Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF: HRC FINDS AS FACT GAY BAR OWNER’S MULTIPLE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
Following an exhaustive ten-month investigation, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission has forcefully concluded that Les Natali, owner of one the city’s most popular gay bars, has violated numerous civil rights ordinances in his discriminatory practices in employment and patronage against people of color.
April 26, 2005 - 04:27pm [US West] Business Contact: Don Romesburg
415.850.8580
donromesburg [at] earthlink.net
HRC FINDS AS FACT GAY BAR OWNER’S MULTIPLE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
HISTORIC VICTORY FOR INCLUSION
PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY AT 6 PM AT HARVEY MILK PLAZA
April 26, 2005 — Following an exhaustive ten-month investigation, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission has forcefully concluded that Les Natali, owner of one the city’s most popular gay bars, has violated numerous civil rights ordinances in his discriminatory practices in employment and patronage against people of color. And Castro For All (AC4A) hails the HRC finding as a definitive validation of the testimonies of dozens of former patrons, employees and organizations who have courageously come forward over the past four years with experiences of discrimination at the hands of Natali and his staff. AC4A will publicly release and discuss the findings as well as announcing next steps at a media conference tonight, Tuesday, April 26, at 6:00 pm at Harvey Milk Plaza (Market and Castro).
The finding begins as follows:
In the matter of Derek Turner, Michael Wyllis, et al v. SF Badlands, the Human Rights Commission finds that Respondent violated Article 33 of the San Francisco Police Code by discriminating in employment and public accommodation on the basis of race.
After interviewing nearly sixty people over the past ten months, the HRC also found as fact: · an inconsistent door policy illegally requiring multiple forms of I.D. from some African Americans · Natali referred to African Americans as “non-Badlands customers” who should be discouraged from patronage · Natali unfairly denied entry to African Americans “through the use of a ‘No Bag’ policy that was rarely enforced against white patrons
· Natali selectively applied a dress code to African American patrons · Natali’s “hiring practices . . . were discriminatory towards African Americans” · Natali “discriminated against an African American woman when she was ejected for the bar for pretextual and unjustified reasons”
“The HRC finding of fact gives all of us a tremendous opportunity to ensure the fullest accountability for Natali’s blatant discrimination,” said And Castro For All organizer Daniel Frattin. “LGBT community and city and state agencies should seek the fullest possible recourse so that this can never happen again.”
PRESS CONFERENCE TONIGHT
WHEN: 6 PM
WHERE: Harvey Milk Plaza (Castro and Market) WHY: AC4A will discuss findings and future actions
And Castro For All is a new initiative seeking to build sustainable efforts toward greater inclusion and diversity in the Castro and in San Francisco’s LGBT community more generally. Our three goals are accountability for discrimination, recourse when it occurs, and dialogue to bring about genuine growth. For more information, visit our website: http://www.andcastroforall.com <http://www.andcastroforall.com/ >.
415.850.8580
donromesburg [at] earthlink.net
HRC FINDS AS FACT GAY BAR OWNER’S MULTIPLE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
HISTORIC VICTORY FOR INCLUSION
PRESS CONFERENCE TODAY AT 6 PM AT HARVEY MILK PLAZA
April 26, 2005 — Following an exhaustive ten-month investigation, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission has forcefully concluded that Les Natali, owner of one the city’s most popular gay bars, has violated numerous civil rights ordinances in his discriminatory practices in employment and patronage against people of color. And Castro For All (AC4A) hails the HRC finding as a definitive validation of the testimonies of dozens of former patrons, employees and organizations who have courageously come forward over the past four years with experiences of discrimination at the hands of Natali and his staff. AC4A will publicly release and discuss the findings as well as announcing next steps at a media conference tonight, Tuesday, April 26, at 6:00 pm at Harvey Milk Plaza (Market and Castro).
The finding begins as follows:
In the matter of Derek Turner, Michael Wyllis, et al v. SF Badlands, the Human Rights Commission finds that Respondent violated Article 33 of the San Francisco Police Code by discriminating in employment and public accommodation on the basis of race.
After interviewing nearly sixty people over the past ten months, the HRC also found as fact: · an inconsistent door policy illegally requiring multiple forms of I.D. from some African Americans · Natali referred to African Americans as “non-Badlands customers” who should be discouraged from patronage · Natali unfairly denied entry to African Americans “through the use of a ‘No Bag’ policy that was rarely enforced against white patrons
· Natali selectively applied a dress code to African American patrons · Natali’s “hiring practices . . . were discriminatory towards African Americans” · Natali “discriminated against an African American woman when she was ejected for the bar for pretextual and unjustified reasons”
“The HRC finding of fact gives all of us a tremendous opportunity to ensure the fullest accountability for Natali’s blatant discrimination,” said And Castro For All organizer Daniel Frattin. “LGBT community and city and state agencies should seek the fullest possible recourse so that this can never happen again.”
PRESS CONFERENCE TONIGHT
WHEN: 6 PM
WHERE: Harvey Milk Plaza (Castro and Market) WHY: AC4A will discuss findings and future actions
And Castro For All is a new initiative seeking to build sustainable efforts toward greater inclusion and diversity in the Castro and in San Francisco’s LGBT community more generally. Our three goals are accountability for discrimination, recourse when it occurs, and dialogue to bring about genuine growth. For more information, visit our website: http://www.andcastroforall.com <http://www.andcastroforall.com/ >.
For more information:
http://www.gaywire.net/newswire/index.cgi?...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Les Natali, owner of one the cities most popular gay bars, has violated numerous civil rights ordinances
And so what? Please, go ahead and boycott his bars. The business will be more than made up for by people who finally won't have to listen to any more rap music. And no, I am NOT inclusive.
...he should lose his liquor licenses. I just got done finishing reading the whole report of the Human Relations Commission. Bar owning makes one substantial bucks, and if Natali is a bigot, as i belidve he is, from reading the report, his licenses should be given to someone who is more responsible.
A personal note: I have never tried to get in to the Badlands. It is mainly a dance bar for GUPpie types. I being a 50ish disabled gay white male haven't danced in years. (i did dance before the stroke which happened about 6 years ago altho not in crowded guppie bars.) The attraction of Badlands, the reason there is a line there most evenings, is that it is one of the few bars in the Castro where there is a dance floor. Besides getting rid of his liquor license, one thing that would help would be if more barowners created spaces even small ones where patrons could dance. The Phoenix which closed down had one and was always a fun spot to hang around on the Castro. I have not hung out on the Castro in a bar in years. I ahve known my share of discrimination as a disabled gay man. The type where you could tell that bartenders and owners thought you were not the type of patron for "that" bar. This happened to me in Daddy's on the Castro once. And in diffrenet bars in New York City in the 70's and early 80's I noticed by the way on a trip to New York this summer that bars seemed to be more open.
A personal note: I have never tried to get in to the Badlands. It is mainly a dance bar for GUPpie types. I being a 50ish disabled gay white male haven't danced in years. (i did dance before the stroke which happened about 6 years ago altho not in crowded guppie bars.) The attraction of Badlands, the reason there is a line there most evenings, is that it is one of the few bars in the Castro where there is a dance floor. Besides getting rid of his liquor license, one thing that would help would be if more barowners created spaces even small ones where patrons could dance. The Phoenix which closed down had one and was always a fun spot to hang around on the Castro. I have not hung out on the Castro in a bar in years. I ahve known my share of discrimination as a disabled gay man. The type where you could tell that bartenders and owners thought you were not the type of patron for "that" bar. This happened to me in Daddy's on the Castro once. And in diffrenet bars in New York City in the 70's and early 80's I noticed by the way on a trip to New York this summer that bars seemed to be more open.
Deanosor - a word of clarity. His liquor license is granted by the state. The only way it could be revoked is if there is demonstrated, documented EVIDENCE that he discriminated against someone based on race. Asking for two IDs is NOT discrimination. Since liquor licenses are granted by the state, he has to follow state law. State law says quite clearly that if one ID is suspect, the owner must ask for another. If he does not, and the person is underage, the owner is liable. Period. I don't care what the city says about two IDs, it does not preemt state law. All Natali has to do is explain that a black patron had a questinable ID and therefore he asked for two. No violation here. But the real argument is not about card checking. It's about the race of the patrons and the race and/or gender of the employees. Badlands is a gay bar that caters to MEN. It is not unreasonable for the bar to employ MALE bartenders in that environment. A lot of gay men do NOT want women around in their space, the same way that lots of women do not want men in theirs. That is perfectly legal, as long as the bar is open to all. Natali is NOT required to be "inclusive" to anyone he doesn't want to be "inclusive" to. If he instructs his staff not to play rap music, that is his right. If he says to play only country music by white singers, that is his right. If the customers don't like it, they will go elsewhere. Some people assume that because a bar will not play rap that it is "racist". Sorry, but wishing doesn't make it so. So what if he DOESN'T want to attract black customers? THAT IS NOT A CRIME. It may be bad business, but criminal? No. Look, not everyone is enamoured of "multiculturalism" in cruising. It is illegal to post signs saying "White Only" but it is NOT illegal to cater to one particular crowd. All the social engineering in the world can't make everyone like everyone, no matter what the Left thinks.
"All Natali has to do is explain that a black patron had a questinable ID and therefore he asked for two. "
If he only asked for 2 for of ID from African American patrons with the exact same form of ID as other patrons I dont think it would be that hard to prove a violation of the law. Of course, one would assume Badlands is not stupid enough to continue being openly racist if people are digging for proof, so without recorded evidence that's good enough for a legal case gathering future evidence might not be so easy. But, this means that the threat of legal action has made Badlands drop a racist admissions policy so it would be somewhat of a good thing.
Overall, the legal case doesnt matter that much if this case gets enough publicity sicne even though racism may be common among Gay men in the Castro nobody wants to be seen as racist and if going to Badlands is seen as trying to go to a racist bar, patronage will drop. In the court of public opinion if Badlands acts too defnesive about this they will lose. A few openly racist people can post on this site saying they will keep patronizing the bar, but that in itself will hurt patronage since the larger the percentage of people who dont care about being seen as racist who attend the bar, the more the perception will be created that those who patronize the bar are racists. Peple who have no sense of civic responsibility and dont care about being seen as racist tend to be a pretty seedy crowd and it wont take long for infighting among bogots to drop the patronage to near zero or for neighboring businesses to complain about the racist types hanging around the bar and get the place shut down for being a public nusance.
If he only asked for 2 for of ID from African American patrons with the exact same form of ID as other patrons I dont think it would be that hard to prove a violation of the law. Of course, one would assume Badlands is not stupid enough to continue being openly racist if people are digging for proof, so without recorded evidence that's good enough for a legal case gathering future evidence might not be so easy. But, this means that the threat of legal action has made Badlands drop a racist admissions policy so it would be somewhat of a good thing.
Overall, the legal case doesnt matter that much if this case gets enough publicity sicne even though racism may be common among Gay men in the Castro nobody wants to be seen as racist and if going to Badlands is seen as trying to go to a racist bar, patronage will drop. In the court of public opinion if Badlands acts too defnesive about this they will lose. A few openly racist people can post on this site saying they will keep patronizing the bar, but that in itself will hurt patronage since the larger the percentage of people who dont care about being seen as racist who attend the bar, the more the perception will be created that those who patronize the bar are racists. Peple who have no sense of civic responsibility and dont care about being seen as racist tend to be a pretty seedy crowd and it wont take long for infighting among bogots to drop the patronage to near zero or for neighboring businesses to complain about the racist types hanging around the bar and get the place shut down for being a public nusance.
"Let's clear things up" wrote: Deanosor - a word of clarity. His liquor license is granted by the state.
That's why i asked that it be revoked. I ddin't say it will be revoked by the ABC . I said the only real way to hurt this bigot would be for the state to revoke his license or for there to be a wide-spread boycott of his bars. THE boycott probably won't happen because there is very little alternative to what Badlands supplies-a dance bar for Guppies in the Castro, and because Guppies and Guppie wannabes have very little consciousness. As for the evidence of discrimination, the HRC created the evidence. Read their full report like i did. It says Natali is guilty of discrimination in many but not all of the charges made.
The only way it could be revoked is if there is demonstrated, documented EVIDENCE that he discriminated against someone based on race. Asking for two IDs is NOT discrimination. Since liquor licenses are granted by the state, he has to follow state law. State law says quite clearly that if one ID is suspect, the owner must ask for another.
City law says and state law probably corrobates this, thaat a bar cannot ask for 2 ids form any group of people only. The testimony before the HRC says that's what Natali's employess did, on his behalf.
If he does not, and the person is underage, the owner is liable. Period. I don't care what the city says about two IDs, it does not preemt state law.
All Natali has to do is explain that a black patron had a questinable ID and therefore he asked for two. No violation here.
Not if there's a pattern of only asking for 2 id from African-American attempted patrons and not foprm white ones.
But the real argument is not about card checking. It's about the race of the patrons and the race and/or gender of the employees. Badlands is a gay bar that caters to MEN. It is not unreasonable for the bar to employ MALE bartenders in that environment. A lot of gay men do NOT want women around in their space, the same way that lots of women do not want men in theirs. That is perfectly legal, as long as the bar is open to all.
The human relations laws say it is not. Besides there plenty of women going into or attempting to go into Badlands. Soem of them are faghags and soem of them are lesbians. A faghag bartender would be very popular on that scene. Natali doesn't know what he's missing.
Natali is NOT required to be "inclusive" to anyone he doesn't want to be "inclusive" to.
Again not according to City and state law.
If he instructs his staff not to play rap music, that is his right. If he says to play only country music by white singers, that is his right.
And you are right, no law controls what music a bar plays. But wouldn't it be nice to not have race as the deciding factor?
If the customers don't like it, they will go elsewhere.
And as i said earlier, where else can one dance in the Castro?
Some people assume that because a bar will not play rap that it is "racist". Sorry, but wishing doesn't make it so. So what if he DOESN'T want to attract black customers? THAT IS NOT A CRIME.
San Franciso and state say it is.
It may be bad business, but criminal? No. Look, not everyone is enamoured of "multiculturalism" in cruising. It is illegal to post signs saying "White Only" but it is NOT illegal to cater to one particular crowd. All the social engineering in the world can't make everyone like everyone, no matter what the Left thinks.
No, for instance nothing could make me like you. And if you want to start a private club for people who discriminate, i promise i will not go to your bigoted clubhouse. However if you run a business sellign alcohol in San Francisco, California., you better not discirmnate.
As for Um
That's why i asked that it be revoked. I ddin't say it will be revoked by the ABC . I said the only real way to hurt this bigot would be for the state to revoke his license or for there to be a wide-spread boycott of his bars. THE boycott probably won't happen because there is very little alternative to what Badlands supplies-a dance bar for Guppies in the Castro, and because Guppies and Guppie wannabes have very little consciousness. As for the evidence of discrimination, the HRC created the evidence. Read their full report like i did. It says Natali is guilty of discrimination in many but not all of the charges made.
The only way it could be revoked is if there is demonstrated, documented EVIDENCE that he discriminated against someone based on race. Asking for two IDs is NOT discrimination. Since liquor licenses are granted by the state, he has to follow state law. State law says quite clearly that if one ID is suspect, the owner must ask for another.
City law says and state law probably corrobates this, thaat a bar cannot ask for 2 ids form any group of people only. The testimony before the HRC says that's what Natali's employess did, on his behalf.
If he does not, and the person is underage, the owner is liable. Period. I don't care what the city says about two IDs, it does not preemt state law.
All Natali has to do is explain that a black patron had a questinable ID and therefore he asked for two. No violation here.
Not if there's a pattern of only asking for 2 id from African-American attempted patrons and not foprm white ones.
But the real argument is not about card checking. It's about the race of the patrons and the race and/or gender of the employees. Badlands is a gay bar that caters to MEN. It is not unreasonable for the bar to employ MALE bartenders in that environment. A lot of gay men do NOT want women around in their space, the same way that lots of women do not want men in theirs. That is perfectly legal, as long as the bar is open to all.
The human relations laws say it is not. Besides there plenty of women going into or attempting to go into Badlands. Soem of them are faghags and soem of them are lesbians. A faghag bartender would be very popular on that scene. Natali doesn't know what he's missing.
Natali is NOT required to be "inclusive" to anyone he doesn't want to be "inclusive" to.
Again not according to City and state law.
If he instructs his staff not to play rap music, that is his right. If he says to play only country music by white singers, that is his right.
And you are right, no law controls what music a bar plays. But wouldn't it be nice to not have race as the deciding factor?
If the customers don't like it, they will go elsewhere.
And as i said earlier, where else can one dance in the Castro?
Some people assume that because a bar will not play rap that it is "racist". Sorry, but wishing doesn't make it so. So what if he DOESN'T want to attract black customers? THAT IS NOT A CRIME.
San Franciso and state say it is.
It may be bad business, but criminal? No. Look, not everyone is enamoured of "multiculturalism" in cruising. It is illegal to post signs saying "White Only" but it is NOT illegal to cater to one particular crowd. All the social engineering in the world can't make everyone like everyone, no matter what the Left thinks.
No, for instance nothing could make me like you. And if you want to start a private club for people who discriminate, i promise i will not go to your bigoted clubhouse. However if you run a business sellign alcohol in San Francisco, California., you better not discirmnate.
As for Um
As usual, when the Left doesn't like what someone writes, they resort to "racist". I'm so sorry, but that old, tired trick doesn't work with me. READ WHAT I SAID. Someone is going to have to PROVE that ONLY black people were asked for 2 IDs solely because they were black. Hard to do. Perhaps it was only a couple of black patrons that had questionable ID. If so, then he was right to ask for 2 IDs. I suppose that some people might avoid Badlands because they think going there implies they are "racist". I would say that 99% of the patrons couldn't care less. Listen, Leftoid, most of us don't give a rat's ass about skin pigment. We go where guys we like are. If we don't like sex with black men then we avoid bars full of black men. This is not rocket science. It's called CHOICE. I realize it may hard for people like you to understand this, but CHOICE is still legal in this country.
Previous post was not directed at you. But since you answered, let me clear it up again. US law says you may not legally discriminate against people because of race. If Natali had a sign on the door saying "White Only", it would be illegal. However, if he puts up pictures of white guys on the walls, and plays Karen Carpenter music all night because he THINKS that will attract white guys, that is his right. He is not discriminating by doing this. He is trying to attract the kind of crowd he wants. If someone opens a bar that plays Mexican music sung in Spanish, he will probably get an Hispanic crowd. Is this discriminatory against Anglos? No. There is no explicit exclusion based on race - Anglos may just not be comfortable there. What you fail to see is CHOICE. The problem with the race-obsessed Left is that they think that if you are not "inclusive" you are discriminating. That's untrue. You can be as unwelcoming as you like. No law, whether it be San Francisco or Disneyland, can mandate "inclusiveness". All it can do it prohibit illegal discrimination. You are correct in saying that if Natali singled out blacks, and ONLY blacks, for 2 IDs, then he has broken the law. However, if ONLY blacks showd up with questionable ID, then he has the legal obligation to demand more ID. Another point is this: "Guppies" have every bit as much right to congregate together as do blacks, Hispanics or whoever. White people are not required to more "inclusive" than other groups. You go ahead and go down to Bayview on Friday night and go into a black club and see how "inclusive" they are to your presence.
1) This is not about Karen Carpenter or rap music ("Oh. My. God. Badlandsfan. Who understands those rap guys anyway?"). This is about discriminatory door policies and employment policies. Did you read the article?
2) Asking for 2 forms of ID may be legal. Sure, it may be hard to prove that it was selectively enforced against black people. That doesn't make it right. You don't really seem to be making a "give Natali the benefit of the doubt" argument, but a "he didn't do anything wrong" argument.
3) Having a club targeted at a certain demographic is quite different from having a club that actively excludes and takes routine measures to harrass black people.
4) Nobody can enforce pluralism and cultural sensitivity, but (i) that doesn't mean it's not worth encouraging, and (ii) we can still call out blatant racism when we see it.
5) No law has been invoked. The HRC, as I understand it, exerts social and moral pressure only.
6) The mere legal right to do something doesn't make doing that thing ok. It's my legal right to distribute racist or anti-semitic literature. It's my legal right to distribute anti-gay bumper stickers, and to lobby to keep decent sex education out of schools. Does that make it ok? I think not.
2) Asking for 2 forms of ID may be legal. Sure, it may be hard to prove that it was selectively enforced against black people. That doesn't make it right. You don't really seem to be making a "give Natali the benefit of the doubt" argument, but a "he didn't do anything wrong" argument.
3) Having a club targeted at a certain demographic is quite different from having a club that actively excludes and takes routine measures to harrass black people.
4) Nobody can enforce pluralism and cultural sensitivity, but (i) that doesn't mean it's not worth encouraging, and (ii) we can still call out blatant racism when we see it.
5) No law has been invoked. The HRC, as I understand it, exerts social and moral pressure only.
6) The mere legal right to do something doesn't make doing that thing ok. It's my legal right to distribute racist or anti-semitic literature. It's my legal right to distribute anti-gay bumper stickers, and to lobby to keep decent sex education out of schools. Does that make it ok? I think not.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$200.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network