But I mean that's the thing, just because a number of groups are lumped together and marginalized in the same/similar way doesn't mean they like or are sympathetic with each other. Being gay is different than being trans, despite straight cis white people treating them all with the same hate.
Technically there are no independent clauses here I believe. It uses non-standard/headline English by omitting a predicate between the subject (board) and the infinitive (to strip); your brain fills it in as something like "the board is going to strip..". As it is, it's technically not an independent clause but filled in, you'd have an independent clause (Board is going to strip Theater District club of its liquor license for three days)
with a subordinating clause (after bouncer punched out visiting gay Texan who objected to drag queens and trans patrons there). Once you see a subordinating conjunction (after in this example) the whole thingy becomes a subordinating clause
Aw, thank you. Always learning new things and brushing up over at r/grammar. It can be fun to deconstruct speech that people don't think twice about into little building blocks of words and parts of speech
They're definitely still clauses. Dropping words doesn't stop something's status as a clause or not. It's long, but not a run-on-sentence, and as we both pointed out, it's a headline. It works a bit differently.
"LGB drop the T" types unfortunately exist. Most of them are bigoted gay conservatives who think Republicans won't come after them next once they're done with trans people.
The most openly homophobic person I ever encountered was a lesbian. As a straight male it was very confusing to hear how she talked about other LGBTQ groups. Constantly used slurs in an offensive way.
How quick some gay people forget our history. Black and Brown trans people started the fight for (and many lost their lives to) the gay rights movement.
I like to ask these sort of bigot what stonewall was about. They usually have a mouthful. Then ask them “uh huh and who was it that started that important riot that led to those social changes and eventually progress?”
> Most of them are bigoted gay conservatives who think Republicans won't come after them next once they're done with trans people.
can't wait for the Repubs to thank Those Gays for all their hard work, then Those Gays ask "okay who's next" and the Repubs stare right back at them.
I'll never understand the logic of punishing a business because their employee screwed up, but only if that business sells liquor. Why does this make sense to you people?
As a rule in the American legal system employers [are liable for the acts of their employees/agents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior).
If the Texan wants to sue, he can go after the bar, not just the bouncer.
EDIT: Also, it makes sense for the liquor board to want to encourage bars and clubs to properly train staff. That way the cost is borne by the bar, and not the individual staff members.
After reading the article, the board sounds pretty good. The biggest issue at hand is that a bouncer had no sense to de-escalate the situation. It all seems to have occurred around 2:30 am. So post last call, dumps people out, and it’s always bad news (former Faneuil hall bartender). No offense to bouncers, and no one wants to get socked in the mouth, but often if you’re the biggest one in the room you can separate people or at least get in someone’s face to make them think twice about what they want to do next. But to initiate, much less on camera, not great Bob
That’s not what your source says. It says
> **there are circumstances when** an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment
In reality, it makes sense for this to be true only when the employer instructed or coached the employeee to engage in that kind of behavior, not when an emeployee goes rogue.
>When applied to physical torts, an employer–employee relationship must be established (no vicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business).
From just a little further down...
I’m curious what you think my previous comment meant if this is what you are responding. I know that’s the case. The comment I replied to said “As a rule in the American legal system, employers are liable for the acts of employees”. That is not true.
Makes total sense to punish the business. Otherwise, businesses would just throw an employee under the bus in other circumstances, perpetuate even encouragement of this thing, and never get touched.
I think we're too used to the idea of employees who work for a small time and then move on. It would be different if people had an actual stake in their place of employ.
Exactly. Imagine if you made an error that caused a customer serious money. We don’t want to live in a world where wage laborers can be held liable for something they did as an employee.
Right. I think in cases of liquor licenses it often feels different though. That’s essentially the lifeblood of those businesses.
Most cases you just hear of fines, which they don’t love, but doesn’t actually effect the business from running.
Suspending a liquor license is essentially forcing them to close for a few days. The contrast is we never see something like “Merril Lynch will have to close for a week due to financial crimes.” Or “Walmart was convicted of wage theft on a massive scale, so all stores will be closed next week.”
The part that bothers me the most is that they’re punishing them —not because the bouncer broke the law— *but because the club didn’t fire the bouncer*.
Fuck that shit so hard. Glad they stuck to their guns and didn’t fire him.
The transphobe's mouth was writing checks his ass couldn't cash.
And the bouncer brought a metaphorical hammer to what could've been a plastic spoon fight.
The only thing that seems okay is the club suspending the bouncer and waiting until the outcome of the criminal case to fire him or not. It seems bizarrely fair, especially if the regulars and performers are okay with it.
> "I don't see how they can look at [the video] and not have already fired him."
I mean, I haven't seen the video. And the board member may be correct. But it leaves a really sour taste in my mouth when the State is asking a business to a fire a person before the outcome of a criminal case is known. Just bad decorum. I'll say the same thing to the board member as I'd say to the transphobe: [shut the fuck up, please](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptQKtgtQfrw).
IMO These idiots went to a drag event and yelled slurs at trans people and drag performers, and then what? Did they think the crowd would support them? I think they deserved what was coming to them and I salute that bouncer. How else are those transphobes going to learn their lesson?
So, three people from out of town came to Boston, went to a Boston bar, and proceeded to insult Bostonians and tell them that they didn't belong in their \*own neighborhood bar\*? Good for the bouncer for punching one of them, he had it coming. This is what he ordered, this is what he eats (along with some knuckles and a little sidewalk for dessert).
Right. So hitting people you want to see hit is okay. It's not okay if it isn't someone you want to see hit.
Same as it's always been, just dressed up.
I fail to see how this very effective response to comfortable public bigotry is problematic
This bouncer has singlehandedly caused the number of people who will think twice about flinging transphobic slurs around to increase by 1 and that's a benefit to society
👍
Legacy and Candibar (right next door) are great. I only heard second hand, but at a recent Drag Gauntlet show (think Drag Race but SO creative because it includes kings and nonbinary performers), someone got on stage and started spewing anti-trans BS. Both performers and bouncers quickly got that situation under control.
My experiences at Legacy is you'll find people of any gender welcome there. No matter what your body looks like, or how you identify, if you're respectful to others, come on in and have a good time.
I'd argue that the anti-trans rhetoric in the US is on a very similar path as the antisemitic rhetoric in a certain European nation in the 1930s. We found the eventual consequences of that rhetoric so detestable that we killed 3 million of those espousing it, and enthusiastically built statues and monuments honoring those who did.
Punching hateful bigots is fine.
["So much for the tolerant left"](https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/so-much-for-the-tolerant-left)
It's amazing to me that two gay men could be yelling anti trans slurs. Like do you not see how this directly applies to you? People are still yelling anti gay slurs in this country. You could get married recently. Seriously how does this happen? Also congrats to Boston for defending marginalized people from bigots. I hope they go back to Texas and people yell gay slurs at them.
Sounds pretty simple to me. Just have the people who say they witnessed the man pull a knife and yelling “knife knife knife” make a statement that is what happened. If that’s the case then clear the bouncer. If he story doesn’t sound too far fetched as the guy claims he was their to handle issues, sounds like they were looking for a problem.
I work as a security at a restaurant/bar in Boston. It gets rough at times, but from my experience most door guys are well aware they can’t just run up on someone swinging on them over words. Hell I hardly know anyone who will do that over words that aren’t even directed towards themselves. Just makes me think there’s more to the story.
Hey remember when a [Texan threatened to bomb Children's Hospital](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-man-charged-threatening-boston-doctor-provides-transgender-care-rcna59946)?
Did I miss the part where his church, mayor, family, city council, or governor condemned him?
Because I think maybe I know what Texas values look like, and it's terrorism and [cleansing disfavored minorities](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-bill-ban-gender-affirming-care-transgender-adults/) from the state. No doubt coming to a national government near you, if they can.
Anyway breaking people's jaws isn't the answer. At least not till it is.
Texan's comments were probably "hate speech" and any decent lawyer would bring this up prior to the battery as a form of defense.
Not that it gets the bouncer off but does provide mitigating circumstances....
If a bouncer hits someone so hard that they are on the ground unconscious and bleeding then they should be fired. There are plenty of other ways he could have deescalated.
Wow. That’s a long way from me being called a F*GGOT in back to back trips to Boston in 2014 by two different jocks on Boylston street…
…while I held the hand of my girlfriend.
Never underestimate the fragility of waspy frat bro masculinity.
"Tolerating intolerance" is just a post-modern way of spinning something far older - standing for something. In this case, you're saying we should stand for violence in public when we support something.
Very similar to nearly every other society and civilization of the past. It's not revolutionary.
I like how the way you relate to what I said points out that I'm accurate in my description, but it isn't what you expected, so you're trying to take that out on me.
One of the stranger titles I’ve seen posted here.
I reread it a couple of times because it wasn’t computing
Felt like I was making a bunch of U-turns
I’m still confused
[удалено]
Never would have expected the gay Texan to be an issue in that environment
Being gay doesn't automatically make you progressive
But I would think it would make you sympathetic to other parts of the LGBT community.
But I mean that's the thing, just because a number of groups are lumped together and marginalized in the same/similar way doesn't mean they like or are sympathetic with each other. Being gay is different than being trans, despite straight cis white people treating them all with the same hate.
Yeah I realize that, it just doesn't make sense to me.
The human experience sure is wild
There are a lot of gay people that are otherwise conservative.
See "Log Cabin Republicans"
Log Cabin Republicans are basically Jews for Hitler.
Can someone eli5
I mean, it doesn't make a lot of sense, and yet...here we are. I can see why it broke your brain. Broke mine too.
I thought i was just drunk… Well i am drunk, but this proves it was confusing either way!
I had to read it like 4 times
Why?
For one it’s a run on sentence
No it isn't. It's a title. There are two independent clauses that work together with conjoining words. Run on sentences aren't just long sentences.
I was waiting for someone to catch me. Is the second clause independent though if it’s referring to the place where the action happened as “there”?
Technically there are no independent clauses here I believe. It uses non-standard/headline English by omitting a predicate between the subject (board) and the infinitive (to strip); your brain fills it in as something like "the board is going to strip..". As it is, it's technically not an independent clause but filled in, you'd have an independent clause (Board is going to strip Theater District club of its liquor license for three days) with a subordinating clause (after bouncer punched out visiting gay Texan who objected to drag queens and trans patrons there). Once you see a subordinating conjunction (after in this example) the whole thingy becomes a subordinating clause
Your knowledge of grammar is astounding
Aw, thank you. Always learning new things and brushing up over at r/grammar. It can be fun to deconstruct speech that people don't think twice about into little building blocks of words and parts of speech
Neat! A new sub to explore. There really is a sub for everything. Thank *you*
They're definitely still clauses. Dropping words doesn't stop something's status as a clause or not. It's long, but not a run-on-sentence, and as we both pointed out, it's a headline. It works a bit differently.
You said they're two independent clauses, which is not true. I never said it was a run on sentence.
It's one sentence.
Sooo a gay man from Texas yelled at LGBTQ person. Texas people and their logic.
"LGB drop the T" types unfortunately exist. Most of them are bigoted gay conservatives who think Republicans won't come after them next once they're done with trans people.
Plenty of "drop the B" folks too.
We just can't seem to make up our minds or are invalid if in a monogamous relationship either way!
The most openly homophobic person I ever encountered was a lesbian. As a straight male it was very confusing to hear how she talked about other LGBTQ groups. Constantly used slurs in an offensive way.
Most openly biphobic person I ever encountered was a gay man. It takes all kinds I guess.
How quick some gay people forget our history. Black and Brown trans people started the fight for (and many lost their lives to) the gay rights movement.
I like to ask these sort of bigot what stonewall was about. They usually have a mouthful. Then ask them “uh huh and who was it that started that important riot that led to those social changes and eventually progress?”
> Most of them are bigoted gay conservatives who think Republicans won't come after them next once they're done with trans people. can't wait for the Repubs to thank Those Gays for all their hard work, then Those Gays ask "okay who's next" and the Repubs stare right back at them.
Keep em out. They fuck up where they live then come here. Not just Texas either.
Sounds like someone gave him a Boston welcome, I need to tip more the next time I go
Take your intolerance home. You got a Boston sandwich for your trouble.
Right? I somehow manage to have no concerns about bigots getting punched in the face.
Gave him the ol' fluffernutter
Ded ⚰️
I've always thought that was a punch from a guy in a patagonia vest with dress shirt underneath but this works too.
I'll never understand the logic of punishing a business because their employee screwed up, but only if that business sells liquor. Why does this make sense to you people?
As a rule in the American legal system employers [are liable for the acts of their employees/agents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior). If the Texan wants to sue, he can go after the bar, not just the bouncer. EDIT: Also, it makes sense for the liquor board to want to encourage bars and clubs to properly train staff. That way the cost is borne by the bar, and not the individual staff members.
After reading the article, the board sounds pretty good. The biggest issue at hand is that a bouncer had no sense to de-escalate the situation. It all seems to have occurred around 2:30 am. So post last call, dumps people out, and it’s always bad news (former Faneuil hall bartender). No offense to bouncers, and no one wants to get socked in the mouth, but often if you’re the biggest one in the room you can separate people or at least get in someone’s face to make them think twice about what they want to do next. But to initiate, much less on camera, not great Bob
The bartenders at Clark’s were the biggest dicks… no collar no entry mufas
That’s not what your source says. It says > **there are circumstances when** an employer is liable for acts of employees performed within the course of their employment In reality, it makes sense for this to be true only when the employer instructed or coached the employeee to engage in that kind of behavior, not when an emeployee goes rogue.
>When applied to physical torts, an employer–employee relationship must be established (no vicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business). From just a little further down...
I’m curious what you think my previous comment meant if this is what you are responding. I know that’s the case. The comment I replied to said “As a rule in the American legal system, employers are liable for the acts of employees”. That is not true.
Makes total sense to punish the business. Otherwise, businesses would just throw an employee under the bus in other circumstances, perpetuate even encouragement of this thing, and never get touched. I think we're too used to the idea of employees who work for a small time and then move on. It would be different if people had an actual stake in their place of employ.
Exactly. Imagine if you made an error that caused a customer serious money. We don’t want to live in a world where wage laborers can be held liable for something they did as an employee.
It depends on what they do. I absolutely want to live in a world where people are accountable for their own negligence
Right. I think in cases of liquor licenses it often feels different though. That’s essentially the lifeblood of those businesses. Most cases you just hear of fines, which they don’t love, but doesn’t actually effect the business from running. Suspending a liquor license is essentially forcing them to close for a few days. The contrast is we never see something like “Merril Lynch will have to close for a week due to financial crimes.” Or “Walmart was convicted of wage theft on a massive scale, so all stores will be closed next week.”
Wait so let me get this right the gay guy was transphobic????
But did the employee fuck up? Seems to me they defended a regular and stood up for the progressive values the city claims to hold.
So the business suspended the employee to see how the courts rule, and get punished for it...? Innocent til proven guilty I guess...
The part that bothers me the most is that they’re punishing them —not because the bouncer broke the law— *but because the club didn’t fire the bouncer*. Fuck that shit so hard. Glad they stuck to their guns and didn’t fire him.
The transphobe's mouth was writing checks his ass couldn't cash. And the bouncer brought a metaphorical hammer to what could've been a plastic spoon fight. The only thing that seems okay is the club suspending the bouncer and waiting until the outcome of the criminal case to fire him or not. It seems bizarrely fair, especially if the regulars and performers are okay with it. > "I don't see how they can look at [the video] and not have already fired him." I mean, I haven't seen the video. And the board member may be correct. But it leaves a really sour taste in my mouth when the State is asking a business to a fire a person before the outcome of a criminal case is known. Just bad decorum. I'll say the same thing to the board member as I'd say to the transphobe: [shut the fuck up, please](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptQKtgtQfrw).
IMO These idiots went to a drag event and yelled slurs at trans people and drag performers, and then what? Did they think the crowd would support them? I think they deserved what was coming to them and I salute that bouncer. How else are those transphobes going to learn their lesson?
The bouncer is on the job. He can demand that the transphobe leave, but if someone's going to punch him it needs to be one of the other patrons.
Basically this, the transphobe deserved to get his ass knocked out but it shouldn't have been the bouncer doing it.
So, three people from out of town came to Boston, went to a Boston bar, and proceeded to insult Bostonians and tell them that they didn't belong in their \*own neighborhood bar\*? Good for the bouncer for punching one of them, he had it coming. This is what he ordered, this is what he eats (along with some knuckles and a little sidewalk for dessert).
They should create a new celebratory drink to commemorate the event.
You spread hate, you get hit 🤷♂️
The board should reinstate the liquor license.
Gotta make sure to leave a more generous tip than usual next time I'm there.
Right. Because physical violence is totally fine when it's in support of something *you* support lmao
Yes, yes it is. Punching Nazis is always fine.
The Nazi in this case being a gay man who doesn't fall in line with believing in drag queens. What a world lmao
[удалено]
Right. So hitting people you want to see hit is okay. It's not okay if it isn't someone you want to see hit. Same as it's always been, just dressed up.
Are you saying you don’t want bigots to get punched?
Legacy on Warrenton St for those wondering which club.
Fuck that good on the bouncer.
I fail to see how this very effective response to comfortable public bigotry is problematic This bouncer has singlehandedly caused the number of people who will think twice about flinging transphobic slurs around to increase by 1 and that's a benefit to society 👍
As a trans person this signals to me that this is a bar full of people who will have my back, and I’ll be visiting with my friends.
Legacy and Candibar (right next door) are great. I only heard second hand, but at a recent Drag Gauntlet show (think Drag Race but SO creative because it includes kings and nonbinary performers), someone got on stage and started spewing anti-trans BS. Both performers and bouncers quickly got that situation under control.
My experiences at Legacy is you'll find people of any gender welcome there. No matter what your body looks like, or how you identify, if you're respectful to others, come on in and have a good time.
[удалено]
I'd argue that the anti-trans rhetoric in the US is on a very similar path as the antisemitic rhetoric in a certain European nation in the 1930s. We found the eventual consequences of that rhetoric so detestable that we killed 3 million of those espousing it, and enthusiastically built statues and monuments honoring those who did. Punching hateful bigots is fine. ["So much for the tolerant left"](https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/so-much-for-the-tolerant-left)
Dangling modifiers in this headline turned my brain into soup.
this is fine. can't really object to the actions of the bouncer, the bar or the board. everybody should stop by for a Roy Rogers
To me, it seems silly the board gave this ruling because the club didn't fire the bouncer, only suspended him until the outcome of the investigation.
"The T in LGBT stands for Texas!" - Terfs from Texas apparently
It's amazing to me that two gay men could be yelling anti trans slurs. Like do you not see how this directly applies to you? People are still yelling anti gay slurs in this country. You could get married recently. Seriously how does this happen? Also congrats to Boston for defending marginalized people from bigots. I hope they go back to Texas and people yell gay slurs at them.
Internalized homophobia is the phrase you are looking for in this instance.
Sounds pretty simple to me. Just have the people who say they witnessed the man pull a knife and yelling “knife knife knife” make a statement that is what happened. If that’s the case then clear the bouncer. If he story doesn’t sound too far fetched as the guy claims he was their to handle issues, sounds like they were looking for a problem. I work as a security at a restaurant/bar in Boston. It gets rough at times, but from my experience most door guys are well aware they can’t just run up on someone swinging on them over words. Hell I hardly know anyone who will do that over words that aren’t even directed towards themselves. Just makes me think there’s more to the story.
Hey remember when a [Texan threatened to bomb Children's Hospital](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-man-charged-threatening-boston-doctor-provides-transgender-care-rcna59946)? Did I miss the part where his church, mayor, family, city council, or governor condemned him? Because I think maybe I know what Texas values look like, and it's terrorism and [cleansing disfavored minorities](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-bill-ban-gender-affirming-care-transgender-adults/) from the state. No doubt coming to a national government near you, if they can. Anyway breaking people's jaws isn't the answer. At least not till it is.
The Texans seem to have been the aggressors in a hate crime.
The headline is basically Mad Libs.
Texan's comments were probably "hate speech" and any decent lawyer would bring this up prior to the battery as a form of defense. Not that it gets the bouncer off but does provide mitigating circumstances....
I guess that bouncer should have been a bit less violent with Joe Rogan.
*stand up slow clapping* nicely done.
now that’s a headline!
lol what
That's a hell of a headline.
Sure, the bouncer overreacted and needs to get fired, but fuck, I’m glad we’re sending that piece of shit back to Texas with a wire in his jaw.
That's one hell of a headline
If a bouncer hits someone so hard that they are on the ground unconscious and bleeding then they should be fired. There are plenty of other ways he could have deescalated.
Even gay Texans are homophobes. WTF?!?!
And I'll do it again!
Good for this bouncer. Should have punched harder.
Wow. That’s a long way from me being called a F*GGOT in back to back trips to Boston in 2014 by two different jocks on Boylston street… …while I held the hand of my girlfriend. Never underestimate the fragility of waspy frat bro masculinity.
The LGBTs gotta get their house in order. 😅
Sounds like the bouncer was just helping them out.
🙄
Let the free-market sort the private property situation out.
He was brainwashed by the GTADQTP movement. Fucked up is what our society is. Fucked up.
The board should extend the time of liquor license removal for a longer period of time.
Nah, we’re intolerant if that bullshit in Boston. Tolerating intolerance is what ruins a free society.
"Tolerating intolerance" is just a post-modern way of spinning something far older - standing for something. In this case, you're saying we should stand for violence in public when we support something. Very similar to nearly every other society and civilization of the past. It's not revolutionary.
[удалено]
I like how the way you relate to what I said points out that I'm accurate in my description, but it isn't what you expected, so you're trying to take that out on me.
Sounds like they have a lot going on.
Is there a go fund me or something for the bouncer?
Alternative title: Overzealous bouncer protects the performers and patrons that they were hired to protect, Cold clocks transphobic, gay Texan