Where's Gloria Allred...I figured she'd jump all over this like stink on shit. I think everyone pretty much agrees the security guard fucked up, and truthfully, that should be the end of it. Every time something like this happens, or a racial comment is made, one guy slaps a woman on the ass, or one person just acts inappropriately, it's not an indication there is a systemic problem with the entire business.

Sometimes it's just one person. Based on the response of the businesses and York Properties, that seems to be the case here. Protesting is just a dick move. Well, a vag move I guess. What else can you get but a mea culpa?

10/18/2010 2:18:09 AM

a new design scheme based on rainbows and pink triangles

10/18/2010 3:28:52 AM

^^Short version: This rally wasn't for me (as someone who is no stranger to protests/rallies), but I get why they did it.

-

^^Long version: I agree with the general sentiment that this isn't as high a priority thing to protest.

When NOM bussed into Raleigh from out of state a few months back, to protest near the legislative building over NC not having an anti-marriage constitutional amendment for gay couples, that rose to the level where the stakes were high enough to personally get involved with the counter-rally. Especially since the NC GOP introduces a constitutional amendment effort every year, & since they are likely to gain some power after the fall election. The counter rally was 2 or 3 times bigger than the protesters who were bussed in as a part of a nationwide anti-gay tour, and what little press they got was bad for them & good for us, and it prevent them for effectively putting any pressure on legislators.

This particular Cameron Village rally is not one I attended. The priority wasn't as great since the management conceded, and since my weekend was packed full of class projects, lots of homework, a trip to the state fair, some consulting work out in Johnston County, & fighting off a bug that's had me under the weather for a few days now.

Even though it wasn't enough to rouse me to action, I do kind of get why those who did rally did so. It draws more attention to the fact that acting as a lone wolf in discriminating when management doesn't want you to, may get you suspended, and the extra media coverage reminds other local businesses & property management that if you do choose to discriminate then your business or shopping center will make the evening news.

And for everyone who advocates for "discrimination is a bad thing, but should be allowed in places of public accommodation in a free society/the free market will sort things out" then you should be happy to see this group drawing consumers attention to an action they didn't like.

[Edited on October 18, 2010 at 4:01 AM. Reason : .]

10/18/2010 3:58:08 AM

^^^Yeah, but some groups of people just can't pass up an opportunity to be hyper-offended about something.

10/19/2010 8:01:30 AM

girls making out happens three times an hour at Fosters in Cameron Village. They're not lesbians though; they're just attention whores.

10/19/2010 10:25:52 AM

Quote :

"Some people get their rocks of on recreational protesting."

Protesting discrimination: annoying
Discrimination: a fact of life

hmmm

[Edited on October 19, 2010 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

10/19/2010 11:14:33 AM

York Properties also issued a statement about the meeting.

Quote :

"We apologized that the women were offended, and we affirmed that Cameron Village and York Properties have no tolerance for discrimination of any kind and believe all people deserve the right to be treated fairly in their work, homes and daily lives."

they apologized that the women were offended? that's not an apology. "I'm sorry your feelings were hurt" is no concession.

and they said nothing about whether the guard's actions were wrong. declaring a "right to be treated fairly in their work, homes and daily lives" again says absolutely nothing about their own arbitrary behavior.

I hope the ACLU hammers them.

10/19/2010 11:41:32 AM

dude, shut up. they suspended the guard.

10/19/2010 12:08:55 PM

suspended? fuck that. i want the ban hammer.

10/19/2010 12:11:12 PM

We will not tolerate intolerance!

To me it's just funny when you get that hyper-sensitive. You boarderline reverse-descrimination by trying to throw the book at anything and everything associated with the original offender.

10/19/2010 1:20:13 PM

Continuing from indy's comment in shit chat:

Quote :

"No... I agree it's not that. A ban on bigotry, for instance, is wrong. Bigotry is thought... free speech. I'm saying that a pattern of discrimination amounts to an unreasonable risk of "harm" to individual civil liberty. Just as crossing the double-yellow line doesn't actually harm anyone, is it still wrong (and illegal) because it amounts to an unreasonable risk of harm to individual persons and property."

You'd have to demonstrate that some harm has been done to the person that has been kicked off the premises. No physical harm has been done. No property of the person that was kicked off was damaged or taken. Perhaps the person was insulted, and rightly so, but that would amount to "emotional harm," which is essentially the argument for hate crime legislation.

The unreasonable risk of harm argument I understand, I'm just not seeing how it applies. Crossing the yellow line, speeding, and reckless driving (I won't say drunk driving, because I don't believe that should be the actual crime) all can be said to pose an unreasonable risk of harm, because we can easily see how those behaviors will likely lead to a damaged person/property. I don't think discrimination, like what took place in this situation, will meet that criteria.

10/19/2010 1:29:04 PM

Quote :

"they said nothing about whether the guard's actions were wrong"

Quote :

"and we affirmed that Cameron Village and York Properties have no tolerance for discrimination of any kind and believe all people deserve the right to be treated fairly in their work, homes and daily lives."

That plus the suspension... sounds like they did condemn the guard's actions.

10/19/2010 1:30:03 PM

Quote :

"I'm saying that a pattern of discrimination amounts to an unreasonable risk of "harm" to individual civil liberty. Just as crossing the double-yellow line doesn't actually harm anyone, [it is] still wrong (and illegal) because it amounts to an unreasonable risk of harm to individual persons and property."

Quote :

"The unreasonable risk of harm argument I understand, I'm just not seeing how it applies. Crossing the yellow line, speeding, and reckless driving (I won't say drunk driving, because I don't believe that should be the actual crime) all can be said to pose an unreasonable risk of harm, because we can easily see how those behaviors will likely lead to a damaged person/property. I don't think discrimination, like what took place in this situation, will meet that criteria."

Easily? No, I guess not.
It has to do with the relationship between the flexibility of the legal term "reasonable", and one aspect of democracy in a libertarian society. Exactly where we draw the line, (driving while on cell phone? Okay. -vs- driving while texting? No...,) depends on social norms. Same with this. Possession of child porn doesn't harm anyone, but society deems it to be an unreasonable risk to the harming of children, so we don't allow it. Discriminating on the basis of someone's body or beliefs doesn't really harm their liberty -- they are free to go elsewhere for whatever it was they were looking for -- but society deems such discrimination to be an unreasonable risk to the harming of their liberty, perhaps because if allowed, some cities might only have a dozen restaurants that are all "whites-only", which would certainly be an unreasonable harm to the liberty of non-white individuals.

We libertarians have to be reasonable.

10/19/2010 2:00:49 PM

Quote :

"You'd have to demonstrate that some harm has been done to the person that has been kicked off the premises. No physical harm has been done. No property of the person that was kicked off was damaged or taken. Perhaps the person was insulted, and rightly so, but that would amount to "emotional harm," which is essentially the argument for hate crime legislation. The unreasonable risk of harm argument I understand, I'm just not seeing how it applies. Crossing the yellow line, speeding, and reckless driving (I won't say drunk driving, because I don't believe that should be the actual crime) all can be said to pose an unreasonable risk of harm, because we can easily see how those behaviors will likely lead to a damaged person/property. I don't think discrimination, like what took place in this situation, will meet that criteria."

You're talking about the difference between a conduct crime and a result crime. Discrimination is a result crime (those where the focus is on prohibited consequences), drunk driving and speeding are conduct crimes (those where the focus is on prohibited behavior). Creation of unreasonable risk and harm are generally tort issues, not criminal issues.

10/19/2010 3:49:39 PM

sounds like the security guard probably had trouble getting laid...might've had something to do that his occupation was being a security guard at Cameron Village...so he figured "damn lesbians taking away my chance to get some pussy" so he told them to leave

10/19/2010 3:56:43 PM

^ female guard.

10/19/2010 4:01:13 PM

well then nevermind on my hypothesis

10/19/2010 4:07:07 PM

newflash you get kicked out of places, even BARS at 2 am


for excessive making out

no lie, its annoying and disturbing

so...being gay is irrelevant.

if people of any persuasion are gettin a little too into it when i am working i ask them to tone it down, the second time i have to approach them they are asked to leave

if they are fucking in the bathroom than they are gone no questions

this really shouldnt be a story


However, in all honesty with the current climate, I feel that if a situation arose where a homosexual couple were getting into it, id amost have to tread lightly in order to avoid a backlash from the public, id feel like id rather not touch that situation

especially in durham the progressives are fuckin vicious. Its not Crips and bloods in the D it is Bloods and Progressives

[Edited on October 20, 2010 at 5:16 PM. Reason : d]

10/20/2010 5:10:07 PM

this aggression will not stand, man.

10/20/2010 6:09:19 PM