Questioned by hotel security

[+ sync]

You're protecting the identity of some hospitality establishment that you know engages in racial discrimination and profiling?

 

Would not the responsible citizen's duty be to report them? Not doing so undercuts your claim of concern.

 

Scratching my head.

 

It's a mirror image...your responses have me scratching my head.

[AdamSmith]

It's a mirror image...your responses have me scratching my head.

Let me try to be clearer. Your post sounded like you were describing instances where you saw hotels discriminate against people in the hotels' public spaces because of those people's race or ethnicity. That is blatantly against federal law, and hotel managers live in terror of an employee doing such a thing, or anything that could be interpreted that way.

 

I was just asking you to describe what you saw happen.

[bobchitown]

I almost did that once. I was meeting someone at a Chain Hotel close the the Interstate. I saw the sign and got off, and got as far as not finding the room number before I realized I was at the wrong exit, and the hotel I was looking for was 3-4 exits further up to road. LOL

[mike carey]

It's kind of hard to prove that profiling is racial, and there is a difference between 'looking like you belong' and 'behaving like you belong'. If you have dreadlocks you may look out of place no matter how you behave, and all sorts of folk allow that sort of thing to affect their judgment. Dressing up isn't guaranteed to give a favourable impression in those circumstances but on the balance of probabilities it will. When I travel I tend to wear a business shirt rather than a t-shirt, and as often as not a jacket. Part of that is 'one less thing to put in my checked luggage' but 'creating an impression' on arrival also figures in the calculation.

[+ sync]

Let me try to be clearer. Your post sounded like you were describing instances where you saw hotels discriminate against people in the hotels' public spaces because of those people's race or ethnicity. That is blatantly against federal law.

 

I was just asking you to describe what you saw happen.

 

No, what I stated was "I can understand your views having some merit, however, a person loitering who is identifiably Muslim, Mexican, or another minority, may have a different experience." I base my statement in that it is common knowledge that such individuals "may have a different experience" in many venues, including hotels.

[AdamSmith]

No, what I stated was "I can understand your views having some merit, however, a person loitering who is identifiably Muslim, Mexican, or another minority, may have a different experience." I base my statement in that it is common knowledge that such individuals "may have a different experience" in many venues, including hotels.

That possibility, indeed likelihood in some if not many U.S. communities, in the absence of any restraining law was precisely why LBJ and enough Congressional Democrats found it worth electorally giving away the South to the Republicans "for a generation," as he said, in order to secure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which of course contains the above referenced Title II, which gives any person, U.S. citizen or not, the strongest possible legal recourse in the event of such discrimination.

 

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II

 

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

 

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

 

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

 

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

 

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

 

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (b) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment...

 

All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof. Sec. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or © punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

 

http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html

[+ sync]

That possibility, indeed likelihood in some if not many U.S. communities, in the absence of any restraining law was precisely why LBJ and enough Congressional Democrats found it worth electorally giving away the South to the Republicans "for a generation," as he said, in order to secure passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which of course contains the above referenced Title II, which gives any person, U.S. citizen or not, the strongest possible legal recourse in the event of such discrimination.

 

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II

 

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

 

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:

 

(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;

 

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

 

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and

 

(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (b) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment...

 

All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof. Sec. 203. No person shall (a) withhold, deny, or attempt to withhold or deny, or deprive or attempt to deprive, any person of any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or (b) intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person with purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202, or © punish or attempt to punish any person for exercising or attempting to exercise any right or privilege secured by section 201 or 202.

 

http://users.wfu.edu/zulick/341/civilrightsact1964.html

 

Yes, it was a bold political move.

[AdamSmith]

Yes, it was a bold political move.

And made the "possible" discrimination you named so deadly dangerous to any business violating it as to have rendered that "possibility" all but stamped out in today's American customer-service businesses.

 

Hoteliers, as I said, live in terror if it, and give staff much, very emphatic training against it.

 

The owner's or franchiser's whole financial existence hangs in the balance. One single incident will wipe him out and shut him down.

 

Thus, your "possibility" is close to negligible. That law has very big teeth. As at least one member here can attest, from having very successfully obtained redress under it.

 

For an employment case, not a hotel case. I can't remember how many decades it's been since one of those, hospitality industry compliance with the Act having been so strong for so long.

[corymonroe]

I think what caught me was the hotel staff walking down the hallway as a frustrated guest opened the door and I had to apologize and tell him I had the wrong room, and then the same hotel staff guy finding me waiting at the elevators a few minutes later. If it hadn't been for unfortunate timing, I would have been fine.

When an escort gives you incorrect information, what else can you possibly do? You were in the wrong hotel, period. Still, I think I would have handled this situation differently. The second I discovered the wrong room mistake, I would have been in my car or outside the hotel, working out the details. I never would have allowed security to get involved.

 

I have the sensation from your post and also Adam Smith's post that my use of the word loiter is somehow offensive.

I didn't find the word offensive. I just thought it was the wrong word. As a visitor to a guest in the hotel, or as a paying guest in the hotel, I have a right to be there. My body language probably conveys that right without thinking about it.

 

On private property, a "loiterer" has no right to be where he loiters. So I suspect that this is evident as well.

[rvwnsd]

When an escort gives you incorrect information, what else can you possibly do? You were in the wrong hotel, period. Still, I think I would have handled this situation differently. The second I discovered the wrong room mistake, I would have been in my car or outside the hotel, working out the details. I never would have allowed security to get involved....

Agree 100%.

[+ sniper]

And made the "possible" discrimination you named so deadly dangerous to any business violating it as to have rendered that "possibility" all but stamped out in today's American customer-service businesses.

 

Hoteliers, as I said, live in terror if it, and give staff much, very emphatic training against it.

 

The owner's or franchiser's whole financial existence hangs in the balance. One single incident will wipe him out and shut him down.

 

Thus, your "possibility" is close to negligible. That law has very big teeth. As at least one member here can attest, from having very successfully obtained redress under it.

 

For an employment case, not a hotel case. I can't remember how many decades it's been since one of those, hospitality industry compliance with the Act having been so strong for so long.

 

That a law is on the books doesn't mean it's enforced vigorously everywhere. That it has been enforced vigorously in some instances doesn't mean nobody ever violates it. That's like saying murder never occurs because you can be arrested. Yet we have tens of thousands of them a year.

[Larstrup]

That a law is on the books doesn't mean it's enforced vigorously everywhere. That it has been enforced vigorously in some instances doesn't mean nobody ever violates it. That's like saying murder never occurs because you can be arrested. Yet we have tens of thousands of them a year.

 

Your personal life choices are your own responsibility and when married up with the best information which you'll probably ever have from this thread or from anywhere else for that matter its no ones responsibility other than your own. If you're looking for a perfect world to exist in then you're probably living in the wrong one.

 

Getting laid in a hotel room which you are paying for should never be this difficult. Unless, it's because of you.

[AdamSmith]

That a law is on the books doesn't mean it's enforced vigorously everywhere. That it has been enforced vigorously in some instances doesn't mean nobody ever violates it. That's like saying murder never occurs because you can be arrested. Yet we have tens of thousands of them a year.

The Civil Rights Acts where they dictate businesses' behavior are enforced hyper-vigilantly everywhere always these days.

 

The hair-trigger penalties on the federal books for any business violating them are ruinous for it.

 

Did you not in grade school or college take any civics education at all? Nor read the newspapers?

[+ José Soplanucas]

Interesting. I wonder whether any forum member who is from a profiled minority can share any discriminatory experience in hotels. Do not look at me, I look White and behave with the confidence given by privilege, as I am a member of the privileged class back in Argentina.

[AdamSmith]

My posts about this are based on decades of experience contracting with hotels to host conferences that my companies organized/promoted/produced. That gave firsthand exposure to, among much else, the very heavy training that every property I've ever worked with gives to every incoming employee on the absolutely ironclad requirement for beyond-the-letter adherence to Title II. And then annual recurrent training. It's one of the most fundamental and universal precepts of the U.S. hospitality industry.

 

Because, again, of the surety of ruinous consequences for any transgression.

 

They happen -- seldom in the big brands, usually in mom-and-pop places -- but the recourse available is huge, and easily won.

[Nvr2Thick]

Seems as if the thread has drifted into a bit of victim blaming. Sometimes a confrontation with hotel security is bound to happen if you're in a hotel as a visitor instead of a guest, without a room key, and without the ability to identify the guest you're visiting by name. If hotel security decides to ask you to explain your presence you can get boxed in pretty quickly even if you walk with confidence and respond with the cleverest of answers.

 

A friend's wife has held a few different jobs in the hotel industry, from assistant manager in small chain hotels to guest services in a few large hotels in big cities. She pointed out that not all hotels have the same standard of vigilance for people who appear to be out of place; some hotel security personnel are aggressive than others. There are also a number of circumstances that could cause hotel security to question seemingly out of place persons with greater frequency, including:

 

• Recent crimes - A hotel may become the target of room break-ins or attacks on guests. A wandering guest may actually be waiting for people to leave a room so that he may exploit door lock hacking tools for a burglary. Sometimes predators will follow guests and try to slip into the room behind them before the door swings shut. These sorts of crimes sometimes happen in waves, as the criminals hit a few hotels in the same area. If police put hotels on alert you might find yourself questioned starting with a simple, "May I help you find something, sir?" and escalating if you can't validate your presence as a guest or a named guest's visitor.
  
• Celebrity or notable guests - Security will step up their game if a star becomes a guest, whether he or she has personal security or not. Sometimes fans are tipped off by other hotel employees as to the location of celebrity guests, and other times they just wander the halls in the hope that they'll be in the right place at the right time. Hotel security will monitor the cameras and confront anyone who appears to be out of place.
  
• Protected guests - Hotel security is usually clued in if police are hiding a witness, sequestering a jury, or sheltering a recent victim of an attack. You may not have to even appear to be wandering lost to be confronted in one of these situations.
  

I can recall being politely challenged by hotel personnel often during a stay at the W in San Francisco, and again at Disney's Animal Kingdom Lodge. In retrospect, it makes me wonder if these hotels had zealous hotel security, or if my stays coincided with crime issues or celebrity guests.

 

A vast majority of the time our odd visits to meet anonymous escorts go off without a hitch, but under the wrong circumstances a confrontation with security may be unavoidable.

[LADoug1]

The Civil Rights Acts where they dictate businesses' behavior are enforced hyper-vigilantly everywhere always these days.

 

The hair-trigger penalties on the federal books for any business violating them are ruinous for it.

 

Did you not in grade school or college take any civics education at all? Nor read the newspapers?

 

Not everyone has had the benefit of such a comprehensive education. I for one unfortunately did not.

[AdamSmith]

Not everyone has had the benefit of such a comprehensive education. I for one unfortunately did not.

You can fill the gap by daily reading a good national newspaper attentively.

[Larstrup]

Interesting. I wonder whether any forum member who is from a profiled minority can share any discriminatory experience in hotels. Do not look at me, I look White and behave with the confidence given by privilege, as I am a member of the privileged class back in Argentina.

 

It's worth noting that we were all at one point in time as LGBT a profiled minority. In some parts of the country we still are simply because of who we choose to love. Discrimination is not limited to only non-white citizens.

[LivingnLA]

It's worth noting that we were all at one point in time as LGBT a profiled minority. In some parts of the country we still are simply because of who we choose to love. Discrimination is not limited to only non-white citizens.

 

Very true but non-white Americans are still profiled across the country and harassed frequently. Many white people have no idea what it's like to be a non-white citizen in this country and their continued active denial of the ongoing discrimination faced every day by their fellow citizens only ensures it won't get better any time soon.

[Larstrup]

Very true but non-white Americans are still profiled across the country and harassed frequently. Many white people have no idea what it's like to be a non-white citizen in this country and their continued active denial of the ongoing discrimination faced every day by their fellow citizens only ensures it won't get better any time soon.

 

I can only speak for myself, but for me there's a big difference between not being able to feel

what it's like to be non-white in this country and a continued active denial that discrimination exists in non-whites daily lives. The former is certainly true if you're white, but the latter could be construed as offensive and a generalization of whites in general, which I personally reject.

[+ José Soplanucas]

It's worth noting that we were all at one point in time as LGBT a profiled minority. In some parts of the country we still are simply because of who we choose to love. Discrimination is not limited to only non-white citizens.

 

You cannot profile what you cannot see.

[Mydavid]

Being Asian, I have never been considered potential for crime, but I know I am often considered inferior to white people.

[+ José Soplanucas]

I can only speak for myself, but for me there's a big difference between not being able to feel

what it's like to be non-white in this country and a continued active denial that discrimination exists in non-whites daily lives. The former is certainly true if you're white, but the latter could be construed as offensive and a generalization of whites in general, which I personally reject.

 

This is always a difficult conversation. When we talk about White privilege we are not talking about White men and women but about a culture of privilege that favors them. No one is guilty for the pre existence of this privileges other than those who refuse to recognize the situation and continue feeding it and feeding from it.

I am sure there are nuances between different cultures of privilege, of course you cannot mirror exactly Argentina and US, but I am also sure the analogy is valid. When I interact with members of the less privileged classes in Argentina I cannot deny the thousand little things denoting our difference. The same can be told when I interact with those more privileged than myself. We are not guilty of these differences, it is obvious we all did not enjoy the same advantages.

Equally in US I think it is legitimate to make the generalization about White privilege. You should not be offended because it is not about you or about any individual White person, it is about a culture that shapes and conditioned both, Whites and non-Whites. When we fall in the privileged side we are not guilty, we are just lucky.

[Larstrup]

You cannot profile what you cannot see.

 

But not all LGBT people are invisible. There's also discrimination based on presumption and personal self-presentation.