OK, everyone:



I get it.

___________________
think stasis | latest mix

quote:

Originally posted by Stasis Those examples you gave only support my point, which apparently you missed. Public institutions have great leeway in allowing or denying entrance to individuals for a variety of reasons (such as looking like a crackhead or simply not looking cool). However, they can't reject you for being a woman, for being Jewish, for being German, for speaking Spanish, or for any other distinction based on race, gender, religion, nationality or language. Those are protected classes, both under national law and international law, and even an exclusive club like Berghain cannot, in good faith, use them to deny people. (And not to be a total douchebag, which maybe you think I already am, but I'm an attorney with a large law firm in Manhattan, and I've never had trouble shopping on Rodeo Drive or getting a table at a restaurant.)

Mr. Attorney, you are sincerely mistaken. Please distinguish between "public" as in "publically accessible" (in the case of a night club this means basically the economic decision to offer its services to an open market) and "public" in terms of the ownership structure. Only the latter is legally relevant as all rights and privileges arise from your legal status as the rightful owner. Thus, legally, there is no difference whatsoever between you private home and your private club. The difference is on the commercial level.
Now as for your objection regarding "basic civil rights" that forbid any sort of discrimination: Please reconsider who they are directed at. Right - the states only. Both on domestic level (constitutional law that confines the governmental power in accordance with basic rights and the duty of equal treatment) and also,in particular, on the international level (you very well know that private citizens can never be addressed by provisions of international law). Now I'm not really up to date concerning German judicature, but I'm pretty certain that just like in Austria a so called "third party effect" of constitutional rights has always been rejected. In simple English this means that between privates, as happened in this "offerer -potential consumer" situation, everything is allowed and one has even the basic right to complete autonomy regarding contracting (with whom, what, how - no justifications and consideriations of basic rights needed).

To sum it up: They could just as well tell you that your nose was too big, your eyes too green or your beard too Arabic.
It's not nice but it's their fucking business.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

I thought this was over...

Replace Berghain with McDonald's for this example.

McDonald's is privately owned, but is open for business to the public, just like Berghain.

McDonald's is not representing the state in anyway. McDonald's can tell you they don't want your business for a huge number of reasons, just like Berghain can turn anyone away from the door for a huge number of reasons.

These reasons can include even the examples you cited--nose too big, eyes wrong color, not dressed properly, etc, etc. (McDonald's, of course, doesn't ever do this since there's no incentive on their part).

Despite all this, McDonald's as a privately-owned, publicly-accessible business, cannot--whether in the US or Germany--universally deny a group of potential customers based on a protected distinction (race, gender, religion, nationality, etc). So even though they're privately owned...even though they have the power to reject people for other silly reasons...even though they're not representing the state in any way...despite all that...they still can't turn away all Americans, or all Germans, or all women, or all Christians.

Do you remember the civil rights movement in America? Martin Luther King, Jr? Remember that privately owned restaurants would reject blacks from eating there? Under your idea of how the law works, that's still 100% OK. "It's their private business!" you say. But how did that turn out? Oh right, private businesses can't reject a whole group of people based on race. And restaurants today, just like nightclubs, can't reject whole groups of people based on certain distinctions. So Berghain can't actually reject all English speakers.

So...let's get a few things straight. I was told at the door of Berghain that I was not allowed in because I spoke English. If Berghain literally had a policy refusing entrance to all English speakers, then it would be breaking the law. Let's get another thing straight--I am completely aware that I wasn't actually rejected for speaking English, but really just because they didn't like how I looked. I am fully aware that Berghain let in plenty of cooler looking, English speaking, people that night. So...do I think Berghain broke the law in anyway that night? NO.

I tried to end the debate with my silly cat picture, because I get it. I get that Berghain did not actually break the law. I get that I'm talking with people who think they know the law and will continue to argue with me forever. And I get that I'm a bigger loser than I could ever have imagined by dragging this out as long as I did.

I get it.

___________________
think stasis | latest mix

Last edited by Stasis on Nov-29-2007 at 14:48

You make make absolutely no sense and you're constantly contradicting yourself, too. You start the thread proclaiming that Berghain's behavior was illegal. Now you admit that they broke no law whatsoever. But then you go ahead and refer to the American Civil Rights movement, saying that the general policy of excluding a certain type of potential consumers is illegal. So what's it going to be then? I have too little knowledge about the legal framework in the 1960's, but I imagine that racial segregation was not only "private" policy but legally fixed, meaning that it was state policy. If that's the case, there's no doubt that basic civil rights were violated and justifiably brought down. If the businesses were not legaly mandated to exclude Blacks, then the fight was a social-political one, not a legal war. Unless American Law does actually recognize a thir party effect between privates.

By the way: No need to behave like an offended jerk..I don't see how anyone here got personal with you. You were in attacking position from the start and we tried to make the point that Berghain's policy is totally in accordance with German law. Do not make the mistake to think that I "morally" justify this door policy, though. To be frank I despise pseudo-elitist selection for the sake of hyping your nightclub.

___________________
"Those are my principles, if you don't like them... well, I have others.”

quote:

Originally posted by Stasis I get that I'm talking with people who think they know the law and will continue to argue with me forever. And I get that I'm a bigger loser than I could ever have imagined by dragging this out as long as I did.

cool, "Notre Dame Law, Class of '09"

I´m impressed.
Really.

actually most impressed, that an ND graduate is dragging this out this long. and very impressed that you oh-so-knowledgeable about law.

please, keep going in this thread.
I think it´s quite amusing

1) When I started the thread, I thought that Berghain was actually rejecting all English speaking people, so I said it was behaving illegally.

2) By the end of the first page, it was explained to me that getting rejected was just because of how I looked, and had nothing to do with my language--so I realized that Berghain hadn't actually done anything illegal.

So there's no contradiction there. The two posts reach different conclusions because I learned something in between.

And I am offended. NetX, for example, has constantly belittled me, my job and now my school.

And you are misunderstanding the civil rights movement. State-involvement or not, private businesses to this day can't discriminate.

___________________
think stasis | latest mix

hey, being offended is what TA is about, isn´t it?
and you are not taking my posts that seriously, do you?

if so, i apologize.
but after you kept hammering the point of introducing your own points of view on german law i just found it amusing


regarding your job and your school: own fault. when you started againg with saying "I get that I'm talking with people who think they know the law" you implicate that you are law-hero-number-one.

let´s stop it here, i apologize for being too rude.

and as i said before: berghain isn´t for everyone´s tastes, so might actually have had a better night somewhere else.

I agree. I apologize for coming in here like I already knew everything already and attacking Berghain. Also, it was pompous to name-drop my school/job to gain credibility, and you were right to call me out on it.

Overall I couldn't have had a better time in Berlin--the people there were wonderful and accommodating, the bars and cafes filled with interesting and thoughtful individuals, and I can't wait to go back.

___________________
think stasis | latest mix

Lèt`s leave it with that...

I hope you have a better experience next time because Germany has a lot of unique party experience to offer, so please visit us again

**closed**

___________________