Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Resort That Refused Black Family Pool Access Must Pay
US News ^ | 8/11/05

Posted on 08/11/2005 11:55:37 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

An extended African-American family, most of whom reside in Maryland, today announce the settlement of their discrimination claim against a vacation rental condominium resort in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, which barred them from using its swimming pool. Among other things, the settlement of the complaint filed by the Lawyers' Committee and the law firm of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, provides the plaintiffs with monetary compensation, the amount of which cannot be disclosed under the agreement.

Over 100 African-American family members alleged that they were racially discriminated against when they stayed at Baytree III, part of the Baytree Plantation in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for the Turner-Gray family reunion in July 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that shortly after they arrived for their family reunion weekend, Stuart Jenkins, property manager of Baytree III and president of the Homeowners' Association, padlocked and chained the entrance to the pool area closing it off to the reunion attendees. According to the complaint, the day after the reunion ended, Jenkins removed the padlock and chain and reopened the pool to guests, personally inviting white guests to use the pool during their stay.

"We selected Baytree as the site for our reunion in part because of its amenities, including the pool facilities," stated Gloria Turner-Simpkins, one of the plaintiffs who organized the family reunion. "But instead of being able to enjoy them, because of these discriminatory actions, we were humiliated and saddened, during what was meant to be an enjoyable family gathering," added Mrs. Turner-Simpkins.

In addition to monetary compensation, the Homeowners' Association agreed to issue a written apology to the family members, to conduct fair housing training for individuals involved in the day-today management of Baytree III, and to inform its members of its policy of non-discrimination.

"This settlement makes clear that such racist behavior and such blatant disregard for the law will not be tolerated," stated Charles Lester, a partner in the Atlanta office of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

"It is sad but true that in this day and age there are still those who want to stop African Americans from enjoying the same privileges as everyone else," said Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. "While no amount of money can make these family members whole for the racist acts they had to endure and to explain to their small children, this settlement does give them some measure of justice."


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: news; racism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-262 next last

1 posted on 08/11/2005 11:55:38 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The property manager is an idiot.
2 posted on 08/11/2005 11:58:28 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels who dwell around you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Oh my!
I just don't get this at all. Didn't this manager know that this was going to happen? What's wrong with this man? What's wrong with the family using the pool?

Geez!


3 posted on 08/11/2005 11:58:59 AM PDT by netmilsmom (God blessed me with a wonderful husband.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

If it happened as presented, a fair call. I notice that there was no defense presented in the article. Did the resort offer any?


4 posted on 08/11/2005 11:59:01 AM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living affront to Islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"While no amount of money can make these family members whole for the racist acts they had to endure and to explain to their small children, this settlement does give them some measure of justice."

The story would have been just fine without thata paplum.

It sures sounds to me like was a clear cut case of discrimination.

5 posted on 08/11/2005 11:59:32 AM PDT by Gabz (Smoking ban supporters are in favor of the Kelo ruling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Just Damn!

This kinda shiz is still happening in 2005?


6 posted on 08/11/2005 11:59:37 AM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

How Much?


7 posted on 08/11/2005 12:00:40 PM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Not a smart maneuver on many levels. Personally, I would have tossed them a few rooms and kept the pool open past hours as well as anything else in my power to make this family come back next year.
8 posted on 08/11/2005 12:01:57 PM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

So they are good enough to rent to and use the rooms, but not the pool? If you are going to be a racist, at least be consistent.


9 posted on 08/11/2005 12:08:29 PM PDT by BadAndy (Specializing in unnecessarily harsh comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tfecw

I am amazed that they didn't call police at the time.


10 posted on 08/11/2005 12:08:34 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
Yea I wonder about that as well.

It seems unlikely that someone would be stupid enough to lock up the pool with the purpose of keeping black people out. There are some really stupid people out there, so it's possible, but it's doubtful.

I'd like to hear the other side of this story, if there is another side.

If things did happen like this article implies, then that manager deserves to lose his job and be ostracized from the community.
11 posted on 08/11/2005 12:10:07 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
They probably fed them a line of BS about the pool being closed for repairs or something. I'm sure if this asshat told them "we don't server your kind round here" cops would have been called.
12 posted on 08/11/2005 12:11:37 PM PDT by tfecw (Vote Democrat, It's easier than working)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Reprehensible...but, IMO, assuming that this discrimination represented the will of a private homeowners association...everyone should have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they like...on whatever basis they like



13 posted on 08/11/2005 12:15:48 PM PDT by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"Baytree Plantation in Myrtle Beach"

First, the resort was absolutely wrong and should be punished. But my evil, cynical twin is asking if part of the settlement is going to include changing the name of the resort to something "less offensive" to black families who would like to hold their family reunions there?

14 posted on 08/11/2005 12:19:34 PM PDT by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
See this from 2001 -- accomplishments of the "Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights Under Law":

Public Accommodations
Filed a lawsuit for a 100-member, African-American family that held a reunion, in July 2001, at the Baytree Plantation in Myrtle Beach, SC. Defendants are the Baytree III Homeowner’s Association and its president, Stuart Jenkins. The suit alleges Mr. Jenkins engaged in racial discrimination by padlocking and chaining the entrance to the pool area, closing it to reunion attendees; and reopening it to guests in all three Baytree complexes and personally inviting white guests to use the pool the day following the reunion. “This incident marked the first time that many of our small children were exposed to overt racism,” said one of the reunion plaintiffs (Turner v. Baytree III Homeowners Assoc).

source link

Notice how the wording is essentially identical in their press release of today as the write-up on their beginning the case in 2001.

15 posted on 08/11/2005 12:19:38 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
Reprehensible...but, IMO, assuming that this discrimination represented the will of a private homeowners association...everyone should have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they like...on whatever basis they like.

I you suggesting that I should have the right not to sell my house to a black person for no other reason than the are black? What if I don't want to rent one of my aprtments to black people or serve black people at my restaurant? Freedom of Association?

16 posted on 08/11/2005 12:22:31 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

I you... = Are you...


17 posted on 08/11/2005 12:23:26 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The property manager is an idiot.

Hopefully an unemployed idiot

18 posted on 08/11/2005 12:24:20 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

"Reprehensible...but, IMO, assuming that this discrimination represented the will of a private homeowners association...everyone should have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they like...on whatever basis they like"

You are free to hold that personal opinion, but be assured that it is at wide variance with the laws these days.

Private clubs, associations which exclude people based on race and religion are clearly illegal.

That would include "homeowners associations." HOAs in turn hire Property Management companies. These companies know well about illegal discrimination, in real estate activities.


19 posted on 08/11/2005 12:25:48 PM PDT by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I'm gonna get nailed for this but...private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property.


20 posted on 08/11/2005 12:27:45 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I wouldn't climb in a public pool if you paid me.


21 posted on 08/11/2005 12:28:21 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (The alternative media is our Enigma machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BadAndy
So they are good enough to rent to and use the rooms, but not the pool? If you are going to be a racist, at least be consistent.

They may not have realized the Turner-Grays were African American before they arrived.

You find old Democrats like this in the South sometimes, who never got that memo back in 1967...

22 posted on 08/11/2005 12:29:33 PM PDT by gridlock (IF YOU'RE NOT CATCHING FLAK, YOU'RE NOT OVER THE TARGET...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hatteras

"But my evil, cynical twin is asking if part of the settlement is going to include changing the name of the resort to something "less offensive" to black families who would like to hold their family reunions there?"

lol I think you should tell your evil, cynical twin to take a break. This particular family had no qualm with the name of the resort; their beef was (justifiably) with the management.


23 posted on 08/11/2005 12:32:25 PM PDT by NASBWI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

Go away, newbie.


24 posted on 08/11/2005 12:34:31 PM PDT by steve86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

"I'm gonna get nailed for this but...private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property."

That's all well and good when that property is yours alone and not to share with anyone else (if everyone entering your space is a guest). However, what do you say when there's a Homeowners Association that rents out their property to others? It may be private, but if they're going to rent their property to others, you have to take into account the freedoms of others who may want to rent.

This is why the anti-discrimination act came along - to provide reason to the selection process. In other words, if you want to keep riffraff out, then fine; run a background check on everyone (regardless of their race) applying to rent your space. However, to say that you just don't want someone in your space because he/she is a certain colour is a baseless argument, and it hurts the freedom of the people wishing to rent.


25 posted on 08/11/2005 12:38:07 PM PDT by NASBWI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BearWash

Go away because I believe in private property rights!

Ok ! lol


26 posted on 08/11/2005 12:38:10 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan
I'm gonna get nailed for this but...private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property.

Private property owners, yes, but this was a business, a resort doing business with the public. In case you hadn't heard, the public now includes black people. Private property rights are a poor refuge for public racism.

27 posted on 08/11/2005 12:38:43 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living affront to Islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NASBWI

I'm not so sure I follow you but...no one should have the "freedom" to anothers property.


28 posted on 08/11/2005 12:40:42 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

It has nothing to do with racism, as I would have no problem with a black property owner restricting access to whites, or whoever else he (as the owner) wants to restrict.


29 posted on 08/11/2005 12:41:45 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

You're talking about private property. This was a business.


30 posted on 08/11/2005 12:42:29 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living affront to Islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan
Your beliefs aren't limited to private property rights; they include hate under the cloak of private property rights.
31 posted on 08/11/2005 12:42:53 PM PDT by steve86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BearWash

Sorry, but you don't know what my beliefs are.


32 posted on 08/11/2005 12:43:33 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
You are free to hold that personal opinion, but be assured that it is at wide variance with the laws these days.

I know...but being that most of the laws on which these cases are based are federal laws and being that most of them are claimed to be authorized under the Commerce Clause and being that the federal courts engaged in absurd illogic to justify federal civil rights laws under the Commerce Clause (think Heart of Atlanta Motel)...the laws are themselves unconstitutional and, therefore, illegal.

But constitutionality and legalities aside...people, in their private affairs (and in my mind that would include hiring employees, selling your home, etc.) should have the legal right to be racist, misogynist, male-hating, anti-religious, ant-gay, anti-secular, anti-tall person, anti-short person...whatever. One would hope that, over time, social pressure and condemnation, simple economics and a basic sense of morality would make such discrimination a rarity

33 posted on 08/11/2005 12:43:34 PM PDT by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker
Private clubs, associations which exclude people based on race and religion are clearly illegal.

Not true.

It is public facilties which are barred from discriminating. Private clubs and groups can do it all they want, as they should be able to. A private club that runs a public facility has to follow the public rules.

34 posted on 08/11/2005 12:43:44 PM PDT by Restorer (Liberalism: the auto-immune disease of societies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

Businesses are private property.


35 posted on 08/11/2005 12:44:18 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

The minute they open themselves up to the public for business, they are subject to laws governing business, including non-discrimination.


36 posted on 08/11/2005 12:45:29 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living affront to Islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

Let me clarify - if the owners of the private property are offering their space for a fee, then it's not so private anymore, as they're maintaining a business. Therefore, they are to uphold the fair business practices (that should be) enforced in the U.S. Otherwise, their actions are illegal - regardless of which race is discriminating against which...


37 posted on 08/11/2005 12:46:03 PM PDT by NASBWI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

Well, obviously.

My point was that I disagree with those laws.


38 posted on 08/11/2005 12:46:19 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
you suggesting that I should have the right not to sell my house to a black person for no other reason than the are black? What if I don't want to rent one of my aprtments to black people or serve black people at my restaurant? Freedom of Association?

Yes...freedom of association...private property rights and the basic natural right to be stupid...after all...who else but an idiot would, right off the bat, reduce his potential pool of buyers by deciding he's not going to sell to someone based on some arbitrary characteristic?

39 posted on 08/11/2005 12:46:21 PM PDT by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NASBWI

Right, but my point was those actions should not be illegal.


40 posted on 08/11/2005 12:47:12 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan
My point was that I disagree with those laws.

You are, of course, within your rights to disagree with those laws.

41 posted on 08/11/2005 12:48:37 PM PDT by SlowBoat407 (A living affront to Islam since 1959)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan

"Businesses are private property."

That said, I work for a retail store. What if the CEO decided that he doesnt want Hispanic folks coming into our stores, are you saying that he should be within his right to bar them entrance? What do you think would happen to our company?


42 posted on 08/11/2005 12:48:57 PM PDT by NASBWI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan
Exactly Right. I don't consider myself a racist and this is clearly a tasteless act; however private property is private property and the owner of said private property should have the right to include or exclude any one for any reason. We all complain about loosing personal property rights this is just another example.
43 posted on 08/11/2005 12:49:19 PM PDT by rebelyeller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

And my disagreement with those laws are based on private property rights and freedom, not race, as I was accused of earlier.


44 posted on 08/11/2005 12:50:19 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dolphan
private property owners should be allowed to restrict/admit whoever they please onto all or any of their property.

Thank you Mr Crow.

45 posted on 08/11/2005 12:51:48 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NASBWI
What if the CEO decided that he doesnt want Hispanic folks coming into our stores, are you saying that he should be within his right to bar them entrance? What do you think would happen to our company?

The store's management would probably be charged with some violations of unconstitutional federal laws...but what should happen is that decent people stop patronzing the store, people protest outside the store and the store is forced to change its policy

46 posted on 08/11/2005 12:51:57 PM PDT by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NASBWI

Yes, the owners should be withing their rights to deny access to whomever they please, and, your company would probably lose a lot of business and go down the drain.

But, it shouldn't be up to the Gov't to make sure you practice good business practices at all times.


47 posted on 08/11/2005 12:52:27 PM PDT by Dolphan ("If you get caught in the thunderstorm, please move inside, fast! " - 1360 WKAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NASBWI

"What do you think would happen to our company?"

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? Your CEO could make that decision and should be entitled to. That said, it would be a stupid move. If being mean and stupid were against the law, Cindy Sheenan would already be in prison.


48 posted on 08/11/2005 12:52:28 PM PDT by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

"who else but an idiot would, right off the bat, reduce his potential pool of buyers by deciding he's not going to sell to someone based on some arbitrary characteristic?"

Well, that being the case, maybe the law should be changed, so that people can discriminate based on whatever, and idiots should be barred from operating businesses. /sarc

Seriously though, if the laws were changed to reflect your belief of freedom of association, I feel that there'd be a lot more segregation going on, which I thought was something this country was trying to move away from. I'm sure there are many people in this country (of all races) who would love to be able to discriminate for such petty reasons.


49 posted on 08/11/2005 12:54:08 PM PDT by NASBWI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tfecw
Not a smart maneuver on many levels. Personally, I would have tossed them a few rooms and kept the pool open past hours as well as anything else in my power to make this family come back next year.

The best businesses get repeat business.

50 posted on 08/11/2005 12:54:51 PM PDT by jimfree (Freep and ye shall find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-262 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson