State Agency Launches Probe After NY Rink Advertises 'Christian Skate'

The New York State Division of Human Rights has begun a probe of a privately owned skating rink that recently advertised a "Christian Music Skate" party. The agency is investigating Len Bernardo and his wife Terry, owners of Skate Time 209 in Accord, New York, apparently because the rink plays Christian music during certain designated hours.

The Division of Human Rights has warned the rink, which also advertises Christian skating on Sunday afternoons, that it may be violating anti-discrimination laws. The agency also threatened to charge a local weekly newspaper that published the rink's advertisement of its Christian music skate with "aiding and abetting" unlawful discrimination. However, pro-family supporters of the rink and its proprietors contend that if anyone is violating the law, it is the government agency.

Len Bernardo says he was contacted by state authorities after his rink's "Christian skate" event was advertised in the local paper. However, he insists he has done nothing wrong and that the authorities are "just investigating to see if we are in fact, I guess, discriminating against people who don't like Christian music, I assume, or [who don't like] the fact that we're having Christian skate."

Last week, a complaint about the rink's newspaper ad prompted a letter from the New York State Division of Human Rights. According to Newsday.com, the letter reportedly stated that by soliciting Christian skaters, Skate Time 209 was apparently discouraging non-Christian customers in violation of human rights laws.

Bernardo suspects the Division of Human Rights officials have been laboring under a misapprehension. "We've never denied anybody access to the facility during our Christian skate," he says. "They're saying perhaps we are doing that because we're playing Christian music."

In an effort to clarify things, the owners of Skate Time 209 have changed the wording of one newspaper ad from "Christian skate" to "spiritual skate." Still, Bernardo points out, as the owners, they have every right to play the kind of music they want at their rink.

"We are a private business," the Christian proprietor says. And the afternoon "Christian skate" is just another program, he insists, just like teen night or family night -- a time during which wholesome, contemporary Christian music is played and all -- Christian and non-Christian alike -- are welcome to come and enjoy it.

And while Bernardo acknowledges that "the other side of the coin is that the state has to react to any complaint that they get," he says he and Terry are only exercising their basic constitutional rights. That is why they had their lawyer send a letter to the state making it clear that "these are traditional type things, we're not discriminating against anyone, and anyone's allowed access," he says.

"So now we have to kind of see where it goes," Bernardo notes. "And chances are, we believe, it will go away," he adds, "but we still have to defend our rights and our First Amendment rights to have a Christian skate."

The American Center for Law & Justice is representing the skating rink owners in the matter. Meanwhile, the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) has asked New York's Governor George Pataki to take authority over the investigation and put a stop to the state's "harassment" of the couple.

TVC chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon says the Division of Human Rights' threat of legal action against Skate Time 209's owners is crazy. "These people are exercising basic Constitutional rights on private property to the exclusion of no one, and the state government is treating them like dangerous criminals," he says.

The problem seems to me to be more important in its implications than is being discussed. Not only does he need an attorney, he needs an attorney who will go on the offense rather than merely playing a meek defense.

The way I read this, a grocery store might be prosecuted for being intolerant because they advertise that they carry Kosher foods... a product that appeals primarily to a particular religious group? The reality seems to be that the State has itself committed specified offenses in violation of the NY State law against hate crimes:

http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/ch107_hate_crimes_2000.htm

A "specified offense" is an offense defined by any of the following provisions of this chapter: including section 135.60 (coercion in the second degree); section 240.25 (harassment in the first degree); subdivision one, two or four of section 240.30 (aggravated harassment in the second degree); or any attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3(a)(1)-.htm

Section 135.60 Coercion in the second degree
A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or
8. Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or
9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3(b).htm

Section 240.30 Aggravated harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or she:
1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or
2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or
4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.

Aggravated harassment in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/ny3(a)(1)-.htm

Section 135.60 Coercion in the second degree A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in conduct in which he has a legal right to engage, by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the demand is not complied with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person; or
2. Cause damage to property; or
3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or
4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or
5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person's business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or
7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or
8. Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or
9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

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.