Showing posts with label gay misogyny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay misogyny. Show all posts


The Denver Wrangler threatens a drag queen with a lawsuit after denying him entrance

The Denver Wrangler has threatened Vito John Marzano with a lawsuit should he not remove all copies of the video of there staff harassing him on public property (the sidewalk) after they denied him entrance to the bar.  The video makes it very clear the Wrangler staff  bared him because of his gender expression telling him his feet were to big for him to be transgender.. It is unclear if the Denver Wrangler will likewise threaten  media sources but it would be safe to assume they will, given their history of intimidatory behaviour.

This is just the last of many attempts by the Denver Wrangler to coerce Marzano into removing all evidence of the occurrences on that August night.

The Denver Wrangler has also tried to intimidate myself and Cristan Williams who cross posted the original planetransgender article on the TransAdvocate. They have tried unsuccessfully to have blogger shut down planetransgender but they did succeed in getting facebook to censor the original article. Facebook sent me a message that the original article contained 'contaminated' links. I have published and posted most of the 2000 odd planetransgender articles on facebook, and that one, just that one post has a infected link? Not according to Norton safe site.

If the Denver Wrangler didn't discriminate against Vito John Marzano why are they so focused on removing the video evidence prior to the DORA hearing. If the Denver Wrangler is blameless as they claim, why are the so intent scouring the Internet clean of all evidence of that incident prior to the Civil rights hearing?

Wouldn't it be to there benefit if they were publicly exonerated by Colorado Civil Rights Division? Or is it that they know they are in the wrong and are attempting to get rid of the evidence?

The letter sent by a lawyer retained by the Denver Wrangler to Vito John Marzano:

"This is a clear intimidation tactic. The lawyer and I both know that I have not said anything which has not been backed up with screen shots or video. About the video, I encourage everyone to mute the sound (as to not get distracted) and look closely at the video. You will see that I am standing in front of the metal barricade, which ends right where the sidewalk begins. The video was filmed on a public sidewalk. Furthermore, my phone was up the entire time. It was quite obvious I was filming. Being as we were on a public sidewalk holding my phone up and saying things like "I cannot wait to post this on the internet" I can safely conclude there was no presumption of privacy. Moving on, if the Wrangler is so comfortable in their position, why are they trying to destroy the evidence?
There is a simple answer to all this- change your ID policy. Stop the discrimination. Treat all of your patrons equally and with dignity. Once that happens, I will gladly dismantle the website, video, and boycott. Until then, I have not done anything illegal and this will continue.

The video of the Wrangler staff denying Marzano access to public accommodations:

Source Denver Pete Meersman, president and CEO of the Colorado Restaurant Association, said he understands the liquor-license side of the law better than the discrimination laws but sees the conflict that businesses face.
"This was a new situation that I had not heard of before," Meersman said. "The ultimate dilemma is doing one thing to stay in compliance with the law that gets you out of compliance with another

Vito Marzano's driver's license ( | )
Management at the Wrangler could not be reached for comment, but a video of the altercation posted by Marzano to YouTube — which has since been taken down — outlines the bar staff's reasoning: Gender identity must match a person's ID gender.
"The problem here is the application of a blanket rule that discriminates against a particular class of people based on their gender nonconformity," said Mari Newman, a Denver-based civil-rights attorney. "While I acknowledge the bar's legitimate interest in not running afoul of liquor licensing, this, by its term, is not a legal way to accomplish that goal."
Checking IDs is not required by law but is the only way bars and restaurants have to verify a customer's age. Subsequently, there is no standardized method for comparing a person's ID with their physical appearance — those policies are determined and set by the business owners.

The statement attached to Mr. Marzano's  DORA complaint