Oregon bar owner forced to pay $400,000 for offending transsexuals

Young, unmarried women celebrate gay pride
Young, unmarried women celebrate gay pride

The transsexuals were hurting his business, so he asked them to please stop, or he would go out of business. But instead, they complained to the government.

The Daily Caller has the story.


An Oregon bar has been ordered by a judge to pay $400,000 for telling a group of transgender customers not to come back to the bar because people were starting to think it was a “tranny bar.”

The Oregon Court of Appeals stood by a ruling Wednesday that Chris Penner, owner of the Portland bar Twilight Room Annex, had illegally discriminated against the transgender customers, Oregon Live reports.

The transgender customers were part of a group called the Rose City T-girls who went to the bar regularly on Friday nights. Penner called them and left messages asking them to stop coming.

“People are not coming in because they just don’t want to be there on a Friday night now,” Penner said in a message. “In the beginning sales were doing fine, but they’ve been on a steady decrease so I have to look at what the problem is, what the reason is and take care of it.”

An Oregon judge found that Penner had violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which bans discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.

Now he has to cough up $400,000.

Two points to make about this. First, note that Oregon is one of the liberal states in this map where such things are happening:

States with non-discrimination laws
States with non-discrimination laws

These are the states where all the problems are happening with sexual minorities going to the government to compel celebration from businesses. Business owners are having to pay big fines, and/or go to jail. The judges and human rights commissions in these states are siding with the plaintiffs, and against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and now even freedom of association.

And the Democrats want to push this up to the federal level, so that businesses can be sued in all 50 states. If they had a majority in the House, that’s exactly what they would do.

What’s interesting about this story is that now it’s not just religious people who are going to get impacted by these changes. It’s not just the florists, the bakers, the wedding photographers, the bed-and-breakfast owners. Now it’s bars. And the objection is not religious liberty or conscience. And that’s not surprising… if you looked up north to Canada, it started with the religious people, and then pretty soon bar owners, fitness club owners and other secular business owners were impacted, too.

5 thoughts on “Oregon bar owner forced to pay $400,000 for offending transsexuals”

  1. What we see here is a classic example of state priests administering rights – it is the only way that a bar owner can be sued for exercising his property rights by deciding who should and should not be allowed inside. It is how people who have no ownership of a certain property still have the right to enter it or use it, even against the wishes of the owner. There is no rational or logical formula for determine this because under the principles of Progressivism and other ideologies, rights are not objective or absolute concepts, but determined subjectively based on how a person’s actions fits within the context of “The Vision.”

    The state priests are the ones who claim to know The Truth and determine who has what rights in order to fulfill their specific idea of The Vision.


    “The belief of The Vision™ can be summed up as follows:

    Everyone has the “right” to behave in accordance with social, ethical, moral, cultural, or religious views that fit within how things should be done in all sectors of life. A person’s “rights” can be revoked at any time if they violate or threaten the precepts.

    Thus, it is impossible to clearly define what a person’s rights are and how they are decided, because whether you have a right is entirely dependent on whether what you’re doing is in accordance with the current version of The Vision™. Consistency when declaring individual rights is impossible.”

    Imagine if it were a transgendered bar and they kicked out a group of Christians who discussed religious topics frequently to the point where people thought it was a religious-themed bar. Would the owner be sued for telling them to take their proselytizing elsewhere? Or, better yet, straight people came in and the owner said they were scaring away the transgendered people.


  2. It’s sad when it happens to us, it’s schadenfreude when it happens to themselves. I guess I have some things to work on in my own heart but it gives me at least a smidgen of hope knowing we’ll outlast through attrition. The the left will canabalize themselves into obscurity with constantly moving the line back and back and back making everybody except themselves right. Liberal democrats of forty years ago would seem not left enough.

    I just foresee white lesbian feminists fighting with black transgender polygamists for not caring about feline cancer enough. #catsninelivesmatter.


  3. This is a very good post. Just want to mention (after putting on the White Rabbit’s spectacles) that the usual spelling is “transsexual,” not “transexual.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s