United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Ohio woman loses appeal on "White Only" pool sign
Source:
Reuters
URL Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012 ... ion-pool-idUSTRE80B24120120112
Published: Jan 12, 2012
Author: Kim Palmer
Post Date: 2012-01-12 21:46:21 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 21863
Comments: 52
(Reuters) - A Cincinnati landlord found to have violated state anti-discrimination laws after she hung a "white only" sign outside her swimming pool lost an appeal with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission on Thursday. The ruling clears the way for the case to be referred to the state attorney general's office for possible state civil charges and the possibility of being forced to pay compensatory and punitive damages. The commission ruled the sign, which read "Public Swimming Pool, White Only," violated state housing discrimination laws, and dismissed landlord Jamie Hein's claim that it was simply a decorative antique. The commission's ruling followed a complaint by Michael Gunn, a former tenant who brought his 10-year-old biracial daughter to a Memorial Day weekend pool party on Hein's property attended by about 20 other guests. Gunn said Hein later questioned him about the "chemicals" his daughter used in her hair and blamed the girl, the only non-Caucasian at the party, for making the pool water "cloudy." Gunn told the commission that about a week later he saw the "white only" sign on the gate leading to the pool. He said he and his fiancé decided to move away immediately so "as not to expose my daughter to the sign and humiliation." As part of the commission's investigation, Gunn produced copies of texts he said Hein had sent to his fiancé shortly after the family moved out, blaming "grease" in his daughter's hair for the cloudy condition of the pool. After an investigation into the allegations and "informal efforts to resolve the case," the Civil Rights Commission ruled in September that Hein had violated the law. Hein requested an appeal after the initial findings but neither she nor her attorney attended the hearing on Thursday.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
What is wrong with these people in Ohio?
I'm glad she is being taken to task for her bullshit.
Again you prove that you don't like the constitution. Why do you hate free speech and the right to associate with who you want to?
She has no right to be a bigot picking on people for an arbitrary issue such as the color of their skin. She should judge people by the content of their character and not on a characteristic that has little to do with anything. So you like vicious bigots. Some alleged Christian you supposedly are. You are wrong, and your hatefulness and irrational intolerance runs fully contrary to the values of the U.S. Constitution and all rulings on it by the SCOTUS under our system of justic and it's process of Stare decisis. Being dumb, unwilling to learn and be a rational thinker is no way to go through life Stone. Wake the heck up and join the rest of decent humanity. Your irratinal hatred and lack of Christian decency is stinking up the place.
Actually she does. It is called private property and freedom of speech. You would be correct if you said that was mean. But it is certainly within her rights.
So much for your "private property" bullshit...
This is from the article. "she hung a "white only" sign outside her swimming pool" She owns it.
Did you read the entire article? "white rights" are the same as "black rights". You can't restrict access. That is NOT an exercise of freedom. It's a restriction of it. As I said, you have no sense of anything. Quick: Tell me Obama is for abortion.
Freedom would mean you can do what you wish with your property. You are free to be an asshole or a bitch too. I wouldn't do that. But it is within a persons rights. Not letting someone do something on your property that you lawfully own in no way infringes on others freedom.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#31)
I wouldn't do that. But it is within a persons rights. Not letting someone do something on your property that you lawfully own in no way infringes on others freedom. Almost all private property has a public egress of one form or another. Or do you want to become landlocked like many of my English ancestors.
When a venue is public you cannot discriminate. According to you, we should go back to the day when people could not find a motel, restaurant or other commercial establishment because of bigotry and hatred that had no bearing in fact. Get your head out of you know were, Stone. Life is too short to go through it as vicariously ignorant as you seem to like to live it.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Fred Mertz (#1)
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#2)
I'm glad she is being taken to task for her bullshit.
#16. To: A K A Stone (#4)
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
She has no right to be a bigot picking on people for an arbitrary issue such as the color of their skin.
#28. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Actually she does. It is called private property and freedom of speech.
#29. To: war (#28)
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
#31. To: war (#30)
. You can't restrict access. That is NOT an exercise of freedom. It's a restriction of it.
Replies to Comment # 31. Freedom would mean you can do what you wish with your property. You are free to be an asshole or a bitch too.
#36. To: A K A Stone (#31)
"Not letting someone do something on your property that you lawfully own in no way infringes on others freedom."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]