Ted Cruz's Favorite Gay Hotel Owners served with a Discrimination Lawsuit

Former and current employees at the KTCHN restaurant and XL Nightclub are suing the Out NYC Hoteliers Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass. According to the suit, they are claiming discrimination and withheld pay.

The Advocate reports:

The allegations by James Stress, Paul Shreve, Donald Shorter, and Jonathan Taylor are twofold. All four employees named in the suit claim KTCHN and XL failed to pay for overime work and withheld part of their tips, resulting in violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act as well as New York City and state law. Shorter and Stress also allege discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity — by establishments that are owned by and cater to LGBT people.

According to the suit, a copy of which was obtained by The Advocate, plaintiffs Shorter and Stress were subjected “to a hostile work environment” and “disparate treatment” that led “to their constructive discharge.” Shorter and Stress, who worked as servers at KTCHN, claim they were the only two “men working at KTCHN who outwardly presented as feminine at work and who did not adhere to masculine stereotypes.” The suit also notes that Shorter and Stress were “openly homosexual.” The suit was filed in May in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; the law firm of Borrelli and Associates is representing the plaintiffs.

The discrimination allegedly began when a KTCHN manager, Anton Washington, implemented a new policy on attire and grooming. This policy, a copy of which was made available to The Advocate, was introduced last December, attached to employees’ checks.

“Attire/Grooming — Please come to work properly dressed and be prepared to start your shift when you clock in. If you do not have proper attire i.e. black uniform shirt or black apron, they can be purchased in the office, BUT do not allow this to become a trend. Also, please keep excessive makeup and nail polish to a minimum gentlemen. The only acceptable time for gentlemen to wear makeup or nail polish will be for Sunday Brunch during Haus of Mimosa.”

This policy was not extended to women, according to the suit. The suit alleges the workplace attire policy is “vile and explicitly unlawful,” claiming it specifically targeted Shorter and Stress.

When Shorter “objected to this hateful policy, Defendants reprimanded and humiliated him and refused to alter the policy or make an exception,” the suit states. Working under these conditions caused Shorter and Stress to suffer “severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including, but not limited to, depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain and suffering,” according to the complaint.

Lord, this looks like it only going to get worse for these two bumbling fools.

WATCH: The Pastor Bradlee Dean announces a $50 Million Suit against Rachel Maddow

Really?

3 Big Civil Rights Groups file a lawsuit on SB1070

The ACLU, NAACP and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund are trying to challenge the infamous Arizona law with a lawsuit.

HuffPo reports:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund are among the groups that filed the latest challenge in U.S. District Court on behalf of labor unions and others.

County attorneys and sheriffs in Arizona's 15 counties -- but not the state or Gov. Jan Brewer -- were named as defendants.

The Republican governor was included among defendants in at least four earlier lawsuits filed to challenge the law. All the lawsuits were expected to eventually be consolidated for court consideration.

The immigration law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court.

Its provisions include a requirement that police enforcing another law question people about their immigration status if there's "reasonable suspicion" of illegal presence in the United States.

This is going to get interesting!

Good News, Bad News: R-71

Bad News:R-71 may have enough signatures to bring gay marriage to a vote Washington.

Good News: Families Standing Together filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction to keep the referendum off the ballot.

Washington Families Standing Together says the secretary of state has not complied with the law in processing R-71. Signature gatherers are supposed to sign declarations saying that signatures they've collected are valid to the best of their knowledge and that they personally circulated the petition, the lawsuit says. Attorney David Burman said there were petitions with 2,058 signatures in which there was no name and no signature from the person collecting them.

The plaintiffs in the case also say the secretary of state was ignoring requirements that say only registered voters can sign petitions. The lawsuit says that on Aug. 17 Secretary of State Sam Reed told his staff to ignore the date in voter files as the voter registration date and accept signatures from people who were not cleared to vote when they signed.

"If the secretary of state had followed what we believe was the correct legal advice this referendum would not have qualified," Burman told the judge.

A decision will be issued Wednesday.

source

Carrie Prejean is trying to sue Miss California USA

The failed beauty queen has filed the lawsuit against Shanna Moakler and Keith Lewis for religious discrimination, defamation, public disclosure of private facts, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Really? Okay Carrie, let's see how you played a part in this.

• appearing in NOM's ads.
• going on talk shows, whining about your foolishness.
• going on Fox News.
• taking sexy pics and lied about their existence.
• giving interviews to any and everyone.
• not fulfilling your duties a Miss Cali.

This lawsuit is riddled in malarkey and desperation. Carrie, just stop... Please!


source

Prop 8 Supporters are Crybabies!

Last month, I talked about the Prop 8 supporters feeling the heat from us. And they didn't want their business (voting info) put out in public, although they want to vote on our private business...okay back to my point...as expected, these folks have filed a suit to keep their campaign finance records from public view, claiming the records have led to the harassment of donors and others.

Really? Please...You dished it, you should be able to take it.

James Bopp Jr., the attorney representing Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California and other Cobra organizations said, "No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes. This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

Well, maybe they should have thought about that when they voted. Ain't nobody sending death threats and nobody's bombing churches. As I said before, you were strong in your vote, stand up for your beliefs. Don't go running to the courts, because your "morals" are challenged.

And isn't it a bit hypocritical...you want to overturn the law to protect you, but hate on us when we want to do the same thing. Then used the same tactic by accessing campaign finance records to threaten and attack gay rights supporters. Hell, the similar(but not direct) thing is happening with Pepsi by the AFA. I can't believe the irony.

This lawsuit should fail. However, if they want to stop the drama they can join us in ending Prop 8 altogether. Solves a lot problems.

Fox may be the Grinch that Stole Watchmen

This may not be good if you are a Watchmen fan. Quick recap, Fox owned the rights to Alan Moore's masterpiece, Watchmen, but did nothing with it. Then Warners made a movie with Fox fully aware.

But once the fans fell hard for it during Comic Con, all of a sudden Fox gives a damn. So they sued and I hate to say it, but they won.

In a surprise ruling, a federal judge in Los Angeles said he intended to grant 20th Century Fox’s claim that it owns a copyright interest in the “Watchmen,” a movie shot by Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures and set for release in March. The decision was disclosed in a five-page written order issued on Wednesday.

Gary A. Feess, a judge in the United States District Court for Central California, said he would provide a more detailed order soon. Fox has been seeking to prevent Warner from releasing the film. The superhero adventure, based on the “Watchmen” graphic novel, is being directed by Zack Snyder (who also directed “300”) and has shaped up as one of most eagerly anticipated releases for next year.

A Warner spokesman, Scott Rowe, declined to comment on the ruling and the studio’s plans. At an earlier hearing, the judge said he believed that issues in the case could be settled only at a trial, which was scheduled for late January. On Wednesday, however, Judge Feess said he had reconsidered and concluded that Fox should prevail on crucial issues. “Fox owns a copyright interest consisting of, at the very least, the right to distribute the ‘Watchmen’ motion picture,” the ruling said. Fox acquired rights to the “Watchmen” graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon, but eventually dropped its own plan to make a movie from its story, about the underside of life for superbeings.

Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.

In ruling on Wednesday, Judge Feess advised both Fox and Warner to look toward a settlement or an appeal. “The parties may wish to turn their efforts from preparing for trial to negotiating a resolution of this dispute or positioning the case for review,” he said.

This should prompt artists and creators to keep their stuff on lockdown so mess like this won't happen. Fox had every right to sue, but it still comes off very shady. Both studios should work something out and make sure this movie is released on time. They need to know that we, the fans, are in middle of this. If this battle gets ugly, everybody suffers. So I hope this can get solved and settled soon.

Thanks to Latino Review for the news.

Barbie is a Jealous Hooker!

If you haven't heard, Mattel finally won their legal battle with MGA, the makers of the cute and sassy Bratz dolls. Apparently, the creator thought of the dolls while he was still working for Mattel. Once he left Mattel, he started the Bratz.

Suddenly the Bratz took off, surpassing Barbie and other dolls. When Barbie was reduced to sloppy seconds, Mattel decided to try something new, by creating the My Scene dolls and then some urban Barbie-like dolls with fros and dredlocks, both were failures.

So after they realized they couldn't beat the Bratz, they went for plan B. They found out the creator of Bratz was still under their contract and sued him and MGA. Mattel won and now MGA can't make any Bratz dolls after the holidays. Such a bitchy thing to do, Barbie.