Bar denies service to black women who turn out to be civil rights attorneys

[Underseer]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/...two-black-women-Surprise-They-re-ACLU-lawyers

Racists aren't very smart, are they?

I can't wait to hear what excuse racists make for this one. I'm sure it will be entertaining.

 

[Keith&Co.]

One of my Commanding Officers used to talk about Dumb Dirt and Smart Dirt.
On after-watch-cleanup, we swept the decks and dusted the work surfaces. That, he maintained, was getting the dumb dirt. The dumb dirt just lay on the floor waiting for you.

On field day, the weekly event where the whole crew turned to cleaning the ship, top to bottom, we were after the Smart Dirt. The Smart Dirt hid in the frame bays and cable runs, behind access panels and in the bilges.

There ARE Smart Racists. And there are Dumb Racists. The Dumb One's whip their racism out there, laying there to be swept up in a scandal or a lawsuit.
The Smart Racists are the ones who are learning to keep their traps shut...

 

[Underseer]

One of my Commanding Officers used to talk about Dumb Dirt and Smart Dirt.
On after-watch-cleanup, we swept the decks and dusted the work surfaces. That, he maintained, was getting the dumb dirt. The dumb dirt just lay on the floor waiting for you.

On field day, the weekly event where the whole crew turned to cleaning the ship, top to bottom, we were after the Smart Dirt. The Smart Dirt hid in the frame bays and cable runs, behind access panels and in the bilges.

There ARE Smart Racists. And there are Dumb Racists. The Dumb One's whip their racism out there, laying there to be swept up in a scandal or a lawsuit.
The Smart Racists are the ones who are learning to keep their traps shut...

Or more accurately, to hide their racism behind coded language and a careful layer of plausible deniability.

 

[credoconsolans]

I see it's just a matter of time before these attorneys also own a bar.

Nice to see other patrons rallying to their defense.

 

[Derec]

I see it's just a matter of time before these attorneys also own a bar.

Why? Even if true, were they damaged beyond the cost of the cover charge (if women even have to pay cover charge)?
So why should any lawsuit/settlement for any substantial sum be possible?

- - - Updated - - -

Or more accurately, to hide their racism behind coded language and a careful layer of plausible deniability.

Or, as is much more often the case, bogus racism allegations get thrown around by claiming innocuous language is "coded racism" and similar nonsense.

 

[Underseer]

Why? Even if true, were they damaged beyond the cost of the cover charge (if women even have to pay cover charge)?
So why should any lawsuit/settlement for any substantial sum be possible?

- - - Updated - - -

Or more accurately, to hide their racism behind coded language and a careful layer of plausible deniability.

Or, as is much more often the case, bogus racism allegations get thrown around by claiming innocuous language is "coded racism" and similar nonsense.

Really?

You really think these excuses still fool anyone?

It's been obvious nonsense for decades, but now it is impossible to deny for anyone but the truly delusional. We finally have a Republican politician who is saying openly what all the other Republican politicians only imply, and he is the front runnner for the presidential candidacy.

If your argument had any merit, the Trump would have been roundly rejected by Republican voters for his naked and obvious racism. Instead, they embraced him.

 

[laughing dog]

Why? Even if true, were they damaged beyond the cost of the cover charge (if women even have to pay cover charge)?
So why should any lawsuit/settlement for any substantial sum be possible?

Any lawsuit and subsequent award should send a distinct message to the bar to stop such behavior (assuming the plaintiffs prevail).

Or, as is much more often the case, bogus racism allegations get thrown around by claiming innocuous language is "coded racism" and similar nonsense.

Please quantify what you mean by "more often" and cite the sources for the statistics so that all of us can be enlightened.

 

[Derec]

Any lawsuit and subsequent award should send a distinct message to the bar to stop such behavior (assuming the plaintiffs prevail).

That is misuse of the tort system. The purpose of the tort system is to compensate for damages, not to enrich a few people and their lawyers through lawsuit lottery.
If the bar needs to be punished it should be done through fines.

Also, a prospect of a huge payday would be a huge incentive to lie about what actually happened.

Please quantify what you mean by "more often" and cite the sources for the statistics so that all of us can be enlightened.

And you never use comparative adverbs without having statistics handy?

What I mean is that the claims of "coded language" are used every time a left winger disagrees on a policy positions that even tangentially concern race or ethnicity. See for example the claims by left-wingers that "thug" is coded language when in reality the term has no racial connotation.

 

[Derec]

You really think these excuses still fool anyone?

They are not excuses.

It's been obvious nonsense for decades, but now it is impossible to deny for anyone but the truly delusional. We finally have a Republican politician who is saying openly what all the other Republican politicians only imply, and he is the front runnner for the presidential candidacy.

That's my point. You use disagreements on policy to claim racism, coded or otherwise. If somebody is against illegal immigration he is dismissed as "xenophobic". If somebody is against things like "affirmative action" or the #BLM movement and their causes celebres they must be "racist". If they don't actually say anything xenophobic or racist, well they must just be hiding it well. Unless you agree with left-wing orthodoxy on race or immigration, you are called names.

If your argument had any merit, the Trump would have been roundly rejected by Republican voters for his naked and obvious racism. Instead, they embraced him.

Say what you will about Trump (and there is a lot of bad to say) but he is right on illegal immigration - you either have a country or you don't and if you do you need to enforce the borders. He is also much more liberal on many issues than say Ted Cruz. How would you feel if you manage to derail the Trump juggernaut only to wake up on November 9th to the words "President Elect Ted Cruz"? Now that's something to crawl into one's safe space for!

To get back to the bar. If the two women are correct and they were asked to leave because they are black, that's obviously fucked up. I would not want to do be a customer in such an establishment, and I am sure others would feel the same. If appropriate, fines should be levied. But twelve jurors should not get to pull a random number out of their nether regions to enrich these women and their lawyers over this when they haven't suffered any real damages.

I am opposed to such misuse of the tort system on principle.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Why? Even if true, were they damaged beyond the cost of the cover charge (if women even have to pay cover charge)?
So why should any lawsuit/settlement for any substantial sum be possible?

- - - Updated - - -

Or more accurately, to hide their racism behind coded language and a careful layer of plausible deniability.

Or, as is much more often the case, bogus racism allegations get thrown around by claiming innocuous language is "coded racism" and similar nonsense.

It's called punitive and/or exemplary damages. To put it simply, a party is punished for their misconduct and so must pay a price for it. Money is the easiest way to pay damages, so money damages are given. The logical receipt of the money is by the people that were harmed. This isn't contract damages. They're not being compensated because they didn't get the benefit of a bargain or because they need restitution. If the bar is found to have violated civil rights then they will be punished for it and that punishment is an example to others to not do the same thing.

 

[JonA]

Why? Even if true, were they damaged beyond the cost of the cover charge (if women even have to pay cover charge)?
So why should any lawsuit/settlement for any substantial sum be possible?

- - - Updated - - -


Or, as is much more often the case, bogus racism allegations get thrown around by claiming innocuous language is "coded racism" and similar nonsense.

It's called punitive and/or exemplary damages. To put it simply, a party is punished for their misconduct and so must pay a price for it. Money is the easiest way to pay damages, so money damages are given. ...

Money is also the easiest way to incur damages.

How much money are these women out?

 

[Derec]

It's called punitive and/or exemplary damages. To put it simply, a party is punished for their misconduct and so must pay a price for it. Money is the easiest way to pay damages, so money damages are given. The logical receipt of the money is by the people that were harmed. This isn't contract damages. They're not being compensated because they didn't get the benefit of a bargain or because they need restitution. If the bar is found to have violated civil rights then they will be punished for it and that punishment is an example to others to not do the same thing.

I am aware of the US system of punitive damages but I think it is deeply fucked up.
1. It provides a lawsuit lottery that enriches lucky (and/or unscrupulous) few and their lawyers. The amounts are also pretty arbitrary.
2. The purpose of the punitive damages is to punish. The purpose of torts is to compensate for damages. That's why tort law has a low burden of proof (preponderance of evidence). But that burden of proof is not appropriate when you want to go beyond compensating for damages and go into punishment. Thus tort law is being misused to enact penalties.

Why do you think these two women deserve a huge payday just because they were asked to leave a bar? That is not a question about whether the bar did wrong, but solely about the appropriateness of forcing the bar not to pay a fine but to enrich these two individuals and their lawyers. It is also about appropriateness of leveling a punishment (which can me many orders of magnitude above any actual damages) based on "preponderance of evidence" and with the damages amount arbitrarily invented by the jury and not set by any law or administrative decision (where you would have some semblance of proportionality and equal treatment of all violators).

 

[credoconsolans]

It's called punitive and/or exemplary damages. To put it simply, a party is punished for their misconduct and so must pay a price for it. Money is the easiest way to pay damages, so money damages are given. The logical receipt of the money is by the people that were harmed. This isn't contract damages. They're not being compensated because they didn't get the benefit of a bargain or because they need restitution. If the bar is found to have violated civil rights then they will be punished for it and that punishment is an example to others to not do the same thing.

I am aware of the US system of punitive damages but I think it is deeply fucked up.
1. It provides a lawsuit lottery that enriches lucky (and/or unscrupulous) few and their lawyers. The amounts are also pretty arbitrary.
2. The purpose of the punitive damages is to punish. The purpose of torts is to compensate for damages. That's why tort law has a low burden of proof (preponderance of evidence). But that burden of proof is not appropriate when you want to go beyond compensating for damages and go into punishment. Thus tort law is being misused to enact penalties.

Why do you think these two women deserve a huge payday just because they were asked to leave a bar? That is not a question about whether the bar did wrong, but solely about the appropriateness of forcing the bar not to pay a fine but to enrich these two individuals and their lawyers. It is also about appropriateness of leveling a punishment (which can me many orders of magnitude above any actual damages) based on "preponderance of evidence" and with the damages amount arbitrarily invented by the jury and not set by any law or administrative decision (where you would have some semblance of proportionality and equal treatment of all violators).

That's not why the punitive damages. The bar is being punished for violating their civil fights. That's rather a big deal.

 

[Derec]

That's not why the punitive damages. The bar is being punished for violating their civil fights. That's rather a big deal.

And punitive damages aka lawsuit lottery is a very bad way to do this. Bringing them up on civil rights charges and assessing fines if found guilty would be a much better way for all the reasons I gave above. Tort law is being misused here.

There is also no reason why the plaintiff should get the proceeds from the punishment. If I am a victim of a crime I can sue the perp and get my damages. The state may charge him for the crime and if convicted (note they do not use "preponderance of evidence" when it comes to punish an individual, so why should it be used to punish a company?) he or she might get a fine in addition to or instead of a jail term. I do not get a penny of that fine of course. So I do not see a reason why the plaintiff should profit from the money assessed to punish, rather than compensate for damages.

Note that most countries do not use punitive damages (and even those that do use it is a more limited fashion than US). The system of punitive damages is probably only maintained because it enriches so many lawyers unjustly and so many politicians are lawyers themselves.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

It's called punitive and/or exemplary damages. To put it simply, a party is punished for their misconduct and so must pay a price for it. Money is the easiest way to pay damages, so money damages are given. ...

Money is also the easiest way to incur damages.

How much money are these women out?

That's not the purpose. The purpose is not to enrich the injured party, but again to make an example of the offender by punishing them. What will the award be if there is one at all? It depends. Sorry, but it really does depend on a lot of things.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I am aware of the US system of punitive damages but I think it is deeply fucked up.
1. It provides a lawsuit lottery that enriches lucky (and/or unscrupulous) few and their lawyers. The amounts are also pretty arbitrary.
2. The purpose of the punitive damages is to punish. The purpose of torts is to compensate for damages. That's why tort law has a low burden of proof (preponderance of evidence). But that burden of proof is not appropriate when you want to go beyond compensating for damages and go into punishment. Thus tort law is being misused to enact penalties.

Why do you think these two women deserve a huge payday just because they were asked to leave a bar? That is not a question about whether the bar did wrong, but solely about the appropriateness of forcing the bar not to pay a fine but to enrich these two individuals and their lawyers. It is also about appropriateness of leveling a punishment (which can me many orders of magnitude above any actual damages) based on "preponderance of evidence" and with the damages amount arbitrarily invented by the jury and not set by any law or administrative decision (where you would have some semblance of proportionality and equal treatment of all violators).

1. How many lawsuits that are filed like this do you think result in a damage award for the plaintiffs?
2. And when damages are awarded, how much do you think the plaintiffs get?
3. I don't think anyone's said the women deserve a huge payday. I know I haven't.
4. Why do you think the system is so arbitrary?
5. You're wrong about the purpose of tort law by the way, and well, in general.
6. ETA: who better than the person who's been harmed to get the money than the person who's been harmed?

 

[Derec]

That's not the purpose. The purpose is not to enrich the injured party, but again to make an example of the offender by punishing them.

Which is why punitive damages are such a poor way to achieve the purpose stated. By the way, it is "suing party", not "injured party" because these two women suffered no injury whatsoever.

What will the award be if there is one at all? It depends. Sorry, but it really does depend on a lot of things.

And that's another problem - it's lawsuit lottery. Fines should be determined by statute or clear administrative decision in advance and apply to all offenders equally. It should not be an arbitrary amount that 12 jurors pull out of their posteriors.
Are you a lawyer? Is that why you defend the system? Do you really not understand how capricious it is?

 

[JonA]

Money is also the easiest way to incur damages.

How much money are these women out?

That's not the purpose. The purpose is not to enrich the injured party, but again to make an example of the offender by punishing them.

Then levy a fine.

 

[Derec]

1. How many lawsuits that are filed like this do you think result in a damage award for the plaintiffs?

Not that many, hence "lawsuit lottery".

2. And when damages are awarded, how much do you think the plaintiffs get?

70% or so. The rest goes to the shysters. Which is most likely why the system persists in the US. US tort laws are very lucrative for lawyers and lawyers are heavily over-represented among those writing laws.

3. I don't think anyone's said the women deserve a huge payday. I know I haven't.

Well the case reminds me of this:
Black women kicked off Napa Wine Train to sue for discrimination
They are seeking 11 million which is beyond ridiculous.
Also, credoconsolans (my first comment on punitive damages in this thread was in reply to him) mentioned how these women will be owning the bar, which is a reference to a ridiculously high payout he expects them to get.

4. Why do you think the system is so arbitrary?

Because it relies heavily of juries pulling an amount out of their posteriors rather than relying on a predetermined fine schedule like a punishment system should.
But regardless of why it is arbitrary, the fact is that it is arbitrary and it should be replaced by a better system. Leave tort system for actual damages only!

5. You're wrong about the purpose of tort law by the way, and well, in general.

In what way?

6. ETA: who better than the person who's been harmed to get the money than the person who's been harmed?

But they haven't been harmed. Not really. Had they been harmed they should be compensated for damages. They should not be enriched by it.

 

[laughing dog]

That is misuse of the tort system. The purpose of the tort system is to compensate for damages, not to enrich a few people and their lawyers through lawsuit lottery.
If the bar needs to be punished it should be done through fines.

Money is money. If the bar has to pay out XXXXXXX dollars, it doesn't matter whether it is a fine or in damages.

Also, a prospect of a huge payday would be a huge incentive to lie about what actually happened.

That is the true for the perp as well.

And you never use comparative adverbs without having statistics handy?

What I mean is that the claims of "coded language" are used every time a left winger disagrees on a policy positions that even tangentially concern race or ethnicity. See for example the claims by left-wingers that "thug" is coded language when in reality the term has no racial connotation.

You are not fooling anyone with your bullshit.