The owner of a downtown tavern faces a hearing before the city of Springfield’s
Community Relations Commission for allegedly discriminating against a group
of lesbians in a St. Patrick’s Day incident.
Robert Stoeppler, co-owner of Bob’s Butternut Hut, asked a group of about two dozen women to leave the tavern at 215 N. Second St. after he saw two of the women kissing. The incident happened on March 13, shortly after the St. Patrick’s Day parade.
Angela Carter, one of the women in the group, later filed a formal complaint against Stoeppler. An investigation by the Community Relations office concluded this week that there was enough evidence to warrant a hearing.
“At this point, there’s a finding of substantial evidence,” says department director Sandy Robinson. “The parallel in criminal court would be indictment, enough evidence for a hearing to take place. There has not been a finding of guilt or innocence.”
Robinson’s office found evidence supporting allegations that Stoeppler “engaged in sexually and racially derogatory name-calling before ejecting [Carter] and her friends” from Butternut Hut, and that witnesses corroborated the allegations.
According to the report, Stoeppler told the women, “I don’t want you lesbians in here.” When two biracial females asked him why he was throwing them out, Stoeppler allegedly replied, “The only reason I serve you is because the NAACP makes me.”
Stoeppler, who owns the bar with his wife, Betty, chose not to attend a fact-finding conference about the incident, even after it had been postponed to accommodate his schedule. Instead, his attorney John Sharp attended, and Stoeppler later provided written answers to a list of interrogatory questions.
In his written answers, Stoeppler claimed he asked the women to leave because two of them were engaged in lewd conduct. Other women then began to threaten him, and some became verbally abusive.
Springfield added sexual orientation to the list of protected classes in January 2003. Robinson said the Bob’s Butternut Hut incident is one of “a handful” of complaints that has utilized that provision. The others were all conciliated, Robinson says, under terms that prevent him from discussing the details.
Sharp says his client denies Carter’s allegations, but suggests this complaint may also be settled. “We’re still in the process of discussing the matter with the city, so there has been no resolution,” Sharp says. “We’re expecting to be speaking with the city in the next week or two.”
Carter, however, is unsure what to ask for.
“I just want him to be reprimanded for what he did,” she says. “Now it’s in the hands of somebody else, so hopefully they’ll find something they deem fit for the situation.
“On my own behalf I never went into this expecting any kind of personal gain, because that’s not what it’s about.”
This article appears in Sep 23-29, 2004.
