Using Facebook as a Bouncer - Great idea

Now this is clever:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/...b-in-stockton/

Key quotes:
------------------------------------
STOCKTON (CBS13) — A Stockton Bar owner came up with a way to keep questionable customers out and good customers coming back—people need to become his friend on Facebook before they’re allowed in.

The only way you’ll get into Finnegan’s Irish Pub after 9 p.m. is if they Like you.
.....
But you still couldn’t get on the special guest list until Tony checked out your profile page to see what kind of person you really are.

Tony says Facebook is the best bouncer he’s ever had.
“It eliminated nearly all of our troubles.”
-------------------------------------
Ain't technology wonderful?


Put a bunch of stupid pictures of yourself and your buddies with bongs and guns on your Facebook page, and Finnegan's tells you to get lost.


Love it.

Sounds pretty sane and rational to me. Who knows, maybe it leads to a site like B-411. The B for bar.

Now this is clever:

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/...b-in-stockton/

Key quotes:
------------------------------------
STOCKTON (CBS13) — A Stockton Bar owner came up with a way to keep questionable customers out and good customers coming back—people need to become his friend on Facebook before they’re allowed in.

The only way you’ll get into Finnegan’s Irish Pub after 9 p.m. is if they Like you.
.....
But you still couldn’t get on the special guest list until Tony checked out your profile page to see what kind of person you really are.

Tony says Facebook is the best bouncer he’s ever had.
“It eliminated nearly all of our troubles.”
-------------------------------------
Ain't technology wonderful?


Put a bunch of stupid pictures of yourself and your buddies with bongs and guns on your Facebook page, and Finnegan's tells you to get lost.


Love it. Originally Posted by ExNYer

If it has a disparate impact on minorities being excluded it will probably be ruled discriminatory, disallowed, and he will have to pay damages. Other than that, it is a great idea!

If it has a disparate impact on minorities being excluded it will probably be ruled discriminatory, disallowed, and he will have to pay damages. Other than that, it is a great idea! Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

they could just have a really steep cover charge for non-members to avoid the anti-discrimination laws.

If it has a disparate impact on minorities being excluded it will probably be ruled discriminatory, disallowed, and he will have to pay damages. Other than that, it is a great idea! Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

How so? You don't need Facebook to do that. You have a bouncer. He can turn minorities away all day.

And good luck proving discrimination. Like it or not, most groups tend to hang out with their own. That's why there are clubs/bars where nearly everyone is black, or Mexican (or at least speaks Spanish), or is white. You can't stop people from frequenting places where they feel most comfortable.

I have the feeling that an Irish pub in Stockton, CA, is going to be overwhelmingly white, even if the bouncer they hire is black.

hip Celeb bars in LA have screeners at the door ... if you're not "somebody", an ultra hot chick, or they don't like you for some reason, you don't get in ..

piss on discrimination

You don't have to prove discrimination, only that the rules have a disparate impact on an aggrieved group.

In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1]
The doctrine prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the so-called "business necessity" defense.

It can easily be stretched to show that a public bar discriminates under the same doctrine.. Basically, if you are white and want to hang out with whites in a public place, you are guilty of discrimination until proven otherwise.

You don't have to prove discrimination, only that the rules have a disparate impact on an aggrieved group.

In United States employment law, the doctrine of disparate impact holds that employment practices may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on members of a minority group. Under the doctrine, a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act may be proven by showing that an employment practice or policy has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of the protected class as compared with non-members of the protected class.[1]
The doctrine prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect."[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the so-called "business necessity" defense.

It can easily be stretched to show that a public bar discriminates under the same doctrine.. Basically, if you are white and want to hang out with whites in a public place, you are guilty of discrimination until proven otherwise. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

No, it can't be stretched to show that. Employment law does NOT control bar patronage.

Have you ever hear of freedom of assembly?

The country is full of bars/restaurants that have clientele that is overwhelmingly of one race. Why has no one sued over that yet? The country is full of lawyers - someone would have done it.

Seriously, how do you sue customers of a bar JUST FOR GOING THERE?

And what is the bar supposed to do? Force people who don't want to go to that bar to hang out there to fill a quota?

No, it can't be stretched to show that. Employment law does NOT control bar patronage.

Have you ever hear of freedom of assembly?

The country is full of bars/restaurants that have clientele that is overwhelmingly of one race. Why has no one sued over that yet? The country is full of lawyers - someone would have done it.

Seriously, how do you sue customers of a bar JUST FOR GOING THERE?

And what is the bar supposed to do? Force people who don't want to go to that bar to hang out there to fill a quota? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Well, I agree with freedom of assembly, and I certainly prefer to go to a nice, peaceful white bar. But that isn't the country we live in these days:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/lawsu...ry?id=12122706

A Philadelphia bar actively discriminates against black patrons and employees, banning drinkers who wear baggy clothes and forcing black workers into behind-the-scenes jobs, according to a lawsuit filed by an attorney who moonlights there as a bartender.
In a class action lawsuit against McFadden's Restaurant and Saloon, lawyers for bartender Michael Bolden said they have obtained e-mails and text messages in which managers discuss ways to limit the number of black patrons.
"We don't want black people we are a white bar," one manager is alleged to have e-mailed another, according to the lawsuit.