Patterico's Pontifications

10/31/2007

I hesitate to even post this, but I find it all simply too amusing for words. Go listen for yourself

Filed under: General — WLS @ 2:49 pm

Posted by WLS:

I’m going to resist the urge to post a link to the National Enquirer’s web site, but if you go to Drudge he has the link to an recorded telephone conversation between bounty hunter Duane “The Dog” Chapman and his son Tucker concerning Tucker’s romance with a certain young woman of African-American ancestry.

The reason this is so amusing is because Chapman has turned himself into this national folk hero with his A&E Television show, but the reality is that he’s a low-life scum opportunist — a fact well known by those that have crossed his path when the cameras weren’t rolling.

Go listen for yourself, and reach your own conclusions.

Update 11/2:  Two days ago A&E announced that production was being suspended on the show — an altogether empty gesture since Dog is spending 100% of his time right now promoting his autobiography recently released, and the show was slated to return to production until January. 

But today A&E announced that it is removing the show from its schedule immediately, until further notice. 

That’s a big hit because that show had to occupy a dozen or more hours of programming over the course of a week for A&E.  

Two sponsors have also pulled their support for the show.

226 Comments

  1. I was taken in too. I thought he was a decent, but rough, man. Now I see he is a dark-spirited racist. I’d be interested to hear about any run-ins you’ve had with him and would listen with an open mind at this point. If you can’t say, I understand.

    It saddens me. I really wanted to believe he was a good guy. I know he’s done good things… but while maintaining and refusing to give up a self-destructive inner darkness. It saddens me greatly even as I was angered by it a while ago.

    I will pray for his soul and that he sees the error of his ways, and repents. In the meantime, his show must be canceled.

    I despise racists. I will have to work on being more forgiving in this case.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 2:55 pm

  2. I won’t pray for that disgusting pig, nor will I ever understand how such creatures are worthy of anything but scorn and pity.

    Comment by Old Coot (20ca0f) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:00 pm

  3. I really can’t. I’ve had professional dealings where he was involved, and I’m refrained from going into such subjects on Patterico’s site beyond simply general points of law.

    But, what you hear on that tape is the real guy.

    And Beth isn’t any different. They are low-rent, no-class trash. Tim Chapman is the one guy with a repution of being a genuine good guy. But he owes his financial well-being to the other two.

    Comment by WLS (bafbcb) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:00 pm

  4. I’ve not had any professional dealings with the Chapman’s, but the shadiness and scams of the entire business of bail bonds would make a good topic for blogging. I’ll have to think about doing one over at our blog on Debunkers.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:10 pm

  5. His daughter told the National Enquirer pop used her to get women and crack. I read it right next to the checkstand where I do all of my research on celebrity trash.

    Comment by Banjo (b5278d) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:24 pm

  6. Has he ever discriminated against someone illegally based on race? Otherwise, I couldn’t care less if he used inappropriate language in a private conversation when he was angry.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:24 pm

  7. dave — that’s your perogative, and I don’t begrudge you your right to it.

    For me, its just a window into who the guy REALLY is.

    Comment by WLS (bafbcb) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:29 pm

  8. Has he ever discriminated against someone illegally based on race?

    Yes.

    He said he would fire someone if they didn’t stop dating a black woman.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:35 pm

  9. Hey, WLS, can you rescue the comment I just made ate by the spam filter, then delete this one? Thanks.

    Comment by Christoph (24f655) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:37 pm

  10. Christoph — I only have a posting account, I don’t have Admin. privileges.

    To avoid problems like that I usually type my comments on NotePad and then cut&paste them into the comment box. Its a pain, but its a whole-lot less painful than when a comment gets lost in the ethernet.

    Comment by WLS (bafbcb) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:44 pm

  11. For me, its just a window into who the guy REALLY is.

    Fair enough. But if you want to criticize every person who has used a racist slur, that covers about 80%+ of the black people I know.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:45 pm

  12. Okay, I’ll restate it and try to get it through.

    Dave, he DID illegally discriminate.

    “Has he ever discriminated against someone illegally based on race?”

    Uh, yeah. Did you miss the part where he threatened to FIRE someone unless they stopped dating a black woman?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:48 pm

  13. I didn’t listen to the tape. And I wouldn’t be so sure about the illegality of it. He threatened to fire his son, not the woman.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:52 pm

  14. You can’t legally threaten to fire someone because they are in an interracial relationship, [redacted].

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:54 pm

  15. Got case law to back it up?

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:55 pm

  16. Got case law to back it up?

    Comment by dave — 10/31/2007 @ 3:55 pm

    No, it’s so friggin’ self-evident I don’t. Are you just trying to prove your stupidity, allegiance to racists, or what?

    At any rate, I’m not a lawyer and am not going to hunt down case law for something this obvious. For what it’s worth, Eugene Volokh, UCLA law professor who blogs for the Volokh Conspiracy states:

    “…antidiscrimination law bars employers from firing people for dating outside their race.”

    … and in a country like the United States, with its history, this CLEARLY makes sense and I’m sure there’s a TON of case law to back it up.

    Why don’t YOU waste YOUR time finding it?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:05 pm

  17. Bounty hunters exist only as a consequence of prosecutors declining to prosecute them. They they have no more legal standing nor are they less guilty than any other kidnapper, home-invader or murderer.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:11 pm

  18. nk, with the caveat that they are usually licensed to carry out bounty hunter operations, no?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:13 pm

  19. nk — that’s not necessarily true, as many states have laws regulating “bounty hunting”. When a bail bondsman steps beyond what the law allows him to do in order to protect his bond, that bondsman is subject to both civil and criminal penalties.

    Comment by WLS (bafbcb) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:16 pm

  20. Hi Christoph,

    Welcome back. There is an exception in the law from civil liability for bailbondmen who go out and forcibly bring back defendants who skipped out on bond. But that’s as far as it goes. We don’t have outlawry in America nor self-appointed policemen.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:23 pm

  21. It’s unfortunate that Mr. Chapman goes around as a believing Christian and then swears like a fiend and then acts/dresses like a criminal.

    It’s pathetic, but I can’t say I’m surprised.

    Comment by Richard Romano (3df804) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:27 pm

  22. Thanks, nk.

    I know they’re not law enforcement officers and don’t have anywhere near the same powers… just saying, “no more legal standing,” is a stretch, at least in Hawaii.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:28 pm

  23. He may BE a believing Christian. I pray he is. Believing Christians are capable of sin, including racism.

    Nonetheless, what he said is disgusting and he will lose his show as well he should.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:29 pm

  24. Why don’t YOU waste YOUR time finding it?

    Oh, it’s much more fun to waste your time. And with the number of your posts, you have plenty of time to waste.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 10/31/2007 @ 5:09 pm

  25. So yes, as you tacitly and aptly concede in your previous comment, dave, you were wrong: Duane Chapman clearly discriminated as a matter of law in addition to the disgusting racist nature of his slurs.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 10/31/2007 @ 5:12 pm

  26. Gee, I’m glad everyone who posts here is an actual lawyer and can write so expertly about the laws on discrimination. Can I play attorney on your web site too? From what I can tell by checking the web page of the EEOC, small companies with fewer than 15 employees are treated very differently with regard to discrimination laws than are larger companies. Such small companies are exempt from civil rights and public accomodations laws, and may well be able to discriminate at will, for any and all reasons, against their employees. I don’t think that means they cannot be held liable in a private law suit for unjust termination, but that’s a private matter, not a state one. Maybe the last word on this matter is best left to the folks who have real law licenses instead of those of us who only have aspirations in that direction.

    Comment by Iapetus (ea6f31) — 10/31/2007 @ 5:50 pm

  27. lol – This is whole thread is amazing.
    I’m not sure who could be awake and never figure the dog is a skumbag. One look settles it.
    On the other side of that coin, I find it hilarious that in his little recording he wants to avoid the very thing coming down on him now.
    More touchy feely egg walking in this society combined with massive self-deception.
    It’s time for the 1984 think police to get busy.
    Oh wait, it’s already a solid hard and fast rule in most people’s minds and mouths.
    What a joke it all is to me.

    Comment by SiliconDoc (da9276) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:07 pm

  28. Post the damn link. What the heck? You people make me sick. Put up or SHUT UP!!!!

    Comment by TCO (3b23ad) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:16 pm

  29. If it is okay to talk about Chapman’s racist comments, it ought to be okay to link to them at the National Enquirer.

    Comment by Joshua (fb6af8) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:46 pm

  30. Iapetus, you will find that in addition to Federal law, many states have statutory bars on discrimination. Hawaii has state laws against many forms of discrimination with different definitions of covered employers.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:48 pm

  31. Here’s a Breitbart link, too.

    Comment by DRJ (5c60fb) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:08 pm

  32. I wasn’t aware that Tucker worked for Duane…

    At all.

    That struck me right off. I don’t recall ever seeing him on the show, period.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:12 pm

  33. I didn’t listen to the tape because I’ve always wanted to grab Dog by the braided mullet and pull down while punching up…. shocked it hasn’t been tried.
    All that add up to me being annoyed by the guy… but am I correct in hearing that he threatened to fire his son for dating a black woman?
    I dunno much about the law and business, but my guess is dad will say it was a heat of the moment parent talking son away from gold digging hoochie thing and the court will decline to get involved.
    The network should cancel his show
    1. Because it is awful
    2. Because I’d cry myself to sleep every night in my cell if I let that guy bring me in without at least busting his dumbass sunglasses
    3. Failing the above, they could seize this liferaft and cancel the show because “Dog is racist”. Sometimes good things happen to bad network programming

    So…. which network will pick up the show?
    VS?

    Comment by SteveG (4e16fc) — 10/31/2007 @ 8:28 pm

  34. Was it legal for the Enquirer to intercept his phone call?

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:27 pm

  35. When it comes to bounty hunters, I prefer Stephanie Plum and her sidekick Lula ;-)

    Comment by Karen (cd3dd7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:29 am

  36. “Was it legal for the Enquirer to intercept his phone call?”

    IF… the Enquirer intercepted his phone call, no. But they didn’t. That would be insane.

    One of the participants of the call, and I think we know who, most likely recorded it. This is legal in most, but not all states (one participant has to be aware it’s being recorded; in a few states all participants must be aware).

    If on the other hand another party, like one of the Chapmans or the girlfriend, used surveillance equipment to intercept the call without the knowledge of either participant, then that person would indeed be liable for criminal penalties.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:29 am

  37. I see some of the commenters trying to impose their touchy-feely ideas about what the law should be. I, for one, would like to see the actual statutes cited.

    I believe a post on bounty hunting WRITTEN BY A LAWYER VERSED IN THIS LAW would be appropriate right now. As I remember, Bounty Hunting came about during the early 1800s when there was not enough law enforcement officers, and that the Bounty Hunters were originally empowered by the courts citing a clause in the US Constitution.

    At this point, I think those who hate the idea of Bounty Hunters bringing in bail jumpers who the police can not find for whatever reason should either stick to facts or go smoke their dope.

    I have questions on the intercept of this call. Like the Democrat activists who illegally intercepted a Newt Gingrich call in FL, if a law was broken in this regard, both the interceptor and the promoter of this leaked call ought to be tried and jailed.

    Third, if Dog has objections to who his child dates, that is his right. If he doesn’t want to employ that child for cause, that is also his right.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:37 am

  38. “Third, if Dog has objections to who his child dates, that is his right. If he doesn’t want to employ that child for cause, that is also his right.”

    No, it isn’t. And you’re saying that doesn’t make it so.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 5:06 am

  39. 38, Christoph, The US is not Canada. You can deny employment FOR CAUSE.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 5:38 am

  40. Especially if it is a family business. Daddy doesn’t HAVE to employ anyone.

    And it’s a shame. I always thought Baby Lyssa was kind cute, in that “lil-bit of trashy” way.

    What?

    Oh, screw you for judging me. At least I got over my infatuation with Nancy Grace (I blame the drugs I might someday take for that one).

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:17 am

  41. His son is a convicted felon and did 5 years in the joint. He had to be the one who released this to the media. Hope it was worth it. Now, everyone’s job is at jeopardy.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:22 am

  42. Chapman’s most serious crime is wearing that horrible leather vest and thereby recklessly and wantonly exposing the public to the sight of his gut.

    Comment by Moops (444e9b) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:38 am

  43. This has absolutely nothing to do with the post, but it’s rather funny:

    When I read comment #9 (“Hey, WLS, can you rescue the comment I just made ate by the spam filter …”), I first read it as “can you recuse the comment”. I thought “Wait, that can’t be right,” read the comment again, and still read it as “recuse”. It took a third reading to finally see that the word really was rescue.

    The punchline? I’m not a lawyer, I don’t watch T.V. courtroom dramas… Heck, I’ve only ever been inside an (active) courtroom once in my entire life. (I also visited an empty courtroom during a tour of the Supreme Court building back in high school). So why did I read that word as “recuse” not once, but twice?

    I think reading Patterico’s blog is subtly influencing my brain…

    Comment by Robin Munn (fe5185) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:46 am

  44. “His son is a convicted felon and did 5 years in the joint. He had to be the one who released this to the media.”

    Ah yes, his son… convicted felon. Unlike the father who was only convicted by statute for first degree murder.

    “Now, everyone’s job is at jeopardy.”

    So getting aside from family relationships for a second… a person threatens to fire you for dating someone of an unapproved-by-the-boss race… because the boss can’t be bothered to refrain from using the term nigger… and he, the person threatened with being fired for this reason, is the bad guy.

    If you were my boss, dave, and you threatened to fire me because of my girlfriend — who, like myself, is the product of a mixed-race relationship — I would fry your ass with any tape I had.

    If I could sell it, great. If I could use it as evidence at a discrimination hearing while I go after your assets, fantastic. And I would do it with such a wide smile on my face while I thought about how you had demeaned my girlfriend’s humanity.

    YOU DISGUSTING PUKE.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:56 am

  45. So getting aside from family relationships for a second . . .

    Stick with the facts. You don’t get to make up your own. The guy is on parole. His job prospects suck.

    If you were my boss, dave, and you threatened to fire me because of my girlfriend — who, like myself, is the product of a mixed-race relationship — I would fry your ass with any tape I had.

    What? No empty threats to punch my face? Since, I would never hire an a-hole like you, you have nothing to worry about. All my employees would quit if they had to work with a jerk like you.

    If I could sell it, great. If I could use it as evidence at a discrimination hearing while I go after your assets, fantastic. And I would do it with such a wide smile on my face while I thought about how you had demeaned my girlfriend’s humanity. YOU DISGUSTING PUKE.

    LOL! You idiot! If you think this guy will get rich selling this tape or by suing his father, you are a bigger fool than I already know you are.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:05 am

  46. Christoph, I doubt Dawg’s view on black people is a secret he’s cunningly kept hidden from his family.

    All his son (assuming it’s the son who recorded and released the tap) has done is put in jepordy the livelyhood of the family.

    Dawg’s a racist. So what. If his son didn’t know that, the son’s a moron.

    So what has actually been gained by this?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:07 am

  47. Dave…

    You hiring?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:08 am

  48. dave, you defend a racist, first making up law to suit your position, then leaving it entirely when it dawns on you — like it was already obvious to everyone else here — that you can’t fire someone because you don’t like the race of their choice of romantic partner.

    “getting aside from family relationships”

    … is simply because it’s not relevant from employment law. But for what it’s worth, I’d be even more offended at my parent telling me not to be with the woman I love because of her race than a stranger.

    “I would never hire an a-hole like you”

    Who you would hire — with your already stated disregard to discrimination laws and your jumping to a racists defense is of little importance to me.

    Punch your face? No, but if you behaved as above and it was on tape you WOULD lose some of your assets. Guaranteed.

    A bad lawyer would beat you in court and your own would tell you to settle. A good lawyer would take you to the cleaners.

    Now would they be able to do that?

    Oh right, it’s because you’re totally wrong and because your position is disgusting and inhumane.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:11 am

  49. “So what has actually been gained by this?”

    A racist has been outed. That is a boon by itself. Now, if the racist is to be believed, he has a genuine chance of repentance and contrition if he so desires.

    Further, a racist who suffers a business failure pour encourager les autres is, again, a boon to society.

    It’s always unfortunate when a nasty piece of work suffers a financial setback which limits their ability to employ others… most of whom, I assume, are not racists… but that is no reason to protect the financial interests of the racist employer.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:14 am

  50. Robin #43,

    I think the problem is with having learned to sight read more than just one-syllable words. I know that it’s hurt my spelling ability when writing.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:14 am

  51. Canucknut: As much as you want to be, you are not an expert in the law. Your expertise is sitting all day posting as many comments as humanly possible, threatening people you disagree with and maintaining your title of the number one internet blowhard. Since, he was not fired, there is no case. However, now that he has deliberately tanked the business, he will be fired for cause. He sure showed Pop! Apparently, you both have similar levels of maturity.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:00 am

  52. Ultimately this doesn’t come down to employment law, this comes down to business decisions regarding the reputation of A&E. Naturally, they will decide they don’t want to be associated with someone who is so obviously racist and bye bye show. Duane Chapman is responsible for this state of affairs as he — ironically — pointed out in his racist tirade. He knew — correctly — that if he was taped using the word nigger, something he apparently used frequently by his words, that it would tank his career. And he still did it.

    Now who brought up the whole employment law angle? That would be you, comment #6. Just pointing out you were wrong and indefensibly so.

    To the exceedingly limited degree employment law is relevant here, do you think you can threaten someone with being being fired for a discriminatory reason and this is okay so long as you don’t actually fire them?

    Harrumph. You make a better moronic commentator than you would a Phil-quality lawyer.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:07 am

  53. Christoph, Dog was criticizing his son’s girlfriend’s personality and behavior. As ham handedly as Dog could he was trying not to make race an issue. Was this the first conversation these two have had? I’d say not, else why would Tucker be so ready with a tape recorder.

    And, where is the rest of the conversation??? I’d like to know who brought up her race. I’d bet Tucker said, “You don’t like her because she’s black.”

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:12 am

  54. PCD, it’s all well and good that he says he doesn’t care her race while calling black people fucking niggers… but it’s a bit of a stretch to believe him. He also referred to a female family member and pointed out that there is no way in hell he wouldn’t object to her dating a “nigger”.

    At some point, reasonable people will conclude he’s racist. At any rate, he’s not in control of himself and he knew that in America, racist tirades with the word nigger in it tend to cost you your career.

    And damned if isn’t right about that.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:15 am

  55. 51, dave, the show may be finished, but Da Kine bailbonds will go on. As much as the sour cannuck wishes, Dog is not destroyed. The idiot son ruined everything for his selfish self. There’s more to the story than the “National Tattler” told. I don’t have anymore than what is published.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:16 am

  56. 54, Sour Cannuck, we have racist held in high esteem in public life every day. Try Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Jr., Al Sharpton, Sen. Robt. Byrd, your average “Gangsta” rapper, all of them are racists, yet you don’t have sourballs such as yourself and the “National Tattler” trying to ruin their lives and reputations.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:20 am

  57. Da Kine bailbonds may or may not go on… I’m sure Dog has sowed some family discord… if my dad told a sibling not to date a woman of a given race and that he would fire my sibling if he continued because, by God, my dad wasn’t going to take the chance of this lowlife woman taping him calling black people niggers… well, this would sow discord with me.

    Ultimately though, I doubt his son will sue him for discrimination… even though, if he does, he has a case. In any event, I’m curious what the licensing requirements are for bail bonds people in Hawaii and whether demonstrated racism in employment practices is a cause for concern.

    Lawyers with actual knowledge of how these processes work could speak up. I don’t know. It’s an interesting question.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:20 am

  58. 57, Sourball, you know nothing, in fact you don’t know Jack…

    The license can not be pulled for being run by a racist. With thinking like yours, no wonder Canada is so screwed up!

    Again, unless Da Kine was stripped of all its assets, it will go on. Only a socialist like you could think otherwise.

    Take a minute and think of a bailbondman’s clientele. They aren’t rich enough to post the bail. They must pay someone a fee to post the bail for them. If you think that bailbondsmen should look the other way when people skip out on the bond, you are a complete fool.

    Comment by PCD (087328) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:28 am

  59. PCD, other than mentioning that there may be a cause of action for discrimination only in response to dave’s question implying there wasn’t any, when have I advocated ANY of the bullshit you mention in your 9:28 am comment:
            • socialism?
            • bailbondsmen should look the other way when people skip out on the bond?

    I haven’t. You’re just grabbing arguments out of your ass like dave was grabbing legal reasoning out of his.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:33 am

  60. 59, oh, you are the only one annointed to pull things out of your sit down region? Quit projecting your faults upon others in a public forum. It is quite unbecoming.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:38 am

  61. In Hawaii, there are no special provisions regulating bounty hunters; however, bail bond agents are licensed as insurance producers and have to meet the same licensing requirement — including personal history, experience, business record, and “other personal facts as the commissioner may reasonably require”.

    Specifically, the bail bond agent must meet the requirements of State of Hawaii Revised Statutes Title 24 Chapter 431:9A-112.

    Considering that employment discrimination intersects with a person’s business record, the commissioner (possibly with authority delegated to an advisory board) may upon receipt of a complaint have grounds to investigate. So barring a complaint, no grounds to investigate. With a complaint, probably an uphill battle to pull Duane Chapman’s license… but, wait, he ain’t got no license.

    Because of his past murder felony conviction, he’s not the bond agent. He’s an employee of his wife’s company. So, in the end, he can’t lose a license he doesn’t have. But since he was acting in a managerial capacity, Da Kine could still theoretically face a discrimination suit. To defend itself from such a suit and any highly theoretical licensing complications, perhaps Dog will be fired.

    Very sad.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 10:02 am

  62. 61, Sourgrapes, that was a lot of verbiage to prove, like Cool Hand Luke, “You ain’t got nuthin.”

    Did you ever consider doing something constructive like actually studying what you blather on about?

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 10:36 am

  63. Disgusting. His loser son goads him into an angry conversation, tapes it, releases it to the National Enquirer, and some of the people on this board say he should lose his livelihood? Really? Based on what? He is the owner of a private business. He need not hire anyone whom he does not wish to hire, for any or no reason. This is America. We have a little thing called the first amendment.

    Racism and racial epithets are not illegal. Grow up.

    Comment by fugazi (55f565) — 11/1/2007 @ 10:52 am

  64. I don’t know how many commentors have listened to the full length tape but it doesn’t appear that Tucker is being fired because he is dating a black girl. It appears to be because Monique (said black girl) is said to be trying to catch Dog and or Beth using the N word by wearing a wire or other recording device.

    It seems Dog fears his livelihood is threatened by someone in his inner circle recording his saying “inappropriate” things. It seems his fears were not unfounded.

    Comment by Cindy (9ab290) — 11/1/2007 @ 10:53 am

  65. “He need not hire anyone whom he does not wish to hire, for any or no reason.”

    You are wrong.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 10:53 am

  66. 65, Cite statutes. Don’t pull things out of your neither region as you accuse others of doing.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 10:57 am

  67. “We have a little thing called the first amendment.”

    It’s funny that you should mention the first amendment because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it includes the freedom to form intimate personal associations — precisely what the son was threatened with being fired for if he persisted.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 10:59 am

  68. PCD, troll, see comment 16.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:00 am

  69. 68, sourgrapes, see 62 and combine it with 66. All you’ve done is thrown dirt in the air instead of clarifying.

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:16 am

  70. Horrible language aside, it seems to be that his son’s girlfriend was up to no good, and that alone should be justification to terminate his job. I honestly don’t care if he’s racist or not. Where do we get this notion that everybody must get along? Yes, its sad that people are racist.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:18 am

  71. A bosses’ fear — while calling his employee’s girlfriend a nigger — that the girlfriend is “up to no good” — disputed by the employee — should, by itself, be justification to terminate his job?

    A judge would laugh that position out of court and a properly instructed jury would soon educate a business owner otherwise.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:26 am

  72. Oh, and he’s get a really BIG laugh out of the idea that how the girlfriend was up to no good was the bosses’ fear that she might tape him in the work environment calling people niggers… something he says a lot. As the great American philosopher, Clint Eastwood, said, “An opinion is like an asshole. Everybody’s got one,” and you’re living proof. Opinion, meet asshole. But don’t expect that drivel to fly in court.

    Any actual lawyer disagree?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:29 am

  73. So, Christoph, you are saying that Dog must hire his son? According to whom? You? He is under no obligation to hire anyone. For any or no reason. That is the American Way. He receives no tax money. He does not have to play by your rules, or the government’s rules when it comes to hiring. It’s called Freedom of Association. That’s in the Constitution as well.

    I’m sorry his use of words that offend your delicate sensibilities hurt your little feelings. But, it is not illegal to use racial epithets in a private conversation. It is also not illegal to not hire your son into your company for any or no reason. It is also not illegal to be a racist. Repugnant, yes. Illegal, no.

    Comment by fugazi (55f565) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:31 am

  74. Fugazi, you’re wrong. I understand the argument you’re making that a private person has the right to be racist and discriminate in hiring and firing practices. Except, he doesn’t. It’s called the federal Civil Rights Act of 1991 and, for state law in Hawaii, Revised Statute Chapter 378, Part I.

    So yes, I’ve heard your opinion. When it comes to employment, you are wrong. Don’t want to have a beer with a black man? As disgusting as I think that attitude is, that would be a person’s right. Don’t want to hire — or threaten to fire — someone because they are in a mixed race relationship?

    Absolutely categorically against the law and your opinion to the contrary doesn’t matter worth a hill of beans.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:39 am

  75. Sorry Christoph, I’m no lawyer, just a common practicer of common sense. Trash or not, Dog knowing that she was up to no good and being upset about somebody screwing his life and his family has every right to defend himself.
    Dog deals with the scum of the earth, I’m sure he has a multitude of derogatory names for people of all types. And while I may sit here and think of him as being “trash” or as mentioned above “white-trash” I can remember that not everybody in this world is like me, or my peers.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:44 am

  76. Christoph,

    Imagine it were a different scenario:

    Dog using fowl offensive language gets clued in that his son/employee’s girlfriend had malicious intent on recording his off-camera comments to make money for herself. Dog says to get rid of her or he’s fired… Now is it still about race? (I haven’t yet heard the clip because I’m at work)

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:47 am

  77. G, what he actually said on the tape though, regardless of what you’re “sure of”, is that he was worried she would tape him saying nigger at the work place, which he says he says a lot. Therefore, because he wanted to keep on saying nigger and didn’t trust this woman, his son couldn’t work there.

    That’s clearly discrimination under the relevant laws.

    Before it ever gets to the Hawaii Institute for Human Rights, which it probably won’t, Dog will be out of a show because of how embarrassing this is for A&E. And it’s their right — as backed up by their contract, I suspect — to be represented by someone who follows relevant laws including non-discrimination. Plus, their reputation is on the line if they have someone working for them that has clearly spouted racist rhetoric directly related to his work, the purpose for his reality show.

    If Dog has a right not to threaten to fire someone for dating a black girl who might allegedly according to his fears tape him saying racist words while he’s working (he doesn’t)… then surely A&E has every right to terminate its business relationship with such a man.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:51 am

  78. So, again, Christoph. Dog is compelled to hire this person? Who will make him hire him? You? The government? He is not an employee. Therefore, he has no standing in the company, and no recourse.

    You, sir, are dead wrong. Dog did nothing illegal. Absolutely nothing. And your opinion otherwise is not worth a hill of beans. There is no law against not hiring someone if you own a private company. You can not hire them because you don’t like their shirt, their haircut, or their girlfriend. No recourse.

    Did you listen to the tape? Please tell me what specific law Dog broke.

    Comment by fugazi (55f565) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:55 am

  79. Obviously if an employer had reason to believe a person would be wiretapping him and he told the employee he can’t bring that person near him, that would be legal. Whether he could fire the employee based solely on his fears is another matter. That could easily be a straight wrongful dismissal suit no race involved.

    But when you listen to the complete tape you will see the facts as outlined by Dog are:

    - he frequently said the word nigger
    - he wanted to keep saying the word nigger
    - he didn’t want to be recorded saying the word nigger
    - he feared she might want to record him saying the word nigger because she’s black
    - he especially feared a black person hearing him say the word nigger
    - and to rub salt into his own self-inflicted wound, he made the point that it would clearly emphatically not be acceptable for another unrelated shared female family member of theirs to date a “nigger”

    All in all, this is racism. It’s certainly a violation of H.R.S. Chapter 378, Part I.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:57 am

  80. Christoph must be French Canadian, and more French than Canadian.

    All employees of Da Kine Bailbonds are “At Will” employees. There is no applications to fill out, nor are there advertisements for employment. Christoph is using French laws that bind the employer from firing bad employees, but this is America, not Canada nor France.

    Also, the girlfriend doing the taping is not an employee. Therefore, Tucker allowing a non-employee to commit illegal acts on company property is eligible and liable to be FIRED!

    Comment by PCD (b47ba5) — 11/1/2007 @ 11:59 am

  81. “he was worried she would tape him saying” n***** “at the work place” (Sorry, personally don’t like the N word)

    So in other words, he was wanting to protect his job from a threat by firing his son, because he wouldn’t get rid of a person who was said such threat. So the reason is that she is a threat, and not because of the color of her skin.

    Oh, and A&E has every right to terminate their relationship with Dog.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:01 pm

  82. “Did you listen to the tape? Please tell me what specific law Dog broke.”

    Yes. Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 378-2(1)(A).

    Specifically, the race of the person he was in a relationship with (his “marital status”) as defined in the same subsection. Courts have upheld this interpretation as UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh states.

    Capiche?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:03 pm

  83. No, PCD, you’re wrong. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the firing of employees on the basis of race, even if they are at-will. I’m not sure if “Da Kine” falls under Title VII, however.

    Comment by Moops (444e9b) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:03 pm

  84. “Whether he could fire the employee based solely on his fears is another matter.”

    Is it? Sounds like he’s an employer at will.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:04 pm

  85. Oh, and Christoph, I am being serious here. Is it necessary for you to use the n-word every flipping time. I hate that word, and I know the context in which you are using isn’t done to be harmful. But do you have to say it so many times? Why can’t use “n-word” or “N*****” ? Same effect, less distasteful word.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:07 pm

  86. “Christoph is using French laws that bind the employer from firing bad employees, but this is America, not Canada nor France.”

    Totally. My last hour spent talking about the 1991 federal Civil Rights Act and the Hawaii Revised Statutes are all French Canadian law, which, as a Canadian from an English speaking province, I go by.

    Do you need glasses to read better or omega-3 enriched fish oil to think better?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:10 pm

  87. I’m not sure if “Da Kine” falls under Title VII, however.

    Case law since 1964 didn’t strongly support applying Title VII to private companies, however the federal 1991 Civil Rights Act and subsequent case law does. In this case, the company has less than 15 employees (I believe) so they may not fall under federal jurisdiction.

    Yet they clearly fall under Hawaii’s revised statutes, which include any company employing one or more people in Hawaii, but not including the United States.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:14 pm

  88. Oh, and Christoph, I am being serious here. Is it necessary for you to use the n-word every flipping time.

    No lie.

    It’s like he’s getting of when he says it. Like he’s fapping the hell outta himself as he types it one-handed…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:15 pm

  89. Whatever man, Out of all the comments here, you are the only person using that word. 16 times I might add. So use it if you feel you must, but I don’t see any reason why you need to. We all know the word already.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:18 pm

  90. I believe in approaching an issue or word squarely, not euphemisms. Before the O.J. trial, the euphamism wasn’t common anyway. N-word sounds childish to me and what Dog said was anything but.

    Nonetheless, my point has been made and it gives me no pleasure to say that word. I am not the one defending a racist, his actions, or words on this board. If you have a strong reaction to it from someone who abhors racism, imagine how Tucker’s girlfriend would have felt hearing it from her boyfriend’s father and boss.

    ‘Cause apparently controlling himself simply wasn’t an option.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:19 pm

  91. As much as I hate racism, I love free speech. I don’t associate myself with racists in my personal life, but I don’t believe in witch hunting them down either. The way I see it, racism is already on its way out, and will be gone in a generation or two.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:22 pm

  92. And exposing incidents like this with actual hard consequences will accelerate its decline, G.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:23 pm

  93. I disagree. I think it adds fuel to the fire and moreso pushes people against each other. Take this thread for that matter and all the disagreement. I guess I see this situation as Dog wanting to remove this person because she was a threat, and others see it as him wanting to remove this person because she was black.

    Now honestly is that really it?

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:28 pm

  94. Why don’t you listen to the tape G? I assure you I’ve described it accurately in comment 79.

    You’ve been civil — I give you that — but it demeans others perceptions of you to offer such argument and opinion when you haven’t even heard the audio yet.

    “I guess I see this situation as Dog wanting to remove this person because she was a threat, and others see it as him wanting to remove this person because she was black.”

    I started (see comment 1) as a fan of Dog. The tape swayed me. Learning of his recent financial and “moral” support for the jailed underage girl porno king behind Girls Gone Wild didn’t help much either.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:35 pm

  95. Why don’t you listen to the tape G? I assure you I’ve described it accurately in comment 79.

    You’ve been civil — I give you that — but it demeans others perceptions of you to offer such argument and opinion when you haven’t even heard the audio yet.

    “I guess I see this situation as Dog wanting to remove this person because she was a threat, and others see it as him wanting to remove this person because she was black.”

    I started (see comment 1) as a fan of Dog. The tape swayed me.

    [adding more in separate comment to bypass spam filter]

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:39 pm

  96. Racism is stupid, but calling for the forcible cancellation of a TV show because a guy SAID A WORD that people find offensive is much scarier than some idiot using the word.

    I have never watched this show and I don’t support this guy in any way. But I am a bit frightened by the fact that we have elevated “racism” into the cardinal sin of all the universe in this country. When Michael Richards uses the “n-word”, we blow up for a month like it’s the worst thing that’s ever happened on earth(even though many black people use the word all the time). But when people get beheaded in Iraq, the country hardly notices.

    Have we not gone a bit overboard here? Racism is bad, but it is NOT the worst thing on earth, I promise you. There are far worse things than people being idiots.

    And now we patrol and police, ready to destroy people at the very utterance or even perceived utterance of a WORD – we ruin people’s lives and careers over such things. We try to apply pressure to shut them down and get them ostracized from society or fired from their jobs.

    This is some pretty scary 1984, thought police-type stuff, isn’t it? Especially since it’s so one-sided – you can be a Democrat and get away with saying even worse things, like Robert Byrd in 2000, or Jesse Jackson’s anti-Jewish remarks, or the remarks of Joseph Biden, and on and on and on… If your politics are “right”, you won’t get destroyed, if they’re wrong, then here comes the thought police to nail you if anything they don’t like is said.

    Why do this by force? Why call for the guy’s show to be canceled because he said something you don’t like? He said it – people know it. So if people don’t like it they can turn his show off and poor ratings will take it off the air fair and square.

    Why not let that process work? Why the force? It’s a pretty frightening world we live in now where WORDS people say are met with rabid, life-destroying rage and action… if your politics aren’t “right”.

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:40 pm

  97. Damn thing won’t get past the spam filter.

    Anyway, Dog supports (including with money) the jailed under age porn king behind Girls Gone Wild. This is pretty despicable too, for a supposed Christian or a man for that matter, a father.

    Very disturbing. Didn’t raise my opinion of Dog one bit. I’m curious what wls thinks about it.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:43 pm

  98. “So if people don’t like it they can turn his show off and poor ratings will take it off the air fair and square.”

    But apparently if you’re black, or dating a black person, you can’t work for Da Kine. A&E can’t support that shit.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:44 pm

  99. Says you.

    You – in the words of wise children everywhere – aren’t the boss of them.

    So how about you try a big tall glass of ‘shut the hell up’?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:45 pm

  100. I’ll say whatever I want Scott. And as for “Says You”, that would be “Says Dog”.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:47 pm

  101. Dog said if his “N-word” usage got out, it would ruin his career. Well shazam! He’s right.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:48 pm

  102. Well ain’t you just the God of Everything…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:50 pm

  103. Why not let that process work? Why the force?

    Many people like myself who DID watch his show… heck, I visited his hokey website and signed his petition… have said we’re not going to watch the show again. We’ve called for A&E to cancel the show. That’s not “force”. You’re mischaracterizing that.

    It’s consumers expressing their opinion and, I suspect strongly, advertisers and the broadcaster will listen, as well they should.

    This is the free market at work, bud. Aside from mentioning that if he chose to pursue it (unlikely) his son would have a cause of action against Da Kine for discrimination, which he clearly would, I haven’t called for any government intervention.

    Just expressing my opinion that the private company broadcaster should do the right thing and disassociate itself from a former convicted murderer who has shown himself to be a 2007 racist employer.

    I’m letting “the process” work. You won’t find me with a wood torch in my hand outside the broadcast network anytime soon. Just writing a comments on a blog, dude.

    Chill.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:53 pm

  104. Calling to get him jerked from the air is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Again, he said WORDS. Oooooohhhhhhh, how scawy…

    I’m not saying you have no right to call. You do. I’m saying it’s a pretty busybody thing to do – what effort did you put out along those lines when Daniel Pearl was beheaded in Pakistan? Who did you call then, and where did your ire go to? How many comments on that situation will we find online the day after it broke, versus all you’re writing about some idiot who said some scawy words?

    You’re a busybody. You don’t like what people say so you try to force them off the air, instead of just not watching if you found it distasteful and letting others who might not find such distaste in it(whoever they may be) continue watching if they wanted to.

    And no, I don’t think the government should be able to force people to hire or not hire anybody for any reason. Again, if a guy wants to be an idiot and not hire somebody because they’re black, that’s his right – or should be.

    It’s also my right not to patronize that guy’s business if I disagree with his hiring practices. But why take away a guy’s right because you disagree with him by using the force of government? It’s just not necessary.

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:08 pm

  105. Who did you call then, and where did your ire go to?

    Why, Bushitler and his illegal war, natch…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:11 pm

  106. “And no, I don’t think the government should be able to force people to hire or not hire anybody for any reason.”

    Duly noted. Nonetheless, it is illegal (and immoral) not to hire someone for racial reasons. Basically, what you’re arguing is people have a right to discriminate.

    Fine. That’s one point of view. I don’t share it. I think it’s evil.

    Daniel Pearl? I commented on it, although there were less legal issues to talk about. Plus, I didn’t watch his television show or visit his website before his death. Yes, it was awful what happened to him. I’m not sure a large number of comments from me would have helped his situation any, but the total number was probably around 10.

    You know, your personal insults really aren’t necessary, but since the law isn’t on your side I guess that’s what you have left. So I understand.

    Pretty much every topic on this site is discussed because the person involved considers it interesting. Patterico.com is many things, but with the exception of whacking the LAT once in a while, it really isn’t the single most effective way of effecting change for anyone other than, maybe, Patterico. When you look at the title of your post you’ll see it was posted why?

    To rival the goodness of blogging about Daniel Pearl (huh?)… or because it is “amusing” to wls. I’m pretty sure he said the latter.

    I have an interest in Dog Chapman’s show, unlike you who were never a fan. I’m interested in employment law. I’m interested also how it is applied in different jurisdictions and am interested in anti-discrimination law as it is applied to mixed race relationships because I just so happen to be in one.

    But you clearly believe an employer should be able to discriminate against me because of my darker girlfriend or against her because of me. And you lecture me?

    That’s pathetic.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:20 pm

  107. Scott Jacobs, I’m a strong Bush supporter, occasionally critical of him on certain issues like immigration, and a strong supporter of the war effort against Islamic terrorists. So watch your mouth out with soap you liar. You’ve seen me comment for long enough that you should know this.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:22 pm

  108. *wash

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:22 pm

  109. What makes the idea that people should be able to discriminate in this case especially evil is no one is going to discriminate because someone is in a same-race relationship. But others will feel free — minus the coercive power of human rights law — to discriminate against mixed race people or those in mixed race relationships.

    So, someone like myself or, worse, my beautiful girlfriend will suffer a financial handicap compared to same race couples. This means our children will as well.

    And you don’t see this as not only morally repugnant, but also a violation of human rights and illegal?

    Well, in any case, your “not seeing” aside — it is.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:30 pm

  110. Well, I heard his show got canceled. I watched it here and there. in related news, Don Imus is back.

    Comment by G (b0ba1b) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:37 pm

  111. I never said it wasn’t morally repugnant. I certainly believe it is. But I also don’t believe I have a right to tell somebody else how to live their lives just because I find their behavior “morally repugnant.”

    You, on the other hand, evidentially think it’s perfectly fine to enforce your moral point of view on others with the power of the state.

    It is no violation of human rights, either, because it is not a “right” to have a job – particularly a SPECIFIC job. It is a RIGHT to be alive and to live free. It is not a RIGHT to have a specific person give you a job.

    It IS illegal. But again, it should not be.

    What’s next? You don’t like fat people because they’ve eaten too much, so you’re going to use the government to force them to diet? When you start enforcing your own moral view on somebody that’s the kind of slope you are setting your house on.

    Government should exist to protect people’s freedom – and that’s it. Freedom from being harmed by violence when you’re minding your own business and freedom from people controlling your life by force.

    You are not supporting freedom when you force people to hire people they don’t want to. In fact, you’re an enemy to freedom.

    Real protection of freedom means protecting unpopular things, too, afterall. There’s no need to protect the popular.

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:37 pm

  112. Dunn, what you’re saying goes against basic human rights. People have a right to be free from discrimination in certain things including employment, housing, education, medical care, etc.

    If your way was the way, Lincoln would have won the civil war and blacks could just be refused service at restaurants, privately owned washrooms –

    Oh wait! That’s exactly what happened. Colon Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary of State and, if he had wanted the job enough to campaign for it, likely President, couldn’t take a piss except in the bush for vast stretches of road while driving home after serving the United States in war.

    But Eisenhower among others saw the evil of this and set about changes that lead to human rights being respected in employment, trade, and elsewhere. By your own libertarian logic no one should have been forced by the state to sell an ice cream cone to a black man if they didn’t want to… certainly, not in the regular part of the restaurant.

    And IBM could hire naught but white salesmen. Plus myself, my love, and my children would be at an economic disadvantage.

    Dunn, how should I put this? You’re an ass.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 1:43 pm

  113. Wrong. Those issues would’ve worked themselves out naturally, and the bi-product would not have been the racial BS victim industry we have now.

    I take freedom seriously. Why should I FORCE a guy to sell an ice cream cone to somebody he doesn’t want to? Isn’t HE the one selling the cone? Why should I stick my nose in such a transaction?

    I can organize and call for a boycott of such a guy. That is my right, and I and others can hurt his business by pointing out to the public that he’s an ass. And his business will suffer for that, as well as for the fact that he won’t serve a large segment of the population, which will further hurt his bottom line.

    Those are perfectly legitimate uses of freedom – my freedom NOT to buy his wares or do business with him because I disapprove of his attitude toward black people.

    Why is that not enough?

    Why must you busybodies then come in, and DENY FREEDOM to those who disagree with you, using the power of the state and saying “you MUST, even if you disagree.”

    Again, my way preserves freedom. Your way destroys it. And as in everything, your way will eventually move from limiting one “moral outrage” by government force to many other things… eventually getting to something you might NOT agree with. Then what?

    Several towns next to me have banned raves. I don’t go to raves, and they didn’t ban the raves for noise or crime reasons – those things weren’t a factor. They just banned them because the community decided they didn’t like them. They were “morally outraged” by them – same as you here.

    Is that okay? Why not? If it’s okay to communally force one “moral standard” then why not another? Do you see where your way inevitably leads? It just does not work over the long haul.

    But that’s okay – you continue to advocate the destruction of people’s freedoms to live how they want and do business with who they want. I’ll continue to uphold freedom and the rights of those to live as they please as long as they aren’t doing violence to others or forcing them to do something they don’t want to do.(like you)

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 2:22 pm

  114. “I can organize and call for a boycott of such a guy.”

    Dunn

    You want to organize and call for a boycott of a man who doesn’t sell to blacks — something you don’t think he has to do — but if I write comments on a blog about a man whose show I have watched for years, whose petition I have signed, about a legal issue that affects me and my family personally, I am, how did you say it, a “busybody”?

    You’re rich.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 2:28 pm

  115. You continue to ignore the main thrust of my arguments(I can understand why, considering your basic non-arguments here) and then latch onto little things in an effort to deflect.

    I said it was your right to call above. Check it. I also said it was your right to do so in the message you’re responding to. No conflict there.

    I do think in the Dog case, it’s pretty busybodish to do so, as it was just some idiot on a voicemail and I don’t see how it affects his show that much. But again, it is certainly your right.

    More scary are the Congressmen and “leader”s demanding his show be shut down for saying words.

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 2:36 pm

  116. Yep, you’re a busy body. You are not a US citizen and you do not live in the US. So, stop pretending that you are.

    Comment by dave (185b67) — 11/1/2007 @ 2:38 pm

  117. “I don’t see how it affects his show that much…”

    Dunn

    You wouldn’t see how racist hiring practices in his show “affect it”.

    “You are not a US citizen and you do not live in the US. So, stop pretending that you are.”

    dave

    I live in Canada. I have never said I live in the U.S. I occasionally travel there.

    I am 99.98% sure that Dog the Bounty Hunter, formerly one of my favourite shows, was syndicated in and earned profit from Canadian fans, including yours truly.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 2:44 pm

  118. <>

    Then Dogs finely honed street smarts IQ approaching genius kicked in and he spills the n word onto a taped conversation that was all about his fears of being recorded using the n word?
    Wow
    Who’d of seen that coming?
    Oh…. wait…. he did see it coming and said it anyway.
    Awesome brah

    Still waiting for the show when 6 Hawaiians beat his ass.
    My experiences with native Hawaiians is that a lot of the guys like to fight.

    A good buddy of mine who is a cop down south of LA told me that when he was a rookie, they rolled out to a huge brawl in a Pacific Islander neighborhood.
    He goes to get out of the car and sees a woman pick up a cinder block two handed over her head and she hucks it at him like you’d throw a soccer ball. He’s 6’1″ 210lbs and was a baseball catcher in college he said he was smaller or lighter than anyone in the fight.

    Comment by SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/1/2007 @ 2:53 pm

  119. Funny, SteveG.

    While I see truth in your comment, I hope it doesn’t come to that. I pray it comes to what I wished for in comment 1: repentance, rehabilitation (again), and, yes, rebuilding… perhaps in a new direction.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 2:55 pm

  120. Just to clarify, I believe “Dog” was taped without his knowledge. He thought he was just on a live phone conversation with his son, if I’m not mistaken. It wasn’t as if he left this on a voicemail or something.

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 3:01 pm

  121. I’m amazed as I think about this conversation… I’m actually debating with someone who believes it is within their rights to run a restaurant and not to sell an ice cream cone to a black man or, presumably, for Colon Powell to not have had a clean dry place to urinate while driving home after serving his country. Black service station owners in the south were in rather short supply those days.

    Likewise, presumably a President Obama would have to bear the indignity of finding American businesses refusing to allow him entry or even, as the Bible so eloquently puts it, offering him as much as a cool glass of water.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 3:02 pm

  122. How many places like that do you think would be in existence today?

    It would’ve been taken care of naturally, by social progress and attitudes, without the need for government curtailing of freedoms which have far larger ramifications we’re still paying for and will continue to pay for from the precedent of using “moral outrage” to tell others how to live their lives at the point of a gun.

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 3:11 pm

  123. On the contrary. The police supported local racists discrimination as history shows. It was the power of the gun — including federal troops — both in the civil war and under Eisenhower and Kennedy… that broke the back of racism. Various pieces of legislation like the Hawaii revised statutes and Civil Rights Act continue this noble trend.

    How many would exist? One private business where my girlfriend or the children we will create together or myself as a mixed race person is not allowed to enter is one too many in a free country.

    You, sir, are disgusting.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 3:15 pm

  124. In a FREE country.

    Do you not see the irony there in what you’re saying? Not at all?

    A PRIVATE business is nothing more than a private residence where the owner allows the public to come in and conduct private business. The government should have no say or part in this affair.

    Is it okay for somebody to not let somebody in their house because of their race? It’s morally wrong, but who am I to tell somebody who they can let in their own house? Who are YOU to tell them that?

    Shouldn’t somebody have the right to decide who they want to let in to a building they own? Shouldn’t somebody have the righ to choose who they’d like to do business with? Who are WE to concern ourselves with the reasons of the private person by using public force to dictate their behavior?

    THAT is disgusting.

    I think it would be disgusting for a restaurant not to serve your girlfriend. I wouldn’t eat there. And neither should you. Just go to the 99% of restaurants that WOULD serve you nowadays and enjoy yourselves. Why do you want to be served by somebody like that in the first place?

    Once again, it IS a FREE country. Or is supposed to be. So the idiot should have the freedom to let who he wants in his own place, you should and do have the freedom to not do business with that idiot. Very simple.

    Your way is ugly. You take away people’s freedom by FORCE. Plain and simple.

    Comment by Dunn (159a08) — 11/1/2007 @ 3:28 pm

  125. I definitely would advocate using the force of governmental power against the discrimination you would allow, Dunn. Fortunately, I’ve already won. My way is the law.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 3:59 pm

  126. Christoph:

    Any actual lawyer disagree?

    Not only yes, but hell yes. Seeing as you’re Canadian, your complete ignorance about the basics of U.S. labor law might be excusable, but for the accompanying insufferable, more-enlightened-than-thou smugness. As a general rule, Fugazi was correct. Most U.S. states have employment at will, and Hawaii is no exception. Dog had every right to fire his son if he wanted to, either for a good reason, a great reason, a retarded reason, or no reason at all.

    Now, there are some exceptions to the at-will doctrine, i.e., you can fire someone for no reason but you can’t fire them for a reason specifically prohibited by law. If, for example, Dog had fired the pup for being black (not for dating a black chick, mind you, but for allegedly being black himself), that would have been a clear violation of H.R.S. § 378-2(1)(A). But we all know the pup is no blacker than Dog himself, so that “dog” don’t hunt. Ditto if Dog had fired his son for being gay, for being a woman, for being a member of a different religion, or for any other reason mentioned in that statute. But what the hell part of H.R.S. Chapter 378, Part I do you think prohibits anyone from firing an employee because he distrusts his girlfriend? You seem to have made that one up from whole cloth.

    Equally spurious is your claim that firing an employee based on honest but irrational (though in this case, 100% accurate) fears he or his girlfriend is taping you is grounds for a wrongful termination suit. Since when are “guys whose girlfriends I don’t trust” a protected class, anyway? Is there some part of H.R.S. Chapter 378, Part I that I completely missed? I’ve been canned myself for less than that; does that mean I can sue my former boss, too?

    Finally, your reference to the First Amendment is even more frivolous than your “la, la, la, Mr. At-Will Doctrine, I can’t hear you, la, la la” approach to labor law. Had you taken the time to read the amendment in question, you’d know that the entire amendment is prefaced by “Congress shall make no law…” Surely you do not wish to argue that Mr. Chapman is Congress (or a state, incorporated by the 14th Amendment), and that his personnel decisions are laws?!

    Comment by Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:35 pm

  127. The problem with your analysis, Xrlq, is that H.R.S. § 378-2(1)(A) also prohibits discrimination based on marital status, including being single, and this includes relationships an employee is in… as professor Volokh has pointed out, the courts have interpreted this to mean you can’t discriminate against someone for being in an interracial relationship.

    At will employees can’t be fired for prohibited discriminatory reasons.

    “guys whose girlfriends I don’t trust” a protected class, anyway

    This has nothing to do with the Hawaii statutes. It would only apply if the employee doesn’t have an employment contract (I assume he doesn’t) and Hawaii was not an at will state, which, you are correct, it is. So you are right here.

    I have read the first amendment. You should realize the Supreme Court has read into it a much broader interpretation than merely applying it to federal agencies. Your argument could definitely be made to a court as could mine. In fact, both have.

    So, to summarize: On the most directly relevant point, you are wrong. On the part where I was admittedly stretching, you are right. And on the last part, both sides could be argued.

    Your statement that Fugazi is correct is flat-out wrong. His main point is this:

    He need not hire anyone whom he does not wish to hire, for any or no reason. This is untrue per H.R.S. § 378-2(1)(A).

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:49 pm

  128. *And the remainder of the relevant subsections.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:50 pm

  129. The problem with your analysis, Xrlq, is that H.R.S. § 378-2(1)(A) also prohibits discrimination based on marital status, including being single, and this includes relationships an employee is in… as professor Volokh has pointed out, the courts have interpreted this to mean you can’t discriminate against someone for being in an interracial relationship.

    Even if you are quoting Volokh correctly (since when is “married to a black guy” a different marital status than “married to somebody else?”), dating is not a marital status, under the laws of Hawaii or anywhere else. To argue that “single but dating a black chick” is a different marital status from “single” defies reason. Single is single. If you have evidence Dog fired Tucker for being single, let’s hear it.

    I have read the first amendment. You should realize the Supreme Court has read into it a much broader interpretation than merely applying it to federal agencies. Your argument could definitely be made to a court as could mine. In fact, both have.

    Made? Possibly. I’ve met some pretty dumb lawyers in my day. Prevailed? Never. Like I said, the courts have extended the First Amendment to apply to the states, by way of their (dubious, but that’s another thread) interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But I defy you to produce a single case in which a court has ruled that a private individual or enterprise, not acting in coordination with a government agency or otherwise under color of law, is subject to the First Amendment. The state action doctrine is not a controversial theory; it’s Con Law 101.

    So, to summarize: On the most directly relevant point, you are wrong.

    To summarize what? Your hallucinations? Thus far, you’ve betrayed a piss poor knowledge of civil rights law, a horrendous knowledge of employment law, and no knowledge whatsoever of constitutional law. You haven’t demonstrated yourself to be right, or me to be wrong, about anything whatsoever.

    He need not hire anyone whom he does not wish to hire, for any or no reason. This is untrue per H.R.S. § 378-2(1)(A).

    Blah blah blah. All Fugazi did was state the at-will rule in the basic terms, as any employment lawyer would. If he had claimed there were no exceptions to that basic rule, then of course he would have been wrong, but certainly nowhere near as wrong as you were to deny that the basic rule applies at all.

    Comment by Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/1/2007 @ 5:16 pm

  130. Xrlq… let me ask you a simple question, could an employer discriminate against hiring a man not because the man is black, you understand, but because his girlfriend is? Or because he has a black friend?

    I bet you a lot of black people have black romantic partners, friends, parents, etc…

    Mind you, it’s not that the employer — who uses the N-word several times while referring to the employee’s girlfriend and also expresses his fear that the employee’s girlfriend will tape record him saying the N-word — has a problem with black employees. No, not at all. It’s just he doesn’t want their black friends to be near him while he’s working so he has the freedom to use the N-word at will.

    Are you getting any concept of how ridiculous your position is? You’d have the employer have the right to discriminate against employees’ based on the race of their unmarried partners.

    So, in order to protect themselves from job description they either:
          a) get married
          b) get a new romantic partner of an employer approved race
          c) give up romance altogether

    No modern court, certainly no Hawaiian court, would accept your ludicrousy.

    It’s possible that the case law for an unmarried couple hasn’t been tested yet in Hawaii, but as a case in Illinois related to federal law shows, everyone seriously involved assumes you can’t discriminate based on interracial relationships:

    We didn’t learn from Ineichen’s story whether discrimination based on interracial dating is a violation of federal law. We (the law firm providing analysis) suppose it is. Ameritech assumed so, and three other federal circuits have reached that conclusion, too. So we think you would be wise to operate on that principle when dealing with romances in your office.

    Also:

    “The state Supreme Court in Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Hawaii 530 (1993) recognized the relevance of the United States Supreme Court’s 1967 decision to strike down a Virginia statute which prohibited miscegenation, or interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The Hawaii Supreme Court has found that denial of same- gender marriage was presumed to be a violation of equal protection of the law unless the State could show a “compelling state interest” for such denial.”

    While that case referred to a married vs. unmarried couple, the Hawaiian constitution is ambitious, in many respects regarding discrimination more so than the U.S. constitution. It strains credulity to think they would let stand a scenario where an employer can discriminate against employees based on the race of the people the employee associates with.

    For this and other learned reasons, Professor Volokh is correct, I am sure, and you aren’t. Your position creates logical absurdities no court would allow to remain in place.

    For it wouldn’t be necessary to discriminate against black people, you just discriminate against their black friends, call them N-words, and walk away in court unscathed.

    Unlikely.

    My money’s on Professor Volokh, the Ameritech lawyers, and the law firm Matkov, Salzman, Madoff & Gunn — not yourself.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:08 pm

  131. Xrlq… let me ask you a simple question, could an employer discriminate against hiring a man not because the man is black, you understand, but because his girlfriend is? Or because he has a black friend?

    I bet you a lot of black people have black romantic partners, friends, parents, etc…

    Mind you, it’s not that the employer — who uses the N-word several times while referring to the employee’s girlfriend and also expresses his fear that the employee’s girlfriend will tape record him saying the N-word — has a problem with black employees. No, not at all. It’s just he doesn’t want their black friends to be near him while he’s working so he has the freedom to use the N-word at will.

    Are you getting any concept of how ridiculous your position is? You’d have the employer have the right to discriminate against employees’ based on the race of their unmarried partners.

    So, in order to protect themselves from job description they either:
          a) get married
          b) get a new romantic partner of an employer approved race
          c) give up romance altogether

    No modern court, certainly no Hawaiian court, would accept your ludicrousy.

    It’s possible that the case law for an unmarried couple hasn’t been tested yet in Hawaii, but as a case in Illinois related to federal law shows, everyone seriously involved assumes you can’t discriminate based on interracial relationships:

    We didn’t learn from Ineichen’s story whether discrimination based on interracial dating is a violation of federal law. We (the law firm providing analysis) suppose it is. Ameritech assumed so, and three other federal circuits have reached that conclusion, too. So we think you would be wise to operate on that principle when dealing with romances in your office.

    Also:

    “The state Supreme Court in Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Hawaii 530 (1993) recognized the relevance of the United States Supreme Court’s 1967 decision to strike down a Virginia statute which prohibited miscegenation, or interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The Hawaii Supreme Court has found that denial of same- gender marriage was presumed to be a violation of equal protection of the law unless the State could show a “compelling state interest” for such denial.”

    While that case referred to a married vs. unmarried couple, the Hawaiian constitution is ambitious, in many respects regarding discrimination more so than the U.S. constitution. It strains credulity to think they would let stand a scenario where an employer can discriminate against employees based on the race of the people the employee associates with.

    For this and other learned reasons, Professor Volokh is correct, I am sure, and you aren’t. Your position creates logical absurdities no court would allow to remain in place.

    For it wouldn’t be necessary to discriminate against black people, you just discriminate against their black friends, call them N-words, and walk away in court unscathed.

    Unlikely.

    My money’s on Professor Volokh, the Ameritech lawyers, and the law firm Matkov, Salzman, Madoff & Gunn — not yourself.

    http://www.hawaii.gov/
    lrb/rpts95/sol/cpt2.html

    http://www.hrhero.
    com/hl/111105-ct-interracial.
    shtml?HLw

    [hyperlinks munged to bypass spam filter]

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:11 pm

  132. *job discrimination

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:16 pm

  133. Xrlq, actually some states have in effect extended freedom of speech to the private actor/employment context. For example, by statute, Colorado protects employees from being fired for their off duty conduct – with the important exception that the conduct in question not be related to the employment. This statute has been interpreted to include off duty speech. I am not aware of any similar statute in Hawaii however.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:35 pm

  134. I am loathe to bring up another point, since my point in 130 was so strong, but smallbusiness.findlaw.com has a great point enhancing SPQR’s observation:

    Off-Duty Conduct. Attempts to regulate personal relationships and off-duty conduct of employees may subject employers to legal exposure. Disciplinary action in response to off-duty behavior that has no direct relationship to the workplace should be avoided or kept to a minimum. To protect themselves in this area, employers must:

    1. Demonstrate a legitimate business need;
    2. Communicate reasonable policies in company handbooks, memos or other written documents; and
    3. Warn employees as to what constitutes objectionable conduct and the penalties for committing violations of stated company policy. Certainly, at a minimum, the regulations or policies enunciated must comply with your state’s civil rights laws, must be consistent with other company policies, and cannot violate discrimination statutes in the process.

    And while this is a good point and may be valid in this case, the real key is that if you allowed discrimination based on the race of the people your employees associate with, you can effectively discriminate against all black or ethnic Chinese or whatever people because they will almost certainly know other people of their race, possibly as romantic partners.

    To say this is allowed under either the Hawaii or U.S. constitution is absurd. It certainly isn’t under antidiscrimination laws. It is effectively discriminating against the employee based on race: if not their race, then the race of people the employee knows.

    And lots of people know lots of people. Were that the law, anybody could discriminate against anyone based on race. And they cannot.

    If Dog wanted to ban this woman from coming to the workplace or from being with his employee when he was working based on a trust issue, he could have simply done that, minus the N-words and racial references to not only his son, but another family members forbidden N-word romantic partners… and all would be well in Dog’s life. As it is, he violated Hawaii state law, probably the relevant statute, and if not, its constitution.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:50 pm

  135. Xrlq… let me ask you a simple question, could an employer discriminate against hiring a man not because the man is black, you understand, but because his girlfriend is?

    Probably. Bob Jones University had that policy for many years. They finally ditched it when it cost them their tax-exempt status as a university, not because they couldn’t do it legally if they wanted to forgo federal funding – which presumably, bounty hunters like Chapman don’t qualify for, anyway.

    All this assumes, of course, that he fired his son because his girlfriend was black, and not for the other reasons he gave – reasons which, we now know, were quite correct.

    I bet you a lot of black people have black romantic partners, friends, parents, etc…

    If an employer had a policy of firing/ not hiring “guys with black girlfriends” as a ruse to fire / not hire employees who were themselves black, you might have a point. But it has no application here; Chapman applied his “no black girlfriends” rule, if indeed that is what it was, to one individual and one individual only – and one neither Chapman nor anyone else could possibly have mistaken for a black himself.

    Are you getting any concept of how ridiculous your position is? You’d have the employer have the right to discriminate against employees’ based on the race of their unmarried partners.

    Until and unless you can produce a statute that says otherwise, yes. That’s how the at-will doctrine works.

    While that case referred to a married vs. unmarried couple, the Hawaiian constitution is ambitious, in many respects regarding discrimination more so than the U.S. constitution. It strains credulity to think they would let stand a scenario where an employer can discriminate against employees based on the race of the people the employee associates with.

    Hardly. One of the cases you cited involved a plain admission that we don’t know whether federal law does what you claim it does or not (though I’m also unclear as to why you raised it, seeing as you’ve already admitted that the applicable federal laws don’t apply to Chapman’s outfit anyway). The other deals entirely with discrimination by government, vis a vis the Fourteenth Amendment and its Hawaii equivalent (Article I, Section 3), both of which apply exclusively to government, not private individuals or entities. Seriously, dude, is “by the state” Canadian for “by any guy I’m really pissed off at, whether he has any connection to the state or not?”

    As to your money being on “Volokh” rather than me, I’ll reserve judgment on that bet until you provide a link to the (allegedly) applicable Volokh quote. Given your track record, I’m more inclined to assume you’ve made as much hash of whatever Volokh wrote as you have of the U.S. Constitution, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the at-will doctrine generally (you also smugly assumed it was illegal to terminate someone based on your non-race-based fears, remember?), and just about every other law or legal opinion you’ve touched in this thread.

    Last and least, if you’re that desperate to get at Chapman somehow, why not forget the race issue and focus on his connection to the bail bond agency, instead? The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1033(e)(1)(A), prohibits any person convicted of a “criminal felony involving dishonesty or a breach of trust” from engaging in the business of insurance – whether in a licensed capacity or not – unless he has received a specific consent to do so from the Department of Insurance. I don’t know if Chapman has obtained such consent (most DOIs are loathe to grant it), and I suppose it’s debatable whether murder is a felony “involving dishonesty or breach of trust,” but at least you would have a colorable argument there, much stronger than any theory that a private citizen dissing his own son for dating a black girl constitutes a violation of anyone’s equal protection by the State of Hawaii.

    Comment by Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:55 pm

  136. I provided that link to Volokh’s statement twice, Xrlq. Here it is again.

    And I’ve also already said above, he’s not a licensed bond agent. His wife is.

    “dissing”?

    Threatening to fire.

    Finally, Bob Jones University defended its right to ban interracial relationships as part of its absolute right to interpret religious doctrine in its own way, as a religious institution, a Christian school (part of the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools). This isn’t comparable to a bail bonds agency licensed under Hawaii’s insurance regulations. Where, if you will read my relevant comment carefully, Duane Chapman was acting in a managerial capacity.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:03 pm

  137. To say this is allowed under either the Hawaii or U.S. constitution is absurd.

    Au contraire, to say this is prohibited, or in any way affected, by either the Hawaii or the U.S. Constitution is to prove yourself too ignorant to have any business discussing either. Here are the equal protection provisions of both (emphasis added):

    No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    U.S. Const., Amend 14, Sec. 1.

    Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State on account of sex.

    Hawaii Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3

    Do you seriously believe that Duane “Dog” Chapman is a state? Really?

    Comment by Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:08 pm

  138. “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

    Among the laws are the right not to be discriminated against in an employment situation due to race or marital status. Something which Volokh and the legal staff at Ameritech, three circuit courts, the law firm previously mentioned, smallbusiness.findlaw.com, etc., seems to feel apply to private employment law due to an employer’s public duty not to discriminate.

    Why don’t you argue this with Volokh? I’m sure he’d find it fascinating and I’d like to see it.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:12 pm

  139. Hawaii Constitution (your link):

    Section 5. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of the person’s civil rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of race, religion, sex or ancestry.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:14 pm

  140. “because of” is pretty broad. I’d say it would give a court — which might naturally find employees in very multiracial and mixed race relationship-friendly Hawaii being discriminated against based on the race of their romantic partners / associates both disturbing and unacceptable — a reason to declare this type of discrimination unconstitutional.

    You disagree with that, but the knowledgeable professionals who work in employment law appear to be betting my way. Note: the Hawaii constitution doesn’t say discrimination against a person is barred because of “their” race… or “his or her” race… it simply says “because of race”.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:29 pm

  141. The problem with your analysis, Xrlq,

    Quote of the day.

    Christoph asks for an actual lawyer to pipe in, and when one does so, he tells them they are wrong.

    Classic.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:29 pm

  142. I bet you a lot of black people have black romantic partners, friends, parents, etc…

    This brings up a possibly “humorous” loophole in the “Can’t fire someone because they are gay” rule…

    “Son, I’m not firing you because you’re a gay man, but because you are dating a gay man.”

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:32 pm

  143. Christoph,

    Give it up. Xrlq is right. Private discrimination is constitutionally prohibited under federal law through the exercise of the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce and to a small extent the Thirteenth Amendment. States can forbid it under their general police powers — “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

    Just to add a little more gasoline to the fire, a “confidential employee” does not enjoy the benefit of employment and non-discrimination laws.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:35 pm

  144. Ha ha, Scott. And well illustrated.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:35 pm

  145. nk, what you said makes no sense. You tell me to “give it up”, then say:

    “Private discrimination is constitutionally prohibited under federal law through the exercise of the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce and to a small extent the Thirteenth Amendment. States can forbid it under their general police powers…”

    Huh? I’m wrong because discrimination is prohibited, both on a federal and state level?

    Further, my limited knowledge, ála Google, is that this is a confidential employee. Explain how, please, it is lawful to discriminate against such a person on racial or other prohibited grounds.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:40 pm

  146. Again with the telling of American lawyers that they are wrong.

    Damn Canadians…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:42 pm

  147. If it makes you feel better, Scott, all my sources are American laws, and lawyers… including one in Patterico’s yonder sidebar.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:45 pm

  148. Christoph,

    My point was that private discrimination is prohibited legislatively, not constitutionally, and the federal government, being a government of limited and enumerated powers, derives its authority to so prohibit it mainly from the Commerce Clause and a little from the Thirteenth Amendment. The States may or may not enact anti-discrimination laws but their authority to do so is because they have the very broad, general police power of the sovereign (not enumerated limited powers). Their constitutions are not a grant of power — they are a limitation on their power. So the Hawaian constitution does not say what its citizens cannot do — it says what the state cannot do to its citizens.

    Anti-discrimination laws generally do exempt confidential employees. Don’t forget that there are other bases of discrimination than race. If you’re a die-hard conservative Republican do you want a moon-bat moveon.orgie for your personal assistant? Or would you prefer a guy over a girl for your private secretary?

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:55 pm

  149. Good explanation, NK.

    Comment by DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:57 pm

  150. Christoph…

    I don’t see how this ever would see much court over a labor violation.
    Dad makes intemperate threats and racist remarks about girlfriend Dad feels is backstabbing and untrustworthy.
    Son hasn’t actually been fired… girlfriend has actually been shown to have been untrustworthy in regards to the family business.
    N word used here as a reprehensible description of a person who has shown themselves an untrustworthy person.
    The casual use of the n-word by Dog and family may be repugnant, but they have every right to use it around themselves without some outsider trying to tape it and submarine the family business.

    Personally I think if it was such a big deal, they should have not used the n word around the kid or his girlfriend and told the kid to get rid of the backstabbing wench or get out of the business because she (girlfriend) was trying to bring it down.
    Not too many courts are going to make you keep someone whose girlfriend is intent on taping private family member to family member free speech in order to put it out into public to ruin a family business…. as awful as that speech is.

    Their lawyer will probably write the kid a letter reminding him that due to the nature of the family business contents of phone messages and private conversations are expected to be confidential… and then have them cut him his next check. The kid will cash it. They assign him to “go investigate something” and if anything else shows up in public they pull the plug on the kid…
    I’m sure someone here could make the whole labor law thing go away a lot easier than I described IF it was ever even a problem.

    The social stigma will take some undoing, which is OK by me, but I was only being a little bit facetious earlier when I asked if the VS channel would pick up the show.
    The people who watch “Dog Bounty Hunter” don’t seem like the demographic that gets their panties all in a twist over coarse racist language and advertisers have short memories on that stuff.

    By the way..
    What next?
    N word whistleblower law….?

    Comment by SteveG (4e16fc) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:58 pm

  151. In the case you’re discussing, nk, like a political appointment, yes you can use politics as criteria just like you could use religion as criteria when selecting a priest. The criteria, however, has to be related to the responsibilities of the position.

    In no way, shape, or form does the race of an bail recovery agent’s girlfriend have anything to do with the duties of said agent — except to the degree the boss has said he likes to use the N-word at work — and a Hawaiin court would not allow this discrimination.

    “Or would you prefer a guy over a girl for your private secretary?”

    I won’t claim to be an expert in law in your jurisdiction in this area (unlike the situation with calling your employees’ girlfriend a N-word and saying dump her or you’re fired where really it doesn’t take a legal genius to see the problem), but I’ve never personally heard of a situation where you could refuse to hire a secretary because of their sex. I suspect you’re wrong here too.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:02 pm

  152. “who has shown themselves an untrustworthy person”

    How?

    When?

    With what evidence?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:03 pm

  153. Incidentally… a person has a lawful right to record their own telephone calls in Hawaii.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:06 pm

  154. I think I could put an ad in the paper for a left-handed, redheaded, one-legged, Tibetan, female pituitary dwarf, for my private secretary and no one could say boo.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:09 pm

  155. Where, if you will read my relevant comment carefully, Duane Chapman was acting in a managerial capacity.

    Apparently, you’re just as incompetent at understanding blog comments as you are at reading statutes and constitutional provisions. What part of “whether in a licensed capacity or not” didn’t you understand? If Chapman is a prohibited person under VCCLEA (and I’m not saying that he is, only raising the possibility that he might be), then he’s not just barred from obtaining a license, he’s barred from working in that industry at all, even in a clerical capacity, let alone managerial. Want a not-completely-frivolous legal theory to beat up Chapman with? That’s it. You’re welcome.

    Among the laws are the right not to be discriminated against in an employment situation due to race or marital status.

    Oh, please. At the time the constitutional provisions were enacted, no one had a right to be free from private discrimination, period. If a state were to pass a law making it legal for private parties to discriminate against some races but not others, that would violate equal protection. But a law allowing everyone to discriminate equally does not. If blacks are just as free to discriminate against whites as vice-versa, how can the state be said to have denied equal protection to anybody? Equally bad is still equal.

    Something which Volokh and the legal staff at Ameritech, three circuit courts, the law firm previously mentioned, smallbusiness.findlaw.com, etc., seems to feel apply to private employment law due to an employer’s public duty not to discriminate.

    Hate to burst your bubble, but laws are what they say they are, or what courts rule they are. They’re not what anybody, even someone as smart as Volokh, “feels” they are. Volokh threw out his comment mostly as an aside while discussing a tangentially related issue. He didn’t cite to any specific statutes, so it’s impossible to know what statutes, if any, he was referring to – let alone whether those statutes apply here.

    Why don’t you argue this with Volokh? I’m sure he’d find it fascinating and I’d like to see it.

    I don’t think Volokh and I have anything to argue about. It would be interesting to know if he had any particular statutes in mind, but you’re just as capable of emailing him with that question as I am. Whatever you do, don’t raise your goofy “constitutional” arguments, which will serve only to brand you as someone who has no idea what he’s talking about (unless, of course, you also conceal the fact that we’re talking about a private employment issue, not a state action).

    Huh? I’m wrong because discrimination is prohibited, both on a federal and state level?

    No, you’re wrong because you cling to the frivolous notion that the federal and state constitutions prohibit private discrimination. State and federal statutes do prohibit discrimination under certain circumstances; however, those circumstances tend to be more clearly and narrowly defined, i.e., you can’t discriminate according to the specific criteria named in the statute, but can discriminate according to anything else.

    If it makes you feel better, Scott, all my sources are American laws, and lawyers… including one in Patterico’s yonder sidebar.

    It shouldn’t, seeing as you’ve taken that one lawyer’s statement out of context, while 2 out of 2 lawyers actually participating in this thread (NK and myself – there may be others) have both told you in no uncertain terms that you’re full of crap. As Patterico would, too, were he to join this thread.

    Comment by Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:11 pm

  156. NK #152:

    Her husband might.

    Comment by DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:11 pm

  157. NK #152, assuming you were employing no one else, in the states I’m familiar with, you probably would not be subject to investigation … but you’d have a difficult time finding a classified ads dept that would print the ad.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:17 pm

  158. “If blacks are just as free to discriminate against whites as vice-versa, how can the state be said to have denied equal protection to anybody?”

    They aren’t, though. It’s a ridiculous question. Blacks are not free to discriminate against whites with hiring, firing, and working conditions. Further, people in mixed-race relationships are treated differently under your regime than in same-race relationships. So they are discriminated against based on race. And people in same-race relationship do not receive this particular discrimination. Hence lack of equal protection.

    “State and federal statutes do prohibit discrimination under certain circumstances; however, those circumstances tend to be more clearly and narrowly defined, i.e., you can’t discriminate according to the specific criteria named in the statute, but can discriminate according to anything else.”

    Yeah. Dude. Employment. And race.

    …were he [Patterico] to join this thread.

    I would welcome that. While he may or may not agree with me, the quality of legal arguments he would make compared to those you offer would rise, I am sure. Based on experience.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:18 pm

  159. The Hawaii anti-discrimination statutes very specifically say “one or more” employee.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:19 pm

  160. Heh, DRJ #154. My secretaries were all married and none of their husbands ever had reason to punch me out. I am a gentleman, mostly. Well, maybe not here all the time. ;)

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:23 pm

  161. “seeing as you’ve taken that one lawyer’s statement out of context”

    I didn’t take Volokh’s statement “out of context”, as you put it… his statement stood on its own and means what it said. I linked to the original content when quoting it, and linked to that on two separate occasions, including before you said I didn’t. But, of course, you were wrong.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:23 pm

  162. I do believe that even the toughest anti-discrimination laws have a “good reason, bad reason or no reason at all” exception for the person who is your alter-ego.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:27 pm

  163. NK #158,

    I know you are a gentleman but I think her husband might wonder why you needed an assistant with those attributes.

    Comment by DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:37 pm

  164. NK #160, I am missing where you think that comes from, its not an exception I’ve run across.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:38 pm

  165. Sigh. Just Google “confidential employee”, SPQR.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:53 pm

  166. They aren’t, though. It’s a ridiculous question.

    No, it’s not. Since you insist on clinging to the phony “constitutional” argument, the issue remains: are blacks and whites equally free under the law to discriminate? If they’re unequally free for other reasons, the state did not create those, and the constitutional argument will not apply.

    “State and federal statutes do prohibit discrimination under certain circumstances; however, those circumstances tend to be more clearly and narrowly defined, i.e., you can’t discriminate according to the specific criteria named in the statute, but can discriminate according to anything else.”

    Yeah. Dude. Employment. And race.

    Yeah, dude, and now we’re back to the original problem: Dog threatened to can his own son, obviously NOT on account of his race.

    I would welcome that. While he may or may not agree with me, the quality of legal arguments he would make compared to those you offer would rise, I am sure. Based on experience.

    Feel free to email him and ask him to join. I for one, have little doubt that his response will be substantively identical to mine. Based on my own experience, along with the fact that, unlike you, I know what the hell I am talking about.

    Comment by Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:56 pm

  167. “No, you’re wrong because you cling to the frivolous notion that the federal and state constitutions prohibit private discrimination. State and federal statutes do prohibit discrimination under certain circumstances; however, those circumstances tend to be more clearly and narrowly defined, i.e., you can’t discriminate according to the specific criteria named in the statute, but can discriminate according to anything else.”

    I agree with this statement. I haven’t followed all the ins and outs of this thread, but I can say that constitutions apply to state action.

    Comment by Patterico (bad89b) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:03 pm

  168. NK, I’ve seen the term used in relation to collective bargaining units, but not to EEOC issues. Google just gives me collective bargaining useages.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:17 pm

  169. NK #158,

    I know you are a gentleman but I think her husband might wonder why you needed an assistant with those attributes.

    Amputee porn… nk, I never would have suspected… ;)

    Also, I highly doubt that Dog is “not allowed” to act in the bail-bonds industry, considering the state honors and such he’s been given.

    I would suspect they’d vetted him before bestowing any awards, just to make sure.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:41 pm

  170. SPQR #168,

    You may be right and I may be behind the times. Illinois’s current human rights law only exempts domestic servants and the staffs of elected officials.

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/2/2007 @ 3:44 am

  171. I find it ironic indeed that the Racist, Al Sharpton, is willing to meet with Dog.

    To correct others, “Dog the Bounty Hunter” was not cancelled by A&E. AP article posted 9 pm 11/1

    Christoph, if saying the “N” word is illegal, then most of the Rap record catalogue will have to be removed from record stores and the airwaves. I haven’t seen that happen in Hawaii, America, or in Canada. Based on that FACT, you are full of crap.

    Comment by PCD (b70894) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:42 am

  172. PCD, I said the N-word several times on this thread alone. Saying it isn’t illegal. Discriminating because of race is. And in most states, so is creating a hostile working environment.

    It’s not the language, it’s specifically the hostile working environment. A reporter saying to a co-worker, “Did you hear Dog said ‘nigger’,” is not creating a hostile working environment. An employer saying in essence, “Don’t bring your N-word girlfriend near me and break up with her or you’re fired!” is.

    There is a difference here, which I expect even Xrlq to understand. Yes, it will fly over your head.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 5:10 am

  173. 172, nope, you harp on your point to the exclusion of all else.

    Tucker sold the tape to the “National Tattler” for big bucks. That means he’s not claiming discrimination under Hawaii laws. It means he just wants to get the old man, and that is what you don’t see.

    Comment by PCD (5c49b0) — 11/2/2007 @ 5:35 am

  174. Oh, I see it. And I said so before: That he’s more than justified in exposing a father who uses financial pressure to try to get him to break up with his girlfriend while insulting her and calling her a N-….

    More than justified.

    Further, you lying pig, you know this… because we discussed it already. Notice your comments immediately before, and after, mine.

    Okay — I was too harsh in calling you a liar. Stupidity is nearer to the mark with you.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 5:42 am

  175. That he’s more than justified in exposing a father who uses financial pressure to try to get him to break up with his girlfriend while insulting her and calling her a N-…

    It is no different than a billionair cutting off a child because they married someone that Daddy Warbucks didn’t like.

    Are you suggesting that THAT would be illegal as well?

    Dog’s kids work for him (or his wife, if you want to get technical) by his good graces. He can fire them at any time for any or no reason.

    He could toss his son to the curb (which he REALLY should, in addition to suing the lil bastard), and when asked why he fired him say “no reason… just because…” and there is neither jack nor shit that could be done about it.

    So why don’t you just go away. Lawyer after lawyer right here on this site have told you how wrong you are, and you have your fingers in your ears yelling LALALALALALALA at the top of your lungs. I’m getting sick of it, it’s rather childish…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/2/2007 @ 5:57 am

  176. That he’s more than justified in exposing a father who uses financial pressure to try to get him to break up with his girlfriend while insulting her and calling her a N-…

    I don’t know about your family, but in mine, running to the National Enquirer to air the family’s laundry would be looked upon very harshly. So much so that no one would consider doing it.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 11/2/2007 @ 6:05 am

  177. 174, What you posted was empty lip service, not any kind of internalization of the point.

    Go back and lick your wounds, jerk.

    Comment by PCD (766464) — 11/2/2007 @ 6:06 am

  178. It is no different than a billionair cutting off a child because they married someone that Daddy Warbucks didn’t like.

    Are you suggesting that THAT would be illegal as well?

    Dog’s kids work for him (or his wife, if you want to get technical) by his good graces. He can fire them at any time for any or no reason.

    Oh, that’s a bunch of horse crap. One, practically, I doubt this will end up in front of any employment commission. But you can’t fire someone for an illegal reason so “any or no” is a bunch of crap.

    Yes, if he wasn’t on tape saying what he said, sure, but he was so no.

    I would love to see a jury on the one hand presented with an employer who viciously attacked an employee’s girlfriend’s race, then demanded he break up with said girlfriend to keep his job… and on the other hand, presented with the defense that, “I can fire an employee for being in a mixed race relationship. That’s my right. I can fire my employee for any reason, including the race of people they associate with.”

    Xrlq completely ignored comment 139/140 and the wording of the Hawaii constitution. You and any other number of retarded lawyers (I’ll leave out Patterico for now, only because he hasn’t analyzed all the thinking on this thread) can take whatever position you want, but you’d be fried before the Hawaii Institute for Human Rights if a case like this with this evidence ever came up.

    Threatening to fire an employee because of the race of someone they associate with… while calling that person a N-word.

    Not the strongest defense case in history.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 6:24 am

  179. I don’t know about your family, but in mine, running to the National Enquirer to air the family’s laundry would be looked upon very harshly. So much so that no one would consider doing it.

    Pablo, it would in any family. I for one would despise my father (who is the one who taught me so strongly and correctly not to BE racist) if he insulted the woman I love and called her a N-word repeatedly, etc., and demanded I leave her.

    If he did that, the gloves would be off, most likely literally. Fortunately, he wouldn’t.

    Yes, the U.S. may have a lot of left over racism; heck, you used to own dark skinned people. But I’m fortunate enough to be raised in a place where we don’t have your dark history to that degree.

    Anti-discrimination law, however, is similar in both. You simply can’t fire someone or otherwise create a hostile work environment for being in a mixed-race relationship. Your opinions to the contrary are very interesting.

    But wouldn’t pass the test in the relevant court of competent jurisdiction.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 6:28 am

  180. I still lean toward thinking Volokh knows what he’s talking about and you don’t.

    “A 2002 survey by University of Texas law professor Brian Leiter listed him as the third most cited law professor among those who entered teaching after 1992.”

    When he says, “…antidiscrimination law bars employers from firing people for dating outside their race,” [by all means read and/or contact him for more context] it makes sense to me. It did to Ameritech. Three circuit courts. A law firm of professional employment law experts. Et cetera.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 6:38 am

  181. Christoph,

    I think Volokh knows what he’s talking about. I’ve only skimmed these comments and I’m not entirely sure what you take Volokh’s point to be. But if you’re reading him to say that state or federal constitutions affect private conduct with no state action, and without the operation of a statute, I think you’re misunderstanding him. The only situation I can think of where the Constitution regulates private conduct directly is by prohibiting slavery.

    Calling someone a “lying pig” or “DISGUSTING PUKE” or similar terms won’t be tolerated. Next offense earns at least a one-week timeout, whether it’s provoked or not, and whether it’s today or in a month. We’ve discussed this before.

    Comment by Patterico (22f866) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:10 am

  182. Since you’ve set the bar with your recent LAT posts, I will leave out the “pig” and “PUKE” parts of similar references and will tone down my references.

    Hawaii’s Revised Statutes 378-2 provides all the authority necessary for the Hawaii Human Rights Commission to prohibit employment discrimination “because of race”. This is an example of the “antidiscrimination law” Volokh refers to.

    A similar example is age or religion. The law doesn’t allow employment discrimination because of these factors — but allowing discrimination because my mom is old or my pastor is especially religious would still be discrimination “because of age” or “because of religion”.

    It would make the law an ass to interpret it as Xrlq and nk do and it isn’t. No court would allow the law to be defined this way as Volokh and others realize. The wording of this law (the “because of…” part) is identical to the Hawaii constitution.

    Article XIII does indeed prohibit slavery directly.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:26 am

  183. For true clarity, I should leave out the word the definite article “the” in:

    This is an example of the “antidiscrimination law” Volokh refers to.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:28 am

  184. *Amendment XIII… yep, I should take a break. -

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:32 am

  185. First thing you’ve said that i’ve agreed with.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:46 am

  186. Pablo, it would in any family. I for one would despise my father (who is the one who taught me so strongly and correctly not to BE racist) if he insulted the woman I love and called her a N-word repeatedly, etc., and demanded I leave her.

    Not my point. My point is that running to the media with the family dirt would be an inexcusable act for which acceptance and/or forgiveness would be extremely hard to come by.

    And he now has excellent reason to fire the kid: he can’t trust him.

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:53 am

  187. You’ve been completely in the camp of people THAT wrong about the law, Scott? Hey, props for honesty.

    Extrapolating Xrlq’s, nk’s, and your interpretation — that in an at will state you can fire someone because of the race of their boyfriend or girlfriend — it would be lawful to fire or otherwise discriminate against someone… because their partner is male. The employee’s sex? Not important, my good man! No no no. But… you know, the boss don’t approve of the employee dating a man, so either she breaks up with the man or she’s canned.

    I have a feeling that wouldn’t survive an antidiscrimination hearing, yet… that is your argument.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 7:54 am

  188. Watching Christoph trying to argue legal points is like watching a fish trying to play the piano.

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:03 am

  189. Pablo 186, I agree with what you’re saying. I’m also saying I couldn’t personally live with my father insulting the race of the woman I love, pressuring me to leave her, and I would retaliate in some fashion. To me, that’s a disowning offense.

    But, hey, the son, who maybe is not the finest person the world has ever seen and as others have pointed out is between a rock and a hard place of his own making, has financial needs and saw an opportunity. I’m doubtful that I care enough about money that I would have done the same thing if only because I don’t really like the media.

    I might, however, have taken him to court on principle (this is what I would probably do if it wasn’t my father so why not in this case too?), which would accomplish the same goal — ethically. And the media would get it anyway. Considering that it’s worth big bucks, and I was being threatened with unlawful termination and so was in the right (not the wrong)… there’d be a temptation there.

    I would not threaten to use a tape against my father to make quick cash… but if my father threw down and decided that attacking my girlfriend was the right thing to do, I would retaliate and escalate big time.

    I don’t know if the son has won, but the father has surely lost. And in a confrontation — which is what the father made it by his disgusting racism — you defeat your opponent.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:07 am

  190. “Watching Christoph trying to argue legal points is like watching a fish trying to play the piano.”

    Well, daleyrocks, show me how it’s done: Argue against Volokh’s position that you can’t discriminate against someone for dating outside their race. The legal references, in particular the Hawaii Revised Statutes, are all there for your use. Go for it. Put your money where your ass is.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:09 am

  191. Hoser, I’m sticking with the people who know something about the law, eh. Usually a good practice. At will employment means at will employment. You don’t need to give a reason when you fire someone. Let someone prove you discriminated.

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:13 am

  192. Oh, and daleyrocks, you’ll have to raise your intellectual game if this is your goal. Your previous comment in this thread was:

    “Was it legal for the Enquirer to intercept his phone call?”

    Which, as yours truly pointed out, is nuts. The Enquirer isn’t tapping celebrities’ homes. It’s a criminal offense. They bought the tape, which isn’t.

    Nice try. Now try again with reason and please.

    “Hoser, I’m sticking with the people who know something about the law, eh. Usually a good practice. [This would certainly exclude yourself.] At will employment means at will employment. You don’t need to give a reason when you fire someone. Let someone prove you discriminated.”

    The audiotape would make it rather easy.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:17 am

  193. NK #170, I have no place nor desire to task you with chores but if you stumble on a link that describes what you were thinking of, I’d appreciate a copy of it.

    Comment by SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:25 am

  194. Hoser – The audiotape would not necessarily prove the reason Christoph. The father could claim performanxce or myriad of other reasons. Clearly you have no experience in these matters and argue ftom “how you feel” the law should be interpreted as is your usual position on these threads. At the time I made the comment about the source of the tape, its provenenace had not be revealed. The Enquirer refused to say how they got it. So stuff it on that one Molson breath.

    One incident I was involved in along these lines a few years back did include an EEOC hearing. My corporate internal audit department had uncovered a woman stealing funds from the company in cahoots with a third party from the outside. We terminated the woman without stating cause and took our evidence to the local police. The police are usually reluctant to get involved in this type of case but became interested because the outside party had a prior criminal record. The woman filed a racial discrimination complaint with the EEOC. At the hearing, when everything was ready to begin, the EEOC representatives asked where Ms. so and so was. We responded that she was being arrested by the police for grand theft from the company outside the hearing room. End of complaint.

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:32 am

  195. Comment by daleyrocks — 11/2/2007 @ 8:32 am

    Was there a tape of you screaming at the woman f’n N—- and threatening to fire her? Further, and to show the complete and utter irrelevance of your example, was the son accused of any recent illegal action?

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:42 am

  196. Christoph – You don’t need to give an explaination when you terminate someone in an at will situation. A simple – Your services are no longer required. Pick up your severance check and pack your personal items. – should be sufficient.

    If the father fires the son the day after the tape is made it looks bad. If he waits a week or two, how can you say his motive was definitively what was contained on the tape? Live in the real world for a change. You are too easy.

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:52 am

  197. You don’t think the Hawaii Human Rights Institute, having listened to that tape, would see beyond it? I do.

    But in any event, you’re talking about strategies for circumventing the law, not following it.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:56 am

  198. SPQR #193,

    This is the link to the current Illinois Human Rights Act. I had thought that there were broader exemptions for personal staff but so far I can’t prove it. I better give up on the Tibetan redhead. ;)

    Comment by nk (7aed24) — 11/2/2007 @ 10:40 am

  199. Christoph – I am talking about managing the personnel decisions of a business the way I see fit. You are talking about reading minds to second guess the decisions people. Nice work – how much does it pay?

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:01 am

  200. the decisions people make

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:01 am

  201. daleyrocks, I want to say you can’t be that stupid, talking about “reading minds” when presented with audiotape evidence including a threat to fire if an employee doesn’t give up their N—- girlfriend. But you are. You’re actually that stupid.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:03 am

  202. The stupid one is he was given a very strict warning by Patterico and has already violated it.

    Comment by dave (903d71) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:12 am

  203. You saw that too, huh dave?

    Though in another thread, you aren’t exactly a shining example of civility yerself. We all need to calm it down a bit.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:16 am

  204. dave, you are definitely stupid. You make daleyrocks look like a freakin’ rocket scientist.

    I want to link to one of your comments as an example, and certainly this one is a good one, but really, it doesn’t do it justice. It’s more the totality.

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:18 am

  205. *sigh*

    Enjoy that week off, Christoph…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:23 am

  206. Scott: In the other thread, the other party insulted me first. Go lecture him on civility before you attempt to lecture me.

    Comment by dave (903d71) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:29 am

  207. Dave, I hardly equate “Genius” with calling someone “asshole”.

    I’m hardly the guy to point to for lesson in manners and civility (unless it’s a “how not to” cource), but come one. Why is it in the last week people have become such jerks to everyone?

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:31 am

  208. Yes, I should have responded with, “You developmentally disabled person, you!” Get real. And unlike the canuck, I have a job, am not manic, and can’t even come close to responding to every insult he dishes out. Why don’t you police your own behavior before you attempt to police my mine. And, again, I have work to do.

    Comment by dave (903d71) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:48 am

  209. well, smoke em if you got em.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/2/2007 @ 11:59 am

  210. Scott: In the other thread, the other party insulted me first. Go lecture him on civility before you attempt to lecture me.

    I think you should link to the comment in question, dave. Though that would derail your dissembling, wouldn’t it?

    Comment by Pablo (99243e) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:01 pm

  211. And Christoph earns the one-week timeout, for calling two people “stupid” after my warning. He is seemingly making absolutely no effort to stop personally insulting people. Maybe this will get the message across.

    Comment by Patterico (741244) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:05 pm

  212. Patterico, did you add something to the water?

    People who usually aren’t are acting horrid lately…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:06 pm

  213. I sure hope so.

    Comment by G (722480) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:07 pm

  214. Alas, Patterico, I cannot tell a lie. The people I called stupid truly are. And Xrlq claims to have a law license or something…

    Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:09 pm

  215. I want to strike a balance here. Spirited debate gets people’s emotions up. Heck, I just called a bunch of John Cole’s commenters morons. But there comes a time when repeated insults just drags everything down. I think we’re at that point with Christoph. Maybe a short vacation will calm him down.

    Comment by Patterico (da25f6) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:16 pm

  216. I hope so. Often he’s got something worth hearing…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:22 pm

  217. Scott,

    I’ve noticed the same thing but it seems to be true at lots of blogs. Maybe it’s the time of year where people are more rushed and irritable. I appreciate the commenters who have clearly made an extra effort to respond with intensity but without escalation. I think that helps, even though it’s hard to do.

    Comment by DRJ (5c60fb) — 11/2/2007 @ 12:27 pm

  218. Patterico

    “Heck, I just called a bunch of John Cole’s commenters morons.”

    Isn’t that called speaking truth to power or something like that?

    Comment by daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 1:01 pm

  219. Patterico – You were being nice to the people that comment there, and incredibly rude to morons in general.

    DRJ – I am particular poor at raising the level of discourse. I try, but sometimes I see something that seems to be so brain-poundingly stupid that I respond in the same vein, rather than in substantive discourse.

    Comment by JD (49efd3) — 11/2/2007 @ 1:03 pm

  220. Update posted 11/2.

    Comment by WLS (bafbcb) — 11/2/2007 @ 3:30 pm

  221. And here, all this time, I thought he was just gay, what with all the armbands and bare-chested leather vests. Now, “Dawg” also shows he is just as much trailer-trash as everyone on earth probably suspected. All that “brother” and “God” bullshit he talks to his “clients”. LMFAO.

    Dawg is a low-life murderer who only had anything in the first place because America is filled with stupid people who like to watch stupid people on TV.

    It shouldn’t take long for Hawaiians to become aware that he feels exactly the same about THEM, too. Then they can kick him, his racist wife, and “Da Kine” Bonds the fuck off the island.

    Thank you, Tucker, for revealing this guy to be not only a racist, but a liar, hypocrite, and bane to anyone sensibly involved in religion.

    Bill Harris

    Comment by bill harris (9ecd09) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:02 pm

  222. Bill,

    You are wrong on Hawaiians boycotting Da Kine bailbonds. They will go to the Chapmans when they can’t get a bond from anyone else.

    Bill, Don’t be so arrogant. You wouldn’t work with the people in the court system yourself.

    Comment by PCD (2566fe) — 11/3/2007 @ 7:30 am

  223. Now that Christoph has finally pistoph, maybe the adults can have a reasonable discussion.

    Scott:

    Also, I highly doubt that Dog is “not allowed” to act in the bail-bonds industry, considering the state honors and such he’s been given.

    I would suspect they’d vetted him before bestowing any awards, just to make sure.

    You’re probably right, especially when one considers that all the state has to do to make him not a prohibited person is for the Hawaii DOI (or, IIRC, any other) to declare him so. Then again, they may simply have ignored the bail bond issue, and praised him for his role as a bounty hunter, which has nothing to do with his wife’s company or the VCCLEA.

    Comment by Xrlq (6c2116) — 11/5/2007 @ 5:53 pm

  224. What would of happened if it had been a white girl that was called a cracker or honky? I bet that would not have even been mentioned, yet because it was the N word the world is ready to crucify him. He is a bigot and most of what you see on the show is fake, but he does not put a mask on nightly for a cross burning. I can honestly say that I have used the N word and am far from being a racist. His only downfall is that his own son was part of trying to cash in on dad saying a few bad words on tape. Look up the definition of the N word, it is a ignorant person and that is exactly what Tuckers girlfriend was being.

    Comment by John H Wimberly (56a0a8) — 11/6/2007 @ 12:46 pm

  225. Apparantly, Chapman did have reason to believe that the girlfriend had talked about secretly taping him and that she threatened his wife. A transcript of the complete tape:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308142,00.html

    Comment by dave (03e8a9) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:07 am

  226. Dave,

    Thanks for that link.

    What will happen is that people who hate Christians, people who hate any kind of law enforcement, and people who hate any kind of success will not forgive the Dog. Dog is working for forgiveness unlike they Hyannisport Hedonists who demand forgiveness. Of the two, I’d rather have the Dog around than Teddy and his Chevas bottle or Patrick and his Rx bottle.

    Comment by PCD (b7be44) — 11/7/2007 @ 6:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5685 secs.