A well-known bar in Chicago's Gold Coast is being accused of racism.
Some college students from St. Louis say they were barred from going in and they're not buying the reason they got.
This is about a senior trip for nearly 200 students from Washington University in St. Louis...
Six African-American men in the group were denied entry to the bar last weekend.
Student Regis Nurayi says the bar's manager told them their jeans were too baggy.
But Murayi didn't buy it.
So he switched jeans with a shorter, white student.
The white student, who now had very baggy jeans, was let in, and Murayi was still kept out.
The story really doesn't give much detail, nor has the reporter bothered to quote any response from the accused. Shoddy reporting, if you ask me. But what's new...
I'm assuming there's more to the story than just the side presented by the aggrieved.
But just assuming for the sake of argument... that the bar didn't want 'African-American' men in their midst, there's probably a law violation in there, some where.
But should there be?
Private property is private property. If a business doesn't want to service a certain kind of people, they shouldn't have to. One man's right to have a drink doesn't obligate another man to bring it to him.
The only stipulation I would demand that any restrictions to entry or service be clearly posted. Let the proprietor deal with whatever (peaceful) fallout may come from the public.
11 comments:
It's NOT legal to restrict a "certain kind of people" when those the basis for determination WHO is a "certain kind of person" is the fact that they are black. And yes, they did refuse service because the kids were black, and specifically because they assumed that a group of black men would start trouble.
Not only is it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, it's morally wrong, because racism breeds hate, and it is hate, rather than the color of one's skin, that breeds violence.
I understand that you want to give any American establishment the benefit of the doubt, but I'm sorry, there is simply no other explanation for the bar's behavior.
Sorry for the typos in the previous comment - I'm sure you know what I am saying!
Amanda, you failed to substantiate your claims.
Can anyone site statue where a private property can't pick and choose who they let in? I have seen quite a few bars with the sign stating the right of the owner to refuse service...
Most gay bars do not let obviously hetro males in the doors. If my wife suggests we visit such an establishment I tell her that I will be all lovey dovey over her and then they will have to kick us out.... heh heh heh.
Why is it OK for YOU to dictate others behavior and actions on their own private property?
amanda: i expect typos in comment sections, and partake of them heavily myself.
but, i wonder, if this was a group of middle-aged black men from wall street in business suits if the reaction would be the same?
or, if they were wearing the baggy robed attire of franciscan priests?
probably not.
so, maybe it wasn't 'black' that was the issue, but behavior, attitude and appearance?
baggy jeans is gang attire, after all.
i dont know what the laws are in chicago pertaining to this, but morally, in a free society, one should be free to choose who is allowed through a private doorway.
Gino, I agree with you that an establishment has a right to decide on the attire of its patrons. However the article points out that one of the black men who was refused entrance gave his jeans to one of the white men who had been at the bar - which were even a little bigger on him - and the white man was admitted.
I want to give the benefit of the doubt, as you do, but even if the restaurant's baggy jeans policy isn't racist, the bouncers certainly were, as the clothing switch proves.
Can anyone site statue where a private property can't pick and choose who they let in?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II to be specific.
So I can't ban 18 to 22 year old white suburban males from entering my house?
Of course you can. Title II covers "public accommodations" (restaurants, retail, etc.) and says that service cannot be denied to people on certain bases, specifically their race. It doesn't cover one's home.
But that is a specific example of a statute that governs whether or not people can be denied service (and by extension, entry) into certain types of private property. Which is what you asked for, no?
Note that I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with such a law, just that it is the law of the land, and has been for a rather long time.
Ah, so I can discriminate except on national night out if I am having brats and refreshments on by driveway. It is against all that the "get off my lawn" G.O.M. stand for!!!
Even though I agree with what the law is about, I disagree with a dictator telling people how they MUST think and act.
I think racism is wrong and I think government dictating how you think is wrong.
Now as far as this instance, is this the thought police telling you how you actually thought and that is was racist?
Please don't tell me the only difference between the two kids was their height and the color of their skin. Maybe it was a racist act but maybe the kid made a comment that the bouncer didn't like? That's a sure fire way to make sure you don't get in the door regardless of the pants you wear or the color of your skin.
The fact of the matter is, Amanda, that the baggy jeans swap does not by any means prove the bouncer is a racist.
Amanda and Brian are right; it is illegal to decline admittance based on race.
Gang attire, on the other hand....isn't technically illegal to ban them on those grounds, but as we're learning, it ain't good press.
There used to be a time when university men would disdain to look like the warden wouldn't allow them a belt to avoid hangings.......and for that matter, not too long ago, college educated men would disdain to even wear jeans except on campouts. You didn't go out in public in them.
Let alone baggy jeans worn without a belt....and Wash. U. is a Catholic school no less.
We've come a long way, baby.
But this instance, as far as we know, was not based on race.
Or does someone claim they know what the bouncer was thinking.
Post a Comment