournal.com/

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drj90210 View Post
    As a libertarian, I stand with Ron Paul's views regarding the Civil Rights Act. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate how a private citizen runs his/her business.
    I suspect that if you (or Ron Paul) were in any of the groups who would be routinely treated as second-class citizens as a consequence you'd think differently, regardless of libertarianism.

    Quote Originally Posted by drj90210 View Post
    Why can't a private citizen run his/her private business as he/she sees fit?
    The same reason private individuals can't do anything they like. Our actions impact other people and government has been granted the role of managing the significant consequences of that impact.

    Quote Originally Posted by drj90210 View Post
    If the public is outraged (as they should be) over the racism, then people will stop going to her pool (especially in an area with a 45% Black population).
    And if the public wasn't outraged (as they could well be given a significant racist minority and a large "not my problem" majority)?

    I feel your proposal would only serve to feed the undercurrent of casual racism in society and history shows it doesn't take much for that to trigger something much worse.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drj90210 View Post
    As a libertarian, I stand with Ron Paul's views regarding the Civil Rights Act. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate how a private citizen runs his/her business.
    Um, yes it does. Its the federal government's responsibility via the Constitution to protect the rights of American citizens. Unless you believe (As Ron Paul and other libertarians seem to) that business supersedes the Constitution. As long as businesses enjoy the protection and benefits of government, they are subject to its laws as well.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Makedde View Post
    Good ruling. I hope that woman has lost a lot of business over this. She should be ashamed.
    I agree. The landlord was way over the line and absolutely should be sanctioned in some manner by society.

    But the big question remains, what do we do when certain cultural traits, such as heavy use of flatteners and other harsh chemicals in the hair become a public nuisance to others?
    Last edited by SiliconMagician; Jan 13 2012 at 04:02 AM.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drj90210 View Post
    As a libertarian, I stand with Ron Paul's views regarding the Civil Rights Act. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate how a private citizen runs his/her business.
    This is why I get offended when people try to classify my flavour of Conservative beliefs as Libertarian. In my belief, most Libertarians are only a short step from Anarchists.

    What if every store in a community decides they will no longer sell food to a certain race? What if every landlord decides they will not rent apartments to anybody of a certain race? And if commercial landlords decide they will not rent property to a certain religion?

    Now I am all for free enterprise. I am also all for a business owner having the right to do whatever they want in their business.

    Within reason.

    The problem with racists like that is that they need to be slapped around once in a while. They are to stupid to realize on their own what proper behavior is, so occasionally must be taught again what it is.

    I disagree with quite a few of our "Civil Rights" laws. And it is not that I am against the ideas, as I feel that parts of them have become antiquated over the decades and should be phased out. But I do believe that discrimination is 100% wrong, and in cases like this there should be steps taken, even non-punitive ones to show the landlord they are being a racist ass.

    And the fact that the idiot landlord not only put up the sign, but appealed the first ruleing that she was a stupid ass only makes it more obvious that she is really a stupid stupid ass.

    Because with this kind of thinking, we are only a short step away from this:






+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Oct 25 2011, 02:29 PM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Oct 02 2011, 10:31 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks