Jul 06 2008
Some Wilmington Bars Won’t Serve Marines
But a broader pattern soon emerged when city officials asked the Marines at nearby Camp Lejeune for their experiences. In some Wilmington night clubs, they replied, military often means “no entry.”
“The golden rule seems to be not to look like a Marine if you want to gain access,” Master Gunnery Sergeant Michael P. Denman said in an email to base leaders after polling his company.
Other Marines gave similar impressions of downtown’s biggest clubs, alleging that doormen enforce rules with them while others slide by.
“The end result is Marines are denied by bouncers while civilians enter the bar right in front of them,” Lt. Jeffrey Hecker wrote.
The responses have touched a nerve with city and military leaders outraged that servicemen fighting two wars are apparently denied access to some bars that others enter with ease. This Tuesday, Saffo is attending a meeting of the Association of Bar Owners and Restaurants Downtown to discuss the issue.
There are a few different issues here. We have men who have put their lives on the line for the rest of us serving our country being discriminated against because of their profession. Some of the bar owners have said that when trouble breaks out in their establishment most of the time it is caused by a member of the military from the nearby Camp Lejeune or sailors docking at the port. One bar owner claimed that the Marines are 90% of his problem. If this is really the case, are these owner simply being watchful over their investment and can they really be blamed for it?
The bars are private property and I am very much in favor of the owners running their establishment as they see fit and allowing or turning away whoever they want. On the other hand, I am not a big fan of discriminating against a group of people simply because other members of that group have caused problems. You can’t paint every member of a group with one broad brush. For argument’s sake, what if 70% of the fights were started by black patrons at the bar? Would Jenkins be turning them away? Not unless he wanted to go bankrupt due to lawsuits. Furthermore, the Wilmington police have stated that Marines do not represent a disproportional part of lawless situations in the town and it is only a perception.
The initial reaction of hearing this story is wanting to jump on the bandwagon of accusing the bar owner of being unpatriotic or anti-American, but I think there are legitimate concerns presented on both sides of the issue.
Sam,
This is wrong on all accounts. Why do you ask? Because if you let them deny marines then they have a precedent to deny African Americansor Fat people or French. It is called discrimination, Period.
Sniff, sniff.
Smell that?
It’s the whiff of another argument like we had at my DUI checkpoint post. Oh well. What are blogs for if not to forcibly make everyone else agree with you?
Sorry Paul, but Sam is right, and here’s why-
To accept that we live in a free country means accepting the rights of other people to mis-use their freedom in ways in which we disagree. These may be “public” bars, but they are still private property. They are privately owned businesses. The owners have a right to run their establishments as they see fit, and it’s not the place of government to tell them otherwise.
And yes, I understand that if we followed this line of thinking to its logical extension, it would allow some racist bubba to deny service to black people.
But even racist bubbas have property rights too, do they not?
The great thing about freedom is that it works both ways. You don’t like the restaurant owners’ decision? Fine. Don’t eat there. Hell, boycott the place if you want. I guarantee that if some restaurant in my town had a “No Blacks Allowed” sign, I’d be out picketing in front of that place tomorrow. That’s MY right to protest. But the owner has rights too.
Besides, freedom means that some other restaurateur can open up his OWN place across the street with a big “Everyone Welcomed” sign in front. The bubba would be out of business in a week without the government telling him how to run his place.
Would you have the government tell these bar owners how to run their joints? Let’s take THAT to it’s own logical extension. The government tells private business owners who they’re required to serve. Then it tells them who they must hire. Then it tells them who they must fire. Then it tells them how much they must pay their employees. Then it tells them what they can and can’t have on the menu. Then it tells them they can’t allow smoking… anywhere! Then Michael Bloomberg tells them they can’t cook anything with transfats. Then… it’s “private” in name only, because it’s really run by the government.
Is that what we want?
I think these bar owners are probably wrong. They shouldn’t paint everyone who even looks like a Marine with a broad brush. But if they are wrong, let the free market sort it out. Let someone else open a Marine-themed bar across the street. Let the NCOs and officers work with the bar owners to make sure that the leathernecks behave themselves from now on. There are plenty of solutions to this that don’t involve the abridgement of private property rights.
There’s a great line from “A Man for All Seasons”, when Thomas More explains that he’d give “the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” So too I’d give a racist bubba benefit of his private property rights. And I’d give these bar owners benefit too. And if someone wanted to deny service to fat people or Frenchmen (not a bad idea, that), I’d let them -while protesting it, mind you- for my own safety’s sake. Because if you allow the government to abridge their private property rights, you make it easier for the government to one day abridge your own, and mine too.
The Supreme court actually ruled that you cannot discriminate based upon race and other factors. A huge example is cases involving housing discrimination. That landlord is also a business person who denied a African American couple a chance to rent his house. Guess what happened? He lost and had to pay damages.
Being a veteran myself i find it not only appalling to deny someone based on their haircut and I have decided it is no different than discriminating based upon skin color or religion.
The Supreme Court was wrong. They are wrong in the same way they were wrong in Kelo, when they decided to take a big ol’ crap on private property rights.
Jerk racist landlords are still private property owners and private businessmen. You have no right to tell them how to run their business. If you don’t like it, shop/eat/rent/buy someplace else. That’s how freedom works.
A bunch of bar owners tick you off, and your solution is for more government control and less individual liberty? That’s the wrong damn answer. Let the free market sort this out instead.
Contact the beer distributors, let them know that Marines will not purchase their product (nor should any store or club on post) if they continue to supply these bars that do not allow Marines in. Hit them in the wallet
[...] reminds me of the story earlier this year about many of the bars and nightclubs in Wilmington not allowing Marines from Camp Lejeune through [...]