LEGALIZED DISCRIMINATION IN CALIFORNIA?

 THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES IS COVERED BY THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BY PRIVATELY OWNED PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION OR NATIONAL ORIGIN

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment. The Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 2, 1964, at the White House. > GO TO: CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone? If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination? The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress. >  GO TO: https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the-right-to-refuse-service-can-a-business-refuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

 

QUESTIONS: WHAT IS BLINKYS' CAN'T SAY LOUNGE BARTENDER HEATHERS' NON-ARBITRARY REASON AND/OR EXCUSE FOR EJECTING JOHN FROM BLINKYS' CAN'T SAY LOUNGE? AND HOW MANY TIMES PER DAY IS 'THE RIGHT TO REFUSE BUSINESS' LAW ABUSED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND/OR HOW MANY PEOPLE GET THEIR RIGHTS WRONGFULLY VIOLATED BY THIS VAGUELY WRITTEN LAW?

 "SMILING FACES...SOMETIMES THEY DON'T TELL THE TRUTH..." 
-- THE UNDISPUTED TRUTH

"JOHN WAS A LOYAL PATRON OF BLINKYS FOR ABOUT TWO YEARS AND MADE LOTS OF NEW FRIENDS UNTIL JOHN WAS ULTIMATELY RETALIATED AND/OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST 28 NOV 2015 FOR SIMPLY MAKING A COMPLAINT. THE NEW KARAOKE HOST ADAM DISALVO (WHO RECENTLY REPLACED "LIL WILD") STARTED SPINNING DISCS AND HANGING OUT IN THE PARKING LOT SMOKING WEED MORE THAN HE WAS PUTTING UP KARAOKE SINGERS LIKE HE IS SUPPOSED TO...AND LAST WEEK TWO REGULAR CUSTOMERS LEFT THE BAR IN DISGUST OVER THE LACK OF KARAOKE SINGING -- SO JOHN TOLD ADAM HIS JOB COULD END UP IN JEOPARDY IF HE DIDN'T KEEP PEOPLE SINGING. THIS CAUSED ADAM TO SAY: "IS THAT A THREAT?" TO JOHN; AND CAUSED JOHN TO LATER ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN TO ADAM (ON THANKSGIVING DAY WHEN JOHN HAD THE TIME) WHAT JOHN EXACTLY MEANT VIA FACEBOOK MESSAGING A FEW DAYS LATER (WITH ALMOST NO RESPONSE FROM ADAM -- JOHN STILL HAS THE ENTIRE MESSAGE THREAD); CAUSING JOHN TO GET BLOCKED ON FACEBOOK BY ADAM. THEN AFTER GOING TO BLINKYS AND TALKING TO HEATHER ABOUT THE INCIDENT ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON; AND BEING ASSURED THAT JOHN WOULD BE ABLE TO SING EVEN IF ADAM DECLINED TO LET JOHN SING -- AS JOHN WALKED UP TO THE ENTRANCE ON (28 NOV 2015) HEATHER ABRUPTLY CAME OUTSIDE AND SAID TO JOHN: "I DON'T WANT YOU COMING IN ON MY SHIFT ANYMORE" CAUSING JOHN TO LEAVE > NOTE: HEATHER EJECTED JOHN FROM THE BAR ONE NIGHT A FEW MONTHS BACK FOR MERELY TALKING TOO LOUDLY NEAR THE BAR TO A FRIEND WHEN SHE COULD HAVE SIMPLY TOLD JOHN TO GO OUTSIDE FOR A FEW MINUTES -- AND THIS HAPPENED RIGHT AROUND THE SAME TIME PEOPLE WERE WRONGFULLY EJECTED FROM THE NAPA WINE TRAIN; THE SAME EXACT TYPE OF INCIDENT EXCEPT JOHN WAS NOT DRUNK. SO IF HEATHER SO WAS WORRIED ABOUT DISTURBING REGULAR CLIENTELE A FEW MONTHS BACK; WHY WAS SHE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCIDENT LAST WEEK WHEN LONG TIME REGULARS GOT UP IN LEFT IN DISGUST? ADDING TO THIS; JOHNS' LONG TIME FRIEND MICHAEL ROULSTON IS LIKELY AFRAID TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT THE INCIDENT FOR FEAR OF LOSING HIS JOB..."

"Hey Bob, I finally had a chance to talk to Adam and the reason they weren't able to do Karaoke that night is because they were having monitor problems. the following night they made sure that the monitor problem got fixed and it was all good. Adam informed me that reading the words off the monitor of the computer wasn't working out real well. Adam also informed me that he never requested that you be told that you couldn't come to Blinkys that night. That was a decision made by the Blinkys management only. There are always going to be evenings that are a little off and hopefully from this point on we can get back to the karaoke Fun. Wish all the best my friend and I hope this info was helpful..." -- DJ Curtis of "Partyoke" Karaoke

John does not necessarily believe Adam when he says that he did not collude with Heather; but that would be hard to prove. And Adam never tried allowing singing with the computer monitor that night 21 November 2015...Adam mainly played records all night with a little singing here and there...and last time I spoke to Heather on Friday she said she did not hear anything about this from Adam...then next time John saw Heather she asked John to leave before he even got into the club...she had to have obviously spoken to Adam about this situation; otherwise why the sudden about face?

 > Read the entire Facebook text message thread sent to Adam DIsalvo from John 

@ http://likroper.com/NOVEMBER2015.txt

NOTE: This is the third time John has been blatantly discriminated against during an era with a President of African-American descent who was elected on a non-discrimination/pro-civil rights platform; a President who spoke openly about the importance of Martin Luther King and/or Rosa Parks and the changes they brought about to America. So why is John still being discriminated against during this supposed momentous time of non-discrimination? 

While California residents generally tend to think they have strong anti-discrimination laws (compared to North Carolina or Mississippi etc); the right to deny service in California is a large loop hole allowing various rights violators to pass through on a regular basis. Every day someone gets their rights violated by this vaguely written law here in the State of California.

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS -- The Rosa Parks incident was really all about nobody discriminating against anybody; at any time; anywhere; for any reason regardless of race and/or affiliation etc. The Rosa Parks incident had everything to do with race; but then again it had nothing whatsoever to do with race. It was all about discrimination being inherently wrong (and especially class-based discrimination) even if California (the supposed land of non-discrimination) has decided that some establishments have the right to deny service and/or rights to anyone at any time. 

But what is the definition of 'service'? Does entry into an establishment equal service? Or does service equal the purchase of alcohol?

 serv·ice (noun) 1) the action of helping or doing work for someone. "millions are involved in voluntary service" synonyms: favor, kindness, good turn, helping hand + 2) a system supplying a public need such as transport, communications, or utilities such as electricity and water.

Therefore; a patron can be denied service; but not necessarily entry unless code-base violations have occurred and/or unlawful activity has occurred on the part of the patron.

NOTE: In the past when individuals were denied service at any given bar; it generally meant these individuals would be served no more alcohol because they were usually to inebriated. And if these same individuals got angry; they then finally ended up being ejected from the bar. (John had not been drinking the night he got ejected from Blinky's Can't Say lounge).  

THE BOTTOM LINE: The current common practice of ejecting highly inebriated bar patrons essentially encourages those same patrons to then leave the bar and drive away drunk -- something that clearly endangers public safety. Therefore; the burden of responsibility should be upon nightclub establishments to take care of the people they sold too many drinks to. And in the meantime; John was not even drinking alcohol at the time of his illegal Blinky's ejection.

BLINKYS' CAN'T SAY LOUNGE YELP REVIEWS:

1) Bobby H. / 1.0 star rating 8/14/2015 > "Fuck this place, came in on a Sunday. All the old regulars gave me and my friend the eye like we dont belong. Owner and bartender checked my DMV issued Ca ID.....deemed it was a fake.....wtf???? Went to Broncos next door no issues. Never had any issues with my ID till this place, they just wanted to hate even though they checked my id under a blacklight. I am 33, ytf would I need a fake ID?..." > Note: John has never been carded at Blinkys'...

2) Tarcisio C. / 1.0 star rating 4/10/2015 > "Got surprised by the fact they wont accept passports as IDs anymore. They claim to need information on body type and height. Now, come on. I can enter your country but not a simple bar with this document? Lamest excuse ever. Should have stayed at Da Silva's which is located right beside it..."

3) Teddy G. / 2.0 star rating 10/20/2014 > "Decent place, pretty good size and decently priced drinks. Beer could be colder and the bartenders could be a little more generous with their pours. Definitely An older crowd but ain't nothing wrong with that. The bartender was nice but paid too much attention to her regulars. I just moved in the area and definitely could be a regular but I don't want to have to earn good service..."

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED?

SEE ALSO: OFFICERS SMITH AND OCHOA @
http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/04/officers-smith-and-ochoa.html + THE MYSTERY MAN FROM LOCKHEED (MML) AND FORCED MASS VACCINATIONS @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-mystery-man-from-lockheed-mml-and.html + WOODHAMS LOUNGE BARTENDER RETALIATION @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2013/02/woodhams-bartender-retaliation.html + LEMONS TO LEMONADE @ http://addendumblog1.blogspot.com/2015/07/lemons-to-lemonade.html

UPDATE: 25 JULY 2016 / Johns' friend Larry recently went to Blinky's with a girlfriend. At some point Larry allegedly went to use the men's bathroom; and Larrys' girlfriend followed Larry to the bathroom. She then cracked open the mens' bathroom door to speak to Larry; and Bouncer Donny then saw her at the bathroom door; asking her what she was doing. Larrys' girlfriend told Donny "it's none of your business"; causing Donny to immediately eject Larry and his (Caucasian) girlfriend from Blinkys'; saying to them "you're 86d for life". Blinkys' owner Danielle then interjected that Larry does not drink or cause trouble; so Larry should be allowed back in -- but Larry now does not trust Donny now and will not be returning to Blinkys'; which is Larrys' favorite dive bar hangout. 

Sun 8:20am / Matthew Boyd @ https://www.facebook.com/mattb0yd wrote: "Oh no !!! I won't be politically correct supporting discrimination next time I stop by to have a cocktail with my sister Jeannie . I have to say those drunken slutts will get you in trouble every time John good luck w/ the band in Santa Cruz & stay over there Thay are more liberal and you won't  have to stink up my sisters place of pride & employment with the bullshit and chicken shit that this protest is built on.."

<><><>

UPDATE / 7 JAN 2017: More pieces to the Blinkys' puzzle: discriminating against people with disabilities is illegal even if those disabilities are imagined as they clearly are in this case. Just to remind everyone; people cannot be ejected from private businesses of public accommodation without a non-arbitrary; business code-based reason for doing so. Here is a typical Blinkys patron spilling the beans about the conspiracy against rights going on at Blinkys Can't Say Lounge:

Erika Taylor Michaels wrote: "You're shit out of luck. Even your obvious mental disorder doesn't protect your crazy ass from getting kicked out of places. Get professional help!.." + "DUDE! YOU WERE KICKED OUT FOR BEING DISRUPTIVE. Get over your crazy self!..." -- "Dude- you were kicked out because you're loud & rude. The same reason you always get kicked out..." > SEE ALSO: BLACK WOMEN'S BOOK CLUB WINS $11 MILLION DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT AGAINST TRAIN COMPANY FOR 'LAUGHING TOO LOUDLY' @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3547267/Black-women-s-book-club-win-11m-discrimination-lawsuit-against-train-company-kicked-Napa-wine-tour-laughing-loudly.html

<><><>
 
Note: No business-based code allowing ejection was mentioned during the incident with Larry Davis; as usual it was an arbitrary and/or illegal decision as no statutes and/or laws had been broken by either Larry and/or his date. The only law that was broken was based upon the usual misinterpretation of Californias' vaguely written and largely unregulated "right to refuse service" law.