State says Portland bar discriminated against transgendered group
PORTLAND, Ore. – The owner of a North Portland bar was discriminating against a group of transgendered customers when he left phone messages for them asking them to stay away, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries concluded.
An investigation by the BOLI Civil Rights Division ruled that owner Chris Penner tried to keep the group away from his bar based on their gender identity.
At the time, Penner's bar was called the P Club. He has since changed its name to the Twilight Room Annex.
“No place of public accommodations in Oregon is going to be allowed to discriminate based on gender identity,” Oregon Labor and Industries Commissioner Brad Avakian said. “Enforcing civil rights laws is important to all Oregonians, especially the fundamental right to patronize businesses of your choice without being summarily barred based on a group affiliation.”
Oregon state law protects anyone from discrimination because of sexual orientation, but that's not just about sexual preference. It also covers gender identity.
Avakian said Investigators found evidence that Penner left phone messages asking the group of transgendered women to stop visiting the P Club because he felt they were hurting his business by creating the perception that the P Club is a “tranny bar.”
Investigators said Penner’s claims that the group, known as the Rose City T-Girls, was disruptive and the focus of complaints from other customers was not backed up during interviews with P Club employees or patrons. The investigation concluded that no concerns were ever raised about the T-Girls – not even during the voice messages left by Penner, Avakian said.
“The P Club never notified the T-Girls of any complaints about their behavior and never took any steps to remove allegedly troublesome individuals,” said Avakian. “Blocking the entire group from visiting the P Club in reaction to rumors that the establishment ‘is a tranny bar’ is an overreaction, is unfair, and is on its face unlawful discrimination.”
Avakian said barring a settlement in the case, BOLI will issue formal charges now that the investigation is complete.
An employee with the Twilight Room Annex told KATU News Penner was unavailable for comment Wednesday.
There you have it. Six members the Rose City Tgirls Yahoo Group now backed by the State Oregon have spoken for all their members, crossdressers and transgenderd people across the land. The CD group leader himself is claiming to have "Won" something, not sure what that is. Chris Penner's only missteps here are leaving two poorly worded recordings. Also, this would have been all adverted if Penner would have simply 86'd the group leader on what he perceived as the leader's bad behaviors in his establishment. I think it's a matter of opinion weather you think he is a bigot or not. In my own opinion, parts of the law written on "transgendered" rights and discrimination deserves to be questioned. Especially when weighing women's rights in places of bathrooms. Just because one night a week I wear a dress and a wig, that night I have the right to sit ten inches from a woman while she uses the bathroom or changes her tampon? Then when I take the dress and wig off things are different? Somehow my rights as a man trumps women's rights? Yeah, OK nothing can go wrong there...
Â
No one wants to be discriminated against including myself, but when you are party to a suit or complaint in what I view as a "gotcha moment" there are surely going to be people who disagree with you. The RCTG sure as heck don't speak for this CD and every last CD that attended the P-Club regularly on Friday nights. How a group of 95% closeted CD's went along with being dragged into the spotlight deserves to be questioned as well. Did all the members of RCTG agree and realize that they all are "newsworthy" when out dressed in public? The group was never involved in an any other activist role that I know of. In fact I recall a few who brought the complaint making fun of other T-Girl activists such as Norma Ballhorn, one of their own group members. BTW Cass & Susan Miller, I spend less than an hour a week reading comments and writing my own thoughts and opinions. That hardly constitutes entire week's time or an entire "life" as you have stated. Perhaps you can file a complaint or suit against me for exercising my 1st Amendment Rights and having an opinion that differs from yours?
@Kristy G I agree that it was his choice of words that he used in the phone calls is what got this whole drama going.As a bar manager I've asked a minority group to not come back because of bad behaivor.Of course they put a huge fight I was very careful about what I said.I also documented the situation including witnesses.I absolutely do not think Mr.Penner is a bigot but just not real savy about dealing with minorites or anyone who considers themselves to be a minority like you mentioned.Sometimes it's like walking on egg shells but anyone who is sucessful dealing with the public could have easily prevented this from happening.
I second what Kristy has just said, every last word of it. I would also like to add that Norma Ballhorn should be p****d at this group of hypocrites for making fun of her for being an activist, and then turning around and thumping their chests and claiming that they're advancing transgender rights. They're not activists. They are self-admittedly a group of [mostly] heterosexual crossdressers, fetishists if you will, who think that just because they don a wig, makeup, and a dress one or two nights a week that they fall under the protective umbrella of transgender rights. This group never gave two spits about activism until it was a convenient form of revenge for getting kicked out of YET ANOTHER bar in this town. Genuine activists should also be p****d at this group for giving transgender activism a bad name.
Â
The news agencies that are following this story really should be doing some background/fact checking on the Rose City T-Girls members and leadership. They really should know who these characters are and what they're into. If/when that happens, then this story will get truly interesting!
oops, used weather instead of the word whether... oh well, at least hate me for my grammar. hahahha!
Yeah, what will we ever do for entertainment now that the Activist Crossdressing Group Leader Cassandra dismantled his Sex-Cam for Money profile CASSANDRA4FUN on iFriends dot com. Oh well, at least I made screen snags and video of it all before he sanitized it. I always liked the creepy audio recording of him upon opening his profile: "Hi everyone, I'm Fuffandra and I'm here to turn you on, just pay me money and I'll do dirty little things dressed as a girl on cam for you". OK, I need to go hurl, BRB... See now, that sort of gnarly little fact falls under the "newsworthy" category.
If I read the article correctly, the transgender women were NOT being disruptive and this was backed up by his own staff and patrons. There's a difference between removing bad patrons and just being a transphobic jerk and this guy was being the latter. UNLESS people are behaving in an aggressive or threatening manner, they should be given the same access to a business or public space as any other person.Â
You also can demand that they look like the picture on the ID,and not serve them if they aint , spot on to that DMV picture.
Anyone that actually knows Chris Penner,also knows he is wussy momies boy who has a history of being a first class dufus.If he wanted to make his Bar a non-gay establishment , he should do what other bar owners due to Blacks when they want them to stop coming in and charge them more for their drinks.YES< this happens,Even in ol'PC Portland.
So because I'm a "protected class" I can be a jerk and asked not to come back and it's a violation of the law?
Â
So here ya go everyone, want to disrupt and destroy and business, just cross dress or say you're gay and there you have it, they can't kick you out because it would be discrimination.
Â
Nice precedent BOLI.
@Repoman You can be thrown out of a bar for being a jerk.I occasionally throw out members of the "protected class" I don't call them up and tell them that I was afraid that my bar might get a reputation for geing a "insert group here" bar.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @RepomanÂ
Â
So let's say I have a bar. A group of bikers comes into my bar, and just their presence makes people get up and leave.
Â
Because I know one of the guys, I give him a call and ask that they no longer patron my bar because they drive away customers.
Â
Bikers are not a protected group. So I know for a fact (because my parents did this) can be asked to not return.
Â
And if they do, be asked to leave.
Â
My parent's didnât want their bar to be known as a "biker bar" and even said so when they called the guy.
Â
So biker, ok to ask not to come back, cross-dresser, no.
Â
There is a double standard.
Â
@Repoman Like I said before I didn't make the law I just follow it.I also am not a member of the medical community to legally declare transgenderism to be a medical condition.Thats too bad about having to sell your bar.I guess I'm fortunate to have a awesome job at a popular sucsessful bar.We have trangendered people come in on occasion and we have a group of bikers that come in on a regular basis and everyone gets along fine and the business is booming.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @RepomanÂ
Â
The biker issue was so bad we decided to sell the bar. The new owners still fight to keep them out even with Knuckheads nearby.
Â
This does however tell me I don't want to own such an establishment anymore. If I can't tell people to not come back because they ruin business, then I don't want to try in make it in that business.
Â
In my ignorance I understood a person who is straight, simply dressing is a different gendered garb is cross dressing (as the leader of this group has claimed in other elements of the ongoing story). I understood (again likely in my ignorance) that a transgender person is a person who is not within a traditional gender, and is either intending to be another gender, working to be another gender or is otherwise not fully classified as one gender or another.
Â
But obviously everything is in a label.
Â
I wonder if bikers could get protections like this if they called themselves trans-portational.
@Repoman @noneofyourbizzness They are considered to be trans gender not cross dressers.All I can say to you if this bothers you so much why don't you file a lawsuit to have the law changed.As a bar manager I plan to follow the law.
Discrimination is a human trait and can not be eliminated. That is why we don't associate with people we dislike. However discrimination is being used to force the general public to except the abnormal or offensive behavior of others. Discrimination is being used by our government to control the masses. If discrimination can be used for the government's or minorities purposes, then everyone should be allowed to utilize discrimination for their own purposes. It all boils down to the fact that if discrimination is wrong then end it.Of course we all know that can't happen because it is natural human behavior. Since of our natural human behavior, this man has the right to refuse service in his business to anyone that is offensive to him or his staff. I don't care how the perverted have twisted the laws.
@Freedom1267
The first step to break your denial is admitting you are a bigot. Your assertion is ridiculous. Do you know what the definition of a trait is? I'll help you...
Â
"a distinguishing characteristic or quality, especially of one's personal nature: bad traits of character."Â
Â
To assert we can't modify or regulate our thoughts, emotions, and personalities is just ridiculous.
@criticalreason @Freedom1267 So you're for the government modifying and regulating individual thoughts, emotions and personalities? Good luck with that. And calling someone a bigot for expressing an opinion is getting old.  This story is about bad behavior in public, disruptive behavior. Calling someone out on that behavior is not discrimination, but excusing the because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., is what is ridiculous.
@Kachina Unfortunately the owner didn't have documentation of prior incidents of bad behavior not to mention none of his employees are vouching for him.
Wait, I thought the owner of a private business had the right to exclude anyone who disruptive and drove other customers away. Maybe this has nothing to do with who they are and is simply because their behavior.Â
 @Kachina That's exactly the argument that was used to exclude black people from restaurants and bars.  They "drove other customers away."  They weren't bigots, they didn't want the place known as a "n***** bar."Â
Â
Â
I know Chris personally, and I can say that while I have never known him to be a bigot, he did screw up, big time.
This comment has been deleted
Being a protected class is a sort of an" I don't have to follow the same rules as you card" fer sure. That is why the ADA is so messed up. Its gotten to the point where courts are now having to decide who is more disabled as both sides are defined as a protected classes. This is what liberal judges get you that far exceed the scope of laws passed or "interprit" what Congress meant in a way to broad way.
 @wvboyÂ
Not liberal judges, well meaning but poorly written and executed legislation.
Â
No one would want to prevent a disabled person from getting groceries. But 14 empty spaces at a Home Depot is kinda silly.
Â
I worked at a place with 8 parking spaces. One had to be ADA and by doing that, they had to lose two more spaces. Â No one who goes to a specialty builder needs three spaces, but the law requires it.
Â
Penn and Tallerâs BullSh*t did a great show where they had a person in an iron lung (Teller) and demonstrated that the law requires access to ALL disabled people, even those in iron lungs. Of course it is ludicrous, but that is how the law is written and execute.
Â
Well meaning turned into a monster.
Â
Anyone that by action or dress disrupts the enviorment of an esablishment that carters to a majority. In this case these men  want to use the womens bathroom and that caused the normal women patrons in the establishment to feel very uncomfortable and violated that a male is using the womens restroom.
Â
That is sexual harrasment in itself and if the bar owner allows this he can be sued.
Â
Also the single straight men go there to hook up with real women and if these men dressed up to look like women are trying to force thier "sexuality" on straight men. That is also sexual harrasment as well.Â
Â
The bar owner has every right to refuse service to these distruptive individuals.
Â
Calling them privately to not come back  is a little more civil than a straight male patron that finds out that he just kissed a gay man acting like a woman with the end result of the "woman" getting wall to wall counseling by the normal straight man. Â
The way to go for this owner is the private club route. It may even be a better business model than being a
public place.
I'm sure that this has nothing whatsoever to do with a close race for OR Labor Commissioner.Â
Â
I mean, an elected official using the authority given to them by their office to shore up wedge groups coming into an election is unprecedented.Â
Â
(sarcasm intended)
Â
I'm kinda really disgusted that the man shares my last name. I've met most of the T-Girls, as they have switched to a bar I frequent, and they are a hell of a lot more quiet and less disruptive than my normal karaoke group.Â
A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anybody that they chose. Nobody has the right to force them to allow undesirables into their business, especially when it hurts their business.
 @Freedom1267 I agree with your comment, and I do believe that your correct insofar as the law is concerned.Â
Â
From what I've read of the case, his mistake was the phone messages.Â
Â
...and doing it coming into an election.
@Freedom1267 Not according to Oregon law.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @Freedom1267Â
Â
The law likely needs to be changed then.
Â
I don't like discrimination, but I don't like the state telling people it must tolerate anti-social people because they need to be more "protected" than everyone else.
Â
So I would rather deal with getting kicked out of a place because of the color of my skin, than have to tolerate jerks because they are for some reason considered more important because they are a minority.
It's not like he humiliated them in front of other customers. He called them by phone!
@jpk It doesn't matter.He violated the law.I can't call up my regular black customers and tell them that my white customers feel uncomfortable and I'm worried about the reputation of being a *black bar*
 @noneofyourbizzness  @jpk I understand the reputation part, but the point is, you should have the right to refuse service to anyone or any group of people you want.Â
@Civ I think you have privately owned confused with membership only private club that charges membership fees..The laws were set up to protect these people from discrimination plain and simple.Their mere presence is not willfully causing s disruption.The employees have vouched that there were no problems.They were not hitting on straight guys.Thats kind of saying that all gay guys do when they go out to straight clubs is hit on the straight guys.The law is very straightforward and if you don't like the decsion by BOLI you are more than welcome to do what ever you can to change the law or the decsion.
@noneofyourbizzness Here is your list :  Anyone that willfully causes disruption and conflict to the majority of a PRIVATELYowned buisiness. This is not a publicly owned venue. It is PRIVATELY OWNED. He has the right to refuse service to anyone that causes a disruption just like throwing out a drunk that is starting fights ( a gay guy dressed up as a woman hitting on straight guys is defintly a big disruption) .
@Jamie @jpk Can you provide a list of what groups of people that should be denied service in a bar that is open to the general public?
It is his bar to manage and operate. However there are laws and rules for a reason. He also needs to make sure he obeys them, and follows them. As long as they did not break any rules or laws, he needs to make sure and take care of his customers. Unless he wants to make it a totally private club and have other rules. This time so far it looks like he loses.
Â
The law is the law.The days of refusing service to *anyone*are long gone.The law is straightforward.Being in the bar business forever,I know that you can enforce a dress code,enforce behavior but not to ask any of the groups specified in the law to not come in anymore,Apparently It has been decided that this group of people were not acting out of line.As far as the law is written this tantamount to asking a group of black people to not come in given that they are abiding by the dress and behavior guidelines.Those of you who don't agree with the law could file a lawsuit or have the Oregon legislature change the law.Here are some links for those of you who are not familiar with the law. http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/659A.400 http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD/pages/c_crprotoc.aspx
It's his bar, it's under his ownership, let him do what he wants. The group who felt discriminated against need to open their own bar. They can choose who they want to serve after that.Â
Â
After all, it is a free country.Â
@washcomom You are living in a bygone era.If you own a business that is open to the general public you must abide by the non-discrimination in accomidation law in the state of your business.If "he can do anything he wants",then legally he could ask black people to not come in to his business.I realize that many conservatives aren't happy with the anti-discrimination laws to protect gays and especially transgender people but this is the 21st century.Either climb on board or forever be stuck with your archaic prejudices.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @washcomom If I owned a business, I would ask that no smug, simple-minded liberals come in. So, I guess I'd lose your bizzness. But I'm sure you'd still be snug in Mom's basement wearing your footie pajamas.
@str1ngb3nd3r Too much deversity in one room? Riots breaking out? I must say that after being in the business for over two decades,I've seen plenty of bar fights.Not one of them from too much deversity.
 Realistically, you would never see that kind of diversity all in one room at the same time. If it did happen, I don't see it being successful over the long haul because as cynical as this may sound, riots would be breaking out all the time, especially with the alcohol flowing. You may welcome everyone, but eventually one or two groups will likely dominate the scene, giving the place a reputation that would not be likeable to the rest of the lot; not unlike the situation Mr. Penner experienced.
@nostromo @noneofyourbizzness @washcomom With a attitude like that your business would be a failure especially in Portland.And I would continue on managing a very successful bar that welcomes everyone from rabid rightwingers like yourself to liberals to people of color,different religonsx as well as the LGBT community.prejudice and bigotry is not a good recipe for running a sucsessful bar in Portland.
 @washcomom It's a free country whose citizens have determined (through their representatives) that it is unfair to DISCRIMINATE on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity. According to medical science, some individuals identify with the sex opposite their own because of genetic factors and brain chemistry. It is not simply a matter of choice for these people, but of recognizing their true gender. We do not consider it right to discriminate on the basis of the race one is born into; we should not consider it acceptable to discriminate on the basis of the sexual gender one identifies with, the sexual nature one is born with (regardless of one's physical sexual features). .
@felines99 @washcomom It is my understanding that the exclusion came as a result of complaints from other patrons, and the disruptive behavior of the "group". I'm sorry, giving people a free pass on their poor behavior in public only encourages more disruptive behavior. But because the group happens to be part of a protected group, personal responsibility gets thrown out the window. That's sad.
@felines99 @washcomom And I'm SURE Avakian was fair and unbiased in this investigation. Sounds like a he said-she said, and of course, we know that when ACLU complaints cannot be substantiated on either side, there MUST be discrimination on the side of the business owner. I'm sure they will villify him, fine him and basically ruin him publicly, whether the allegations are true or not. They stand to benefit financially and politically. Uh huh.
 @Kachina  @felines99  @washcomom I don't know where you got your "understanding" from, but according to the above article, it is FALSE. "Investigators said Penner's claims that the group . . . was disruptive and the focus of complaints from other customers was not backed up during interviews with P Club employees or patrons. The investigation concluded that no concerns were ever raised about the T-Girls -- not even during the voice messages left by Penner, Avakian said. "The P Club never notified the T-Girls of any complaints about their behavior and never took any steps to remove allegedly troublesome individuals" (Avakian). So no one was given a "free pass", and the only "sad" thing is Penner's attitude and his behavior.
 @felines99 It's time to change the law so a private business can discriminate as they see fit.
Â
I'm not trying to start a fight, but if you own a business shouldn't you have the right to refuse service to those you don't want to do business with?
@Civ Where are getting all this gay men hitting on straight men bs?By the way I can throw anyone out of my bar for behavior violations but I can't as a whole group of minoriities according to the law.If you don"t like the law I suggest you have it changed.
@noneofyourbizzness being black is not a choice , it is genetics. Gay men going to a straight bar and hitting on straight men is a choice, that is distruptive behavior that should not be tolerated. Your example has NOTHING TO DO with this.
 @Jamie  @felines99 I don't think so. One of the principles this country was founded upon is equality. If you are in business to serve the public, and you benefit from serving customers who are members of the general public, then you cannot decide to exclude a certain portion of the public based on their sexual orientation. It's not fair, and fairness is one of the things America is supposed to be all about. Of course, you can discriminate as a private citizen if you wish -- you don't have to invite transgendered persons to your birthday party, e.g.
 @Jamie  @felines99 Nope, because, theoretically, grocery stores could do the same. Landlords could do it too. Theoretically a person could go homeless and hungry based entirely on being legally discriminated against. You could argue that a bar is not any of those things, but if we allow one type of business to do that, then where does it stop? Who draws the line, and what do they draw the line based on? So, basically, no.Â
@Jamie @felines99 So what you at saying is if a owner of a bar doesn't wan't to do business with black people,the law should be changed to accommodate his predjudice?