Posted by Tina
“Well-known Chicago Bar ‘Mother’s’ Accused of Racism,” by Sondra Solarte – Fox Chicago News
Chicago – A well-known bar in Chicago’s Gold Coast is being accused of racism. ** Some college students from St. Louis say they were barred from going in and they’re not buying the reason they got. ** This is about a senior trip for nearly 200 students from Washington University in St. Louis. ** Trip organizers are angry at the treatment they got at Mother’s on Division. ** Six African-American men in the group were denied entry to the bar last weekend. ** Student Regis Nurayi says the bar’s manager told them their jeans were too baggy. ** But Murayi didn’t buy it.
So he switched jeans with a shorter, white student. ** The white student, who now had very baggy jeans, was let in, and Murayi was still kept out.
The information contained in this article is enough to suggest that these young people have a valid legal discrimination case against the bar owner. We of course don’t have the facts as a court would hear them but based on what we have been told I think these students should follow through and get their day in court.
Civil rights laws are apparently in a state of constant change and although Federal civil rights law applies in this case, civil rights laws differ from state to state.
Legalzoom.com – “Right to refuse service”
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” ** In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business’s refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their “colors,” or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members’ unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members. ** Like many issues involving constitutional law, the law against discrimination in public accommodations is in a constant state of change. Some argue that anti-discrimination laws in matters of public accommodations create a conflict between the ideal of equality and individual rights. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner’s private right to exclude is violated? For the most part, courts have decided that the constitutional interest in providing equal access to public accommodations outweighs the individual liberties involved.