Banning people because of sexuality?

[Liar]

Got no real comments at this point. Might be a working solution in this isolated case, but I dunno. The other side of the argument curiously missing from the article, so it's tricky to form an objective opinion.


--------------

Gay bar wins right to ban heterosexuals
Monday May 28 05:00 AEST

A Melbourne gay bar has been granted an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act in a landmark ruling which will allow security to refuse entry to heterosexuals.

The owners of Collingwood's Peel Hotel, which came under fire in April for promoting a gay Anzac Day party, successfully argued to the state planning tribunal that banning heterosexuals from the club would prevent "sexually based insults and violence".

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal granted the controversial powers to the club last week, the Herald Sun reports.

VCAT deputy president Cate McKenzie claimed that allowing straight men and women into the club would defeat the purpose of the venue.

"This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create," McKenzie said.

"Sometimes heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons."

McKenzie said some straight women came to the club because they found the gay patrons entertaining.

"To regard the gay male patrons of the venue as providing an entertainment or spectacle to be stared at, as one would at an animal at a zoo, devalues and dehumanises them," she said.

"(This exemption) seeks to give gay men a space in which they may, without inhibition, meet, socialise and express physical attraction to each other in a non-threatening atmosphere."

A spokeswoman for the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group told the Herald Sun that gay men at the Peel had been made to feel like "zoo animals".

"This exemption was not sought to exclude members of the community but to try to maintain a safe space for men to meet," the spokeswoman said.

"It's sad that members of our community would have to go to the VCAT to preserve their rights.

"This is one of the only free venues with live music in the area, so certainly some people may feel a bit unhappy about the decision."

 

[scheherazade_79]

Never really thought about it in that way before...

I went to a lesbian bar around Soho once and had this conversation with my best friend:

H: I don't know if they'll let me in, because I'm a man and I've had problems there in the past.
Me: Don't be silly, H - you're obviously gay!
H: But that's the point. It's the death knell of all lesbian bars and clubs - lesbians bring along their gay male friends, who attract straight women, who attract straight men, and soon the place has more straight people in it than gay people.

I can see the argument, but on the other hand, if there were bars and clubs that banned gay people there'd be an uproar.

I don't know what to say.

 

[LadyAria]

I'd be afraid of legal precedence being created that could backfire on them.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'd be afraid of legal precedence being created that could backfire on them.

And there are some parts of the western world who wouldn't need much of an excuse to ban gay people...

 

[LadyAria]

And there are some parts of the western world who wouldn't need much of an excuse to ban gay people...

precisely

 

[Belegon]

I'm against discrimination of any sort. Two wrongs do not make a right, even though three lefts do...

 

[Liar]

Just a thought, but how do they check if you're gay?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Just a thought, but how do they check if you're gay?

weren't you issued the secret badge?

No?

Then you're not....

 

[matriarch]

I can see the point, a very valid point.
I remember watching a documentary on the history of lesbians and gay men in Canada (I have it on video), where exactly what was described in the justification happened in the 50s. The lesbians described how the straight couples would come to the bar 'to see the queers'....and sit at tables just watching them.....I personally would hate that, not that I go to gay bars. I've only been to one lesbian bar in my life. Twice. While staying with a lesbian friend. I was nervous (don't ask), but a part of me felt good that because I was here, I knew that everyone else was like me, and I didn't have to worry that a word or a fleeting touch (inadvertent or other), would be miscontrued. It was very, very liberating. If I'd known there would be straight women there, I'd have been far less comfortable, for the same reason. There's nothing more 'avenging angel' than a straight woman who thinks she's being hit on my a lesbian. *shudder*.

But if they came to the bar because they liked the atmosphere, and the music accepting that the majority of the clientele were gay...........

It's a difficult question, I don't know the full history, but maybe a better next step would be to have a large notice on the outside of the bar, advising prospective clientele, that 'this is a gay and lesbian bar, where that sections of the community come to enjoy themselves and be free of pointing, discrimination, etc. The management reserve the right to refuse entry to any member of the public causing offence or discomfort to the clientele for whom this bar is intended to be a place of entertainment and relaxation'........or something on those lines.

Barring them does seem a tad extreme, but as I said, I have no idea of the full history behind this move.

 

[DerelictionOfSanity]

This is ridiculous. It makes far more sense to simply insist on the right to ban people from the place for making offensive remarks or unpleasant behaviour. Frankly, my opinion is that any straight person in a gay bar has to be a good sport. They may have to learn to politely turn down invitations.

This personally doesn't affect me that much, as I don't really go to bars and clubs, but I can sympathize with the zoo animal theory. I know someone who believes that all gay people are really like "Will and Grace" and she wants to be Grace. It irritatates me, because I'm not suddenly some fashion-saavy, club-hopping, wise-cracking TV character. The level of unrealism is surprising.

 

[Belegon]

I've spent a fair amount of time in gay clubs. I always felt that being hit on was a compliment. I know that I'm unusually open-minded though.

Seriously. Yes, everyone has a right not to be hassled. But I don't feel that a gay club has any more right to ban straight patrons than a straight club has to ban gay ones.

Every private business should have a right to ban a disruptive person who is an irritant to their customers. But the amount of disruption should be determined by a person's actions...not by who they are.

Substitute black & white for gay and straight. If you don't support it one way, you shouldn't do so in the other. Maybe there could be some discomfort generated. But that wouldn't make the banning the right thing to do. Aren't our principles worth a little discomfort?

 

[cloudy]

I've spent a fair amount of time in gay clubs. I always felt that being hit on was a compliment. I know that I'm unusually open-minded though.

Seriously. Yes, everyone has a right not to be hassled. But I don't feel that a gay club has any more right to ban straight patrons than a straight club has to ban gay ones.

Every private business should have a right to ban a disruptive person who is an irritant to their customers. But the amount of disruption should be determined by a person's actions...not by who they are.

Substitute black & white for gay and straight. If you don't support it one way, you shouldn't do so in the other. Maybe there could be some discomfort generated. But that wouldn't make the banning the right thing to do. Aren't our principles worth a little discomfort?

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[sutherngent985]

I've spent a fair amount of time in gay clubs. I always felt that being hit on was a compliment. I know that I'm unusually open-minded though.

Seriously. Yes, everyone has a right not to be hassled. But I don't feel that a gay club has any more right to ban straight patrons than a straight club has to ban gay ones.

Every private business should have a right to ban a disruptive person who is an irritant to their customers. But the amount of disruption should be determined by a person's actions...not by who they are.

Substitute black & white for gay and straight. If you don't support it one way, you shouldn't do so in the other. Maybe there could be some discomfort generated. But that wouldn't make the banning the right thing to do. Aren't our principles worth a little discomfort?

I've been to plenty of gay bars with some friends of mine. I never felt uncomfortable at being hit on, I just said I wasn't interested and they left me alone, with one exception. Then a not so nice word from my friend got him to back off. But like you said Belegon...if it was black and white, this would have never happened.

 

[impressive]

It's discrimination no matter how much eau fraiche you spray on it to cover the smell of hypocrisy.

I gather from the fact that government intervention was necessary in the first place that it's a public place. Public means ALL. If an exclusive atmosphere is desired, the business should go private. Then, it can legitimately discriminate.

Government-sanctioned discrimination is a very slippery slope.

 

[wehstar]

The identification at the door issue seems to be a bit of a strange one. Does that mean that you actually have to conform to some sort of stereotype to gain entrance to the establishment

As a heterosexual, I don't go to gay bars. My opinion being that there is a reason these places were created, for people who to a certain extent are ostricised (why doesn't lit put a spell checker interface here?) in the community, to go and be together knowing that all around are the same.

Of course my opinion is always coloured by my belief that all noisy bars and clubs exist purely as a means to provide people with sexual targets. So many people tell me that this is not true, yet every time I go out I seem to be proven right, at least in my own head.

I remember as a student the ridiculous course of events where about 30 straight women deciding to go down to the gay bar district, because it was cool. Then another 30 straight guys finding out they had gone down there and basically stalking them. The Friday night cattle market just moving location, to what I percieved as an invasion. Just seemed pathetic to me.

But then I'm told I'm far too uptight about these things, and that I see the world in black and white only, ignoring the shades of grey.

The only positive outcomes I did find from this mixing, was that one or two gay/bi people seemed to "find themselves" there.

 

[rgraham666]

Sigh. What you resist, you become.

And how do they determine who is gay and who is not. Wear a pink triangle?

Last time I was in a gay bar was in the '70s with some acquaintances. I left as soon as I realized my acquaintances were there to 'gawk at the queers'. Didn't have much to do with people afterwards either.

 

[glynndah]

While the whole "we don't allow your kind in here" revenge mentality is slightly appealing, it seems to put them in with the same mind-set they were trying to avoid.

I like the idea of letting people know up front it's a gay club that welcomes everyone, but that "intolerant behavior", however they interpret that, will not be tolerated.

 

[R. Richard]

Seriously. Yes, everyone has a right not to be hassled. But I don't feel that a gay club has any more right to ban straight patrons than a straight club has to ban gay ones.

Every private business should have a right to ban a disruptive person who is an irritant to their customers. But the amount of disruption should be determined by a person's actions...not by who they are.

Substitute black & white for gay and straight. If you don't support it one way, you shouldn't do so in the other. Maybe there could be some discomfort generated. But that wouldn't make the banning the right thing to do. Aren't our principles worth a little discomfort?

You got it! Once discrimination is allowed, where does it end?

 

[Ness73]

I don't agree with this at all. I can understand why they have gone down this path, but surely this is too much. There is a club here (Perth) that has a sign on the door stating that it is a gay friendly bar, if you don't like that sort of thing then go somewhere else. Pretty simple really. And I think the reason that straight women like gay bars is for the fact that you can go out with the girls, dance all night and not have men try to pick you up at every turn. Does this mean that gay people with straight friends can't go out with them? I just find it funny that they would assume that gay men are only friends with gay men. Argh, I'm not explaining myself very well, it's a bit late here. But don't agree with it at all.

 

[expletives]

private enterprise

is this an odd place for my first literotica message board post?

the sticking point for me is whether or not this is a private or public enterprise, which i didn't see clearly articulated in the initial article one way or another, but i'm a bit unfamiliar with the territory seeing as i'm american. if it's a public venue, then any sort of discrimination based on race, gender, sexuality, etc. is out of the question.

but if this is a private enterprise, they can choose to admit or refuse admittance to whomever they please for whatever reason they desire.

 

[Jagged]

That ruling though in a foreign court could change things world wide. Now here in the United States our Supreme court listens far to often to other country's rulings. Thanks to this lovely ruling we are one step closer to seeing signs like White Only...Blacks only...Mexicans only...Rednecks only.....etc.

I remember all the arguments for segregation including it was to protect people and done for safety.

I drink at a country western bar from time to time...what if the management turned Black or Asian customers away because they enjoyed coming and laughing at the hill billies or because they just wouldn't fit in...?

Political Correctness doesn't make things better it just turns the tables when we are all supposed to be working for equality or at the very least respecting each other.



Never thought I would agree with cloudy.....Though Leonard Peltier should be rotting in jail for the execution of two police officers.

 

[angela146]

OK, touching on several points...

BTW: just for the sake of argument, I'm going to stipulate that both gays and lesbians are welcome. If not, make the appropriate modifications.

1. Suppose they made it a "private club". To get in, you gotta buy a membership and you gotta be accepted by the membership committee. That way they can use their gay-identification kit to make sure you're gay. It looks kind of like a StarTrek tricorder. You hold the scanner over someone's heart and look on the meter to see if it reads more than 375 Q/M (Queeriqules per Microgram).

2. Calibration: How gay to you have to be? In my case, I'm bi-sexual. There are some lesbians who don't like bi women. My reading is probably only 325 Q/M cuz I like it both ways but prefer men for my every-day fucking. Still, it would be nice if they would let me in so I could dance with the women and then not go home with any of them, cuz I'm like a tease.

3. There are lots of clubs the world over that have a guy/gal at the entrance who excludes people because they aren't fashion-forward enough or cute enough or young enough or whatever. This happens all the time at hetero bars. Who's to say that they can't do the same thing.

4. Back to the "how do you know" question. [sarcasm] Maybe they could make a rule that you have to have some visible permanent body art that says "Gay Pride" or "Lesbian Until Death" or something. I mean, if you're willing to get a tattoo, you're making a real commitment here.

Oh, but wait, isn't that what the Nazi's did? [/sarcasm]

5. Suppose they just made the bar really, really offensive to homophobes, like having the walls plastered with Mapplethorpe artwork? Or maybe they could have the hostess/host give a big gay hug to everyone as they come in the door.

But then again, that wouldn't scare off the curiosity seekers. Damn!

6. Back to the "how do you know" thing. What they really need is a certification system. In order to get your certification card, you have to have gender-appropriate sex on a regular basis.

For newly certified gays, it's once every three months. Once you have been a member for a full year, (renewed your membership three times) you could switch to an annual renewal process. After four annual renewals, you only have to renew once every five years. You know, sort of like a driver's license.

There would be an online-application form where you would include a digital video - which of course would be kept strictly confidential - and a passport-style photo ID.

They would need a handbook that determines exactly what kinds of sex will qualify and the duration. After all, a three-stroke hand-job isn't going to be enough. And of course they will need an authentication department to make sure the videos are legit.

Maybe they should also have random inspections... "Hello, ma'am, I'm from the Gay Certification Board. I'm here to administer a random lesbian test. I'll need you to choose one of these six women and have sex with her until both of you have an orgasm. As you can see, we have two butch, two chapstick and two lipstick to choose from."

"Um, no, we don't happen to have a redheaded chapstick available today... Yes, you may provide your own sex partner if you wish, but I'll have to check gender..."

"Yes, you are allowed to have sex with a bi-sexual woman and still qualify..."

"No, ma'am, there is a strict rule prohibiting the examiner herself from participating in the actual sex..."

"Why, thank you, I appreciate that, but I'm still not going to have sex with you..."

"Oh, alright, I suppose, but I am not going to wear a red wig..."

-----

Um, in case anyone is wondering, I do in fact have too much time on my hands.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Good point, expletives. (Good handle, too)

Yes, a business can, in theory put up any criteria they want-- excepting, of course, anything that smacks of racial discrimination, which is forbidden under federal law... it's entirely possible in theory for a bar to put up a "no queers" sign if they wanted, and then it's entirely permissible for an advocacy group to contest their doing so.


But if the bar wants to put up a standards of behaviour sign, it might serve the purpose-- and not limit the number of paying customers, which ought to be important to the owner. Hire a couple of big bouncers with the extra profits.

 

[cloudy]

Never thought I would agree with cloudy.....Though Leonard Peltier should be rotting in jail for the execution of two police officers.

Good lord, do some research, will ya? Even the FBI admits they don't know who shot those agents (and they were FBI agents, not police officers - that alone shows how little you know about the case), so unless you have some omnipotent powers the rest of us don't, you don't know who did it either.

 

[Liar]

Angela, you rawk.