Cross-dresser sues Cedar Point

But what if a person's life style does include wearing a Darth Vader mask daily, as Lallen stated? Remember the woman who was on a jury (I forget for what case... not sure if it was a "famous" case or not) who inisted on wearing a Star Fleet uniform from Star Trek? She said that was normal attire for her. Of course, it was not long until she was removed from the jury.

But back to the topic. Normal Attire for his Life Style. Well, what if a person normally may wear T-shirts with offensive slogans on them? Normal life style for them, but the park has every right in the world to deny them entry if they do not change that shirt or in other ways hide it. Why? Because, by the norm of society, this is not "acceptable" and could cause a disturbance. THEREFORE... since a man wearing a dress is not the norm of society, the park had every right to deny him entry AS LONG AS HE WAS WEARING the dress. If he went home, changed in to jeans and a T-shirt, no problem, he could enter.

Lallen said "... and this man clearly cross-dresses on a regular basis.... did CP judge this situation appropriately?" Well... to take that a step further... your local KKK wacko's wear sheets and hoods on regular occasions... and you can bet a park would not let them in. Call it a costume... call it "offensive" attire... call it what you will. In each case, because these are not the "norms of society", they could cause a disturbance.

And that brings up something else. IF CP let the man in and a group of people saw him dressed as a woman and started harassing him and / or they beat the crap out of him... he would sue the park for not protecting him. No win situation for CP... turn him away and get sued, let him in and risk a "disturbance" and get sued.

But I have one final question... When I go to parks, I see very few women wearing dresses. Most are in shorts and T-shirts. Had that person chosen to cross dress as a woman and wear the attire that most women wear to parks, this would not be an issue.

BOTTOM LINE: CP was not wrong *** This post was edited by SLFAKE on 6/13/2002. ***

I don't think it's more than offensive. It's VERY offensive. Why? Because according to CP it would cause me to turn my head from experiencing thier park.

I had a case similar (not lawsuit of anything). I had a marriage proposal involved with the park. With what was going to be done. The park would not allow.
They made a BIG POINT to state out to me, "If it interfears with a guests' feelings at our park, than you will be escorted out." I couldn't believe that exact statement. CP has their butts MORE than covered with stuff like this. If a guest turns their head over something CP didn't create (via a coaster or thier music, than they say they can kick you out.) Believe me, I went over MANY senarios with them.

Absolutely NO wedding dresses or Formal dresses can be worn into the park according to CP. If anytype of wedding ceremony interferes with the park and or it's guests you will be escorted out. I don't know what kind of dress this guy had on though.

This is one of the little problems I was having with CP earlier this year, which caused me to go to another park. And if this guy wins, this will put an interesting mark on CP's policies. Interesting.

"The Future of Roller Coasters"
-RollerCoasterGod
http://OhioThemeParks.com

*** This post was edited by RollerCoasterGod on 6/13/2002. ***

the real question is: how did he LOOK in the dress....if he looked "fabulous" then there shouldn't be a problem....if, on the other hand he looked "just plain nasty" to quote 'Playa, then that is a problem....LMAO. Just glad I don't have to be the one in charge of deciding what's *offensive*.....

So he waited almost an entire year to take this to court. Is it any coincidence that Father's Day is this weekend? Could he BE seeking any more publicity for Gay Day?

You know... that never occured to me. It traumatized him so much that he waited an entire year. I think wahoo skipper makes a good point about publicity seeking.

-----------------
"I wasn't always this cynical, but then I started kindergarden..." *** This post was edited by SLFAKE on 6/13/2002. ***

Ok everyone, think about this logically.

This guy certainly has the right to wear whatever he wants. Society today has basically told us what mens/womens clothes are. And if i woman can dress up like a guy, why cant a guy dress up like a girl? Who says they are even dressing up like the other sex in the first place? Its clothing...its basically the way a bunch of cotton is formed and a logo is slapped on it.

Now, while this person has the right to wear whatever he wants, the park is society, but its like a city-state(meaning it has its own government with its own rules). Like some other people have said, if you go on to someones property, they have the right to tell you to leave. The same goes with Cedar Point. The park wasnt very pleased with how he was dressing and they told him to leave. If they escorted him out, and gave him a REFUND from his admission, then there is absolutely no case here.

To sum it all up, while this person has the right to wear whatever he wants, he cant just wear it wherever he wants. Cedar Point is property, just like someones house is, only larger. So if they told him that his clothing was inapropriate to be worn on their property, they have every right to turn him away. Some people are forgetting that while its his right to wear whatever he wants, its also the parks right to turn him away.

Whats he sueing for? Emotional abuse. lmao

-------------
Stop the lawyers, not the rides!

SLFAKE said "No win situation for CP... turn him away and get sued, let him in and risk a "disturbance" and get sued."

Which brings up my problem with CP's stance on the whole thing. The park let him in and then decided *later* that he had to leave:

''They shouldn't take your money, let you in and then throw you out,'' Zukerman said. ''If you're not going to be permitted in, tell the person at the gate -- I even find that highly objectionable.''

-------------
"drop rides, not bombs."

First, this will probably be long-winded some. I’m writing it in Word first, so that’ll give you an idea of where I’m headed.

Second, I’ll try to be fair about what I write, and I’ll try to be unbiased.

There are few issues here that I think really stand out. A lot of them, however, are a question of motivation, and that’s something that’s very difficult to discern, and even more so when you’re in a court.

This individual is clearly not all there. Now, I can say that, and you’ll see why later. But, with some exceptions, you do not wear a dress to an amusement park. Based on my own experiences, I don’t think this individual was wearing a sundress. I’d be more likely to agree that it might’ve been considered something formal or in that vein. Now – simply because of culture – a lot of transgendered individuals don’t seem to be terribly grounded in the reality of everyday life. I’ll use ‘transgendered’ as an umbrella term, for what its worth, to describe gender-variant people. So, anyway, they tend not to have a real idea of what appropriate clothing is, ever.

What was Cedar Point’s motivation in ejecting this individual from the park? Was it because the dress as too formal, or because the individual didn’t conform to accepted gender expression? That’s an important distinction, and probably the hardest to make. The first is a fair enforcement of their dress codes, while the latter is discriminatory. Of course, in Ohio, there is no current law to protect transgendered people from discrimination of any sort, or violence. It’s open season on them, really. That, in and of itself, will play a great role in the outcome of this case, as the outcome is almost entirely dependent on the viewpoint of the judge.

Again, however, it is discriminatory to refuse a person entry, or eject them, because you don’t agree with their lifestyle. It’s a touchy subject, I know, and it’s not black and white. But, it’s something worth investigating. From what I can see, the thing about all of this that’s most offensive, and potentially damaging for everyone involved is the use of the term ‘costume.’ Costume has, in my mind, a negative connotation that suggests frivolity and inconsequence. How this applies to a cross-dresser, though is unclear, as they’re traditionally a group in which that assessment may be fair and just, as they don’t traditionally seek to be accepted as women by law. Further, from what I can see, since this person identifies as a cross-dresser, they should have no real issue with wearing male-gendered clothing. This isn’t always the case with transgendered people, and I’m curious as to where they’d draw the line.

In the end, I guess I think that Cedar Point overreacted, but that this individual's lawsuit is a bit unsubstantiated. I’d be interested to learn how things end up, though, and I’ll even run this past a few people I know and get their take on it. Some have legal experience with transgendered law, and can probably determine what’ll happen reasonably quickly.

Now, as to why I can make sweeping generalizations about cross-dressers. My own experiences have not been this severe. I am Coasterbuzz’s resident transsexual, which differs greatly from cross-dressing, but still lies within the realm of pushing society’s accepted gender roles to its limit. I won’t go on and on about the differences, other than to say I’m ‘aspiring to permanence,’ as somebody once told me.

I have gone to parks on many, many occasions dressed as something other than what my biological sex might indicate, and I have never run into a problem. This is after, even, showing my season pass with photo and legal name, or my driver’s license, with photo, legal name, AND sex. I try to be as level-headed and responsible as possible, and I have the benefit of being reasonably grounded in reality. I have never worn a dress, as I think anyone would be nuts to wear a dress to an amusement park. So – as this is my lifestyle – I’ve never had a problem. I wonder how my behavior differs from this individual, or if it was something as simple as the choice of clothing. It’s hard to say. Maybe it’s something as simple as sticking out like a sore thumb? I don’t. I look like a girl of my age. Perhaps they did not? Does that make them an easier target for discrimination, or is this whole thing being blown out of sorts?

Got me. If y’all want to see something entertaining, though, watch as GLBT groups rally behind this person as if they can do no wrong. The blinders they wear are high-quality. And I bet you never expected to see someone who could relate comment, did ya?
-----------------
~~~ M ~~~
In life you start the same as when you're done. If you lose, you're just where you've begun. If you win, remember what I said, don't quit while you're ahead. Who cares?

*** This post was edited by Chernabog on 6/13/2002. *** *** This post was edited by Chernabog on 6/13/2002. ***

Just think.....

You are walking through the Midway with your friends headed for the best ride of your life on millenium force. All of a sudden this woman walks in front of you, or at least you think it's a woman, with long hairy legs, its little fat gut sticking out, a tight tube top on which brings out the form of his/her breasts which aren't there. And wearing a tight skirt that if he bent over you could see the privates.

Now tell me, would that brighten your day at CP. It wouldn't truly ruin your day but it is not something you want to see. I think the park had the right to throw the person out because he was an eyesore.

-----------------
Top Parks (That I Have Been To) 1. Cedar Point 2. Six Flags Magic Mountain 3. Kennywood 4. Busch Gardens Williamsburg 5. Nagashima Spaland

I mean how bad did she look? was " prisscilla queen of the desert " , 3 ft pink hair, feather boa, drag ? or was it just a plain dress black with a smart string of pearls ? but still.... Some queens will just do anything for money. either way its CP 's Call on a dress ( no pun )code . Once they made me turn my shirt inside out . I could understand that. Your a GUEST at a park go by their rules.

-----------------
You really need to get some more BRAN in your diet

Am I the only person that read the article? The description of the dress was "a grandma's frock," not a tube top, skirt, etc.

-------------
"drop rides, not bombs." *** This post was edited by chris on 6/13/2002. ***

I think that this case may depend greatly on details that we don't have. If the man was wearing a dress that the park would not allow a woman to wear, its one thing. (ie. Wedding dress as previously mentioned) If he looked like "Tootsie" in casual dress and was hardly noticable the situation is probably different. There is a lot of ground in between.

As a side note, there are two groups of women that I normally see wearing skirts at amusement parks. The first is older women who are not generally riding. The second group is women who are required by their religious or cultural traditions to wear dresses. This group most commonly includes Muslim women and at Hershey park Amish teenagers. I seldom see women in Muslim garb riding, but I do often see Amish teen age girls riding including riding Great Bear. The Amish girls are skilled at tucking their skirts so that they can do this while remaining quite proper.

I'm glad Chernabog is at least capable of analyzing the situation logically. Most of you have only tried to make judgements about the guy's character or motivation, which mean zero in court.

Can Cedar Point enforce dress codes and prohibit certain clothing? Certainly, it's private property. Just like this site... if I think you're a moron, I can boot your ass off in a heartbeat.

However, in this case, I'm betting that Cedar Point has the burden to prove that their intentions were not discriminatory. All of the peripheral issues about what society accepts and such I don't think have any weight. It will come down to the uniformity of their policy enforcement. It only takes one exception to lose that battle.

-----------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com, Sillynonsense.com
"As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who you are. If you can believe, there's something worth fighting for..." - Garbage, "Parade"

My bad... I didn't read the article. (I'm at work and I'm just sneaking peaks at CBuzz between programs).

I didn't know they let him in and then told him he had to leave.

The way it played out, CP should have denied him entry based on their No Costume stance (see Coasterdude04 and RollerCoasterGod's above posts for very good explanations of why they have that right). He arrived. He paid. He entered. He was stopped later by security. He was told about the "no adult costume" rule. He was given the option to comply to that rule (i.e. to change into appropriate attire). He refused to comply to that park rule. He was escorted out. He was REFUNDED HIS ADMISSION.

We can assume he was violating a policy he knew nothing about. He was allowed in and not stopped at the gate. The only thing CP did wrong is in 1) not training their employees at the gate of this policy and 2) not pointing this out to him at that time.

Something else... if you break a policy such as line jumping... you are also escorted out. You broke a policy, you are escorted out... WITH OUT A REFUND. This person was against policy and was escorted out WITH A REFUND (I guess because he was "unaware" of that policy).

Now, my cynical is running here. When my wife and I go to a park with water rides, we take along a change of clothes so we do not have to walk around in soaking wet clothing for the rest of the day. WE are assuming that this person entered the park dressed the way security spotted him. It is entirely possible for a person to enter a park dressed in an acceptable manner and then change clothes once in the park. I know, the article does not say this... just a thought.

Bottom line... IF he was dressed that way at the gate, CP was in error for not stopping him then for that policy violation... however, since after having this being pointed out and refusing to comply to policy, his money was refunded. No case in my mind. The claims of damages and the $25,000 is totally rediculous.

(Some of the things he is suing for is fear and frustration... Does this mean I can sue SFA because last season I was Frustrated because their ops were so slow and for FEAR because I am still not sure what that was on my tray when I ate lunch? Hmmmmmm... I wonder...)

-----------------
"I wasn't always this cynical, but then I started kindergarden..."

How many people do you think will be coming out to the park on Sunday to see what the fashion show will be like?

My completely amatuer "Armchair-Matlock" opinion on the case is that it will hinge solely on what the definition of "costume" is. I mean, I think that any rational citizen here in the USA would connote "costume" with visons of Halloween and folks dressed as Superman, ghosts, and the like. However, as defined by Merriam-Webster's online collegiate dictionary ( http://www.m-w.com/ ):

---

"1 : the prevailing fashion in coiffure, jewelry, and apparel of a period, country, or class
2 : an outfit worn to create the appearance characteristic of a particular period, person, place, or thing Halloween costumes
3 : a person's ensemble of outer garments; especially : a woman's ensemble of dress with coat or jacket
- cos·tum·ey adjective "

---

( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=costume )

With *this* as the prevailing lexicon, practically ALL forms of current dress could be considered "a costume". Hopefully, for Cedar Point's sake, they were their *own* lexicographer and in their "Park Polices" explain what they mean by costume. Otherwise, one could make a prima facia arguement that this person's dress was no more or less a "costume" than any other park patron, and that Cedar Point selectively applied the rules, possibly motivated by some underlying bias against that particular style.

What's next? Are we going to ban the gothic style of dress next? How about we get rid of Capri pants and "cargo" shorts as well.

Alright, I'm being a "little" silly here, but hopefully, you all can see this single 'shred' of credibility to the allegation. However, I must admitt that I feel the sought damages are incredulous.

I am very interested to see how this plays out.

lata,

jeremy

--who perhaps *should* investigate law school after all....

---

Now, while this person has the right to wear whatever he wants, the park is society, but its like a city-state(meaning it has its own government with its own rules). Like some other people have said, if you go on to someones property, they have the right to tell you to leave. The same goes with Cedar Point.

---

Cedar Point does not have its own government, and does not operate with its own set of laws. If they wanted to eject african americans for whatever "rule" that they could claim, it would be illegal. Gays and the Gender ambiguous are not a protected class, and this is precisely why this is such a hot-button political issue.

One more person trying to get rich. From Webster's Dictionary Costume- clothes worn by a person playing a part or dressing up in a disguise. Is this man a woman? No. Why is he cross-dressing? To be more like a woman. Therefore the dress is considered a costume. The case does not exist. This is just another case of one more idiot trying to make a quick dollar.

-----------------
*** This post was edited by mikerose2 on 6/13/2002. ***

In theory, it does in fact have its own government... Management. It does have its own set of laws... Park Policies. Park policies can not counter actual laws, but they can be tougher. For instance... alcohol is not illegal... but alcohol (brought in from out side the park) is not permitted inside of parks. For that matter... picnic lunches, certainly not illegal, are not permitted into most parks by their policy. Same is true here.

Bottom line... the Government(Management) passed a Law(Policy) and this person was in violation of that Law(Policy). He was given the option to conform to that law, and refused. He was then escorted out and given a refund.

You slip an offensive T-shirt on after you enter... or if you are a guy you go with out a shirt on... or you line but... sit on hand rails... what ever... You are "reminded" of the rule... if you chose not to comply, you are escorted out with NO refund.

Also, my compliments to mikerose2, who, in that last post, said what I have been thinking in the back of my mind this entire time but did not want to come right out and say. (Darn P.C. stuff... I'm even starting to fall for it) *** This post was edited by SLFAKE on 6/13/2002. ***