Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community

rusbus01

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rusbus01

  7. Attn: Crobar Personel

    in New York / New Jersey

    Posted

    Just because it's privately owned doesnt allow crobar to discriminate......IF crobar was a country club with paying members that would be a diffrent story

    New York City's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination based on race, creed, sex, and other grounds by any "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement," but specifically exempts "any institution, club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private." However, a 1984 amendment (Local Law 63) provides that any "institution, club or place of accommodation," other than a benevolent order or a religious corporation, "shall not be considered in its nature distinctly private" if it "has more than four hundred members, provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment . . . directly or indirectly from or on behalf of nonmembers for the furtherance of trade or business." Immediately after Local Law 63 became effective, appellant association filed a state-court suit against the city and some of its officials, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Law is unconstitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court entered a judgment upholding the Law, and the intermediate state appellate court and the Court of Appeals of New York affirmed.

    ILL BReak it down read slowly children

    "New York City's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination based on race, creed, sex, and other grounds by any "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,"

    "but specifically exempts "any institution, club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private."

    However, a 1984 amendment (Local Law 63) provides that any "institution, club or place of accommodation," other than a benevolent order or a religious corporation, "shall not be considered in its nature distinctly private"

    benevolent order or a religious corporation....... As far as I know crobar is neither which makes considered a "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,"

    now so you dont have to re read

    "New York City's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination based on race, creed, sex, and other grounds by any "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,"

  8. Attn: Crobar Personel

    in New York / New Jersey

    Posted

    OK Crobar does not even come close to a place or accomodation

    Secondly they law forbids a place of public accomodation to "advertise" or make "statement" that discriminate based on creed, race, gender,

    thirdly this is America if you own a PRIVATE nightclub you can deny entry to anyone you do not want on your property!! the same law protects homeowners..im disgusted with all the ignorance in this thread

    PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS

    Anyone who provides goods and services to the general public is considered a public accommodation. It is against the law for a public accommodation to withhold or refuse to provide those goods or services; charge a different amount for the same goods or services; set different terms for obtaining those goods or services; discourage certain people from using them; or advertise or make statements that would make you feel unwelcome because of your race, color, creed, age, national origin, alienage or citizenship status, gender (including gender identity), sexual orientation, disability, marital status, and partnership status. Please note that there are limited exemptions from the provisions of this law based upon gender and age.

    Some examples of public accommodations include stores, banks, medical or dental offices, government agencies, hair salons, health clubs, hospitals, hotels, libraries, theaters, restaurants, schools, and taxis.

    Now ive never seen crobar advertise or Issue a statement that orientals are not welcome!! I also have witnessed white males and females denied entry just like asians..ive seen groups of males asked to leave solely because they were men.. Ive witnessed people paying different prices for the same service such as Comps, Reduced, and general admissions..ive see people get comped for VIP and the next person had to get a table and 2 bottle minimun pay $$..I also have seen asians shaking each other doing there crazy k outta their mind type style of dancing if its even considered dancing..So Asians have been permitted to p[arty inside crobar..Nightclubs are exempt because of different parties involved in producing the entainment IE, Promoters, Agents, DJ's, and Sponsers..who pays for the discrimination? does crobars doorstaff recieve there pay Directly from crobar or do you think crobar hires second party security firms who do background checks and pays the door/security personnel as an independant company!!

    this is not the case with libraries,taxis,hotels(provide reg meal service),airports etc

    "OK Crobar does not even come close to a place or accomodation"

    :blah:

    "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement,"......

    Id like to emphazize the "resort or amusement" part from my original post.

  10. Attn: Crobar Personel

    in New York / New Jersey

    Posted

    Just because it's privately owned doesnt allow crobar to discriminate......IF crobar was a country club with paying members that would be a diffrent story

    New York City's Human Rights Law forbids discrimination based on race, creed, sex, and other grounds by any "place of public accommodation, resort or amusement," but specifically exempts "any institution, club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private." However, a 1984 amendment (Local Law 63) provides that any "institution, club or place of accommodation," other than a benevolent order or a religious corporation, "shall not be considered in its nature distinctly private" if it "has more than four hundred members, provides regular meal service and regularly receives payment . . . directly or indirectly from or on behalf of nonmembers for the furtherance of trade or business." Immediately after Local Law 63 became effective, appellant association filed a state-court suit against the city and some of its officials, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Law is unconstitutional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial court entered a judgment upholding the Law, and the intermediate state appellate court and the Court of Appeals of New York affirmed.

×
×
  • Create New...