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."
I wouldn't climb in a public pool if you paid me.
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...
"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.
Go away, newbie.
"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.
Go away because I believe in private property rights!
Ok ! lol
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.
I'm not so sure I follow you but...no one should have the "freedom" to anothers property.
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.
You're talking about private property. This was a business.
Sorry, but you don't know what my beliefs are.
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
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.
Businesses are private property.
The minute they open themselves up to the public for business, they are subject to laws governing business, including non-discrimination.
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...
Well, obviously.
My point was that I disagree with those laws.
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?
Right, but my point was those actions should not be illegal.
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.