Heterophobic hotel wins right to exclude non gay patrons (1 Viewer)

[iamsickofyear12]

I wouldn't mind if the same rule also applied to other places... in that they could ban gay people... but the minute someone doesn't let someone in their bar because they are gay the homo's are going to go off.

It is reverse discrimination and it goes on all the time now. Minority groups can do whatever they want regardless of anti-discrimination laws, having their own special groups and banning the majority... but when the majority try and do the same we are told that it is discrimination.

Anti discrimination is a ridiculous concept and all laws relating to it should be scrapped immediately.

 

[ari89]

Firstly, I would like to say I feel flattered that you copied my signature format.

No probs.

If you read my second post

I wrote my post before you posted it just got distracted before posting.

I do mention that it does discriminate, but it also creates an atmosphere where a certain people can feel comfortable around like-minded people. Would it be discrimination if a homeless man tried to enter an RSL or other recreational club wearing torn pants and shirt? Yes it would. But it's still acceptable by Australian law. That man could have an opinion on wearing clothes which was created by Low Paid Wages (Labourers who are paid a few dollars per garment made.) Or maybe have something against clothing that was made of byproducts of animals. (Maybe both.)

Regardless, he would be expected to adhere to the dress code in order to maintain balance and the 'vibe' that the patron intended the bar to have. It's not about differences, but rather similarities.

The terms of entry to a club imposing a dress code are very different as the determining factor is one that can be changed. The homeless person wasn't discriminated against for who they were, it was just by consequence of their economic standing that they didn't meet the dress code. I maintain that not being gay is not a related consequence of your economic standing or similar.

 

[xeuyrawp]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=269523 the gay community has always prided itself on equality, tolerance and acceptence

Bahahahah! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

1. Equality: The majority of gay people think they're better than other people. They not only think so, but they act as such. Case in point.
2. Tolerance: Gay people are hugely intolerant. They are intolerant of queers who do not fit in within the 'gay' stereotype, they are intolerant of straight people, and they are intolerant of bettering themselves. Case in point.
3. Acceptence: The gay community does not accept people who do not fit into the 'gay' stereotype of an anorexic, moronic, camp, polygamous drug-user. Case in point.

Oops, edit. About the article, I'm really not surprised. The gay community frequently puts on such a heterophobic attitude simply to alienate itself and make itself 'distinct, dignified, and fab' (quoted from Queerspace flier).

 

[withoutaface]

A few points:
1. In the current climate I'm against it, because if you're having anti-discrimination legislation it needs to be uniform, and if you can ban heterosexuals for clashing with other patrons, surely Scruffy's can ban Arabs and Islanders for the same reason.
2. I would support a uniform lifting of all anti-discrimination legislation because it's the owner's property, and they should be free to decide who they want drinking there.
3. How many people will this really affect? I mean how many straight guys go out of their way to attend a gay bar because they enjoy the atmosphere.

 

[xeuyrawp]

A few points:
1. In the current climate I'm against it, because if you're having anti-discrimination legislation it needs to be uniform, and if you can ban heterosexuals for clashing with other patrons, surely Scruffy's can ban Arabs and Islanders for the same reason.
2. I would support a uniform lifting of all anti-discrimination legislation because it's the owner's property, and they should be free to decide who they want drinking there.
3. How many people will this really affect? I mean how many straight guys go out of their way to attend a gay bar because they enjoy the atmosphere.

With regards to number 2., I've never understood the whole thing. When are businesses allowed to refuse entry/have people removed? Every time I've worked in retail, I've seen the business legally exercise their right to have people removed, with no reason necessary.

Maybe a legal eagle can explain.

 

[Serius]

I visit a gay bar pretty often. The atmosphere is always good, its always furnished nicely, better music, poles and cages, cocktails for cheap etc. Plus its like about 80% straight girls and 19% gay guys so picking up is simply a matter of shooting into the barrel and pulling out what you got.

 

[sam04u]

I wrote my post before you posted it just got distracted before posting.

Sure you did.

The terms of entry to a club imposing a dress code are very different as the determining factor is one that can be changed.

Maybe the implemented dress code could include a jesters hat. Since you seem to be so very funny (Judging by your post.)

The homeless person wasn't discriminated against for who they were, it was just by consequence of their economic standing that they didn't meet the dress code.

Right, it's a consequence that a homeless persons clothing didn't meet an economic standard set by a private club. :rofl: Maybe the clubs where you go too have a dress code which accepts torn clothes.

I maintain that not being gay is not a related consequence of your economic standing or similar.

What's the point of a dress-code though? Isn't it to ensure that people who are "dressed" a certain way, and thus be like-minded with the other customers/members?

 

[withoutaface]

With regards to number 2., I've never understood the whole thing. When are businesses allowed to refuse entry/have people removed? Every time I've worked in retail, I've seen the business legally exercise their right to have people removed, with no reason necessary.

Maybe a legal eagle can explain.

You can put up a "Management reserves right to blah blah blah", but I think if it can be clearly demonstrated that if you're of a certain ethnicity/sexuality/whatever then you'll be denied access, it becomes a matter for anti-discrimination legislation.
If you had one or two gay guys continually being denied access but other gay men being allowed into place of business A, it'd be fairly difficult to make a case that their homosexuality has brought about A's actions.

EDIT:

Gay bars, property rights and anti-discrimination legislation
Share
5:14am Today | Edit Note | Delete
Background
In the last day or so it has surfaced that a gay bar in Victoria has been granted an exemption from anti-discrimination legislation so that it can now deny access to anyone who is not a homosexual male. The reasons given were because heterosexual males and homosexual females "insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons", and because heterosexual females were coming in because they found homosexual males entertaining and regarded them as a "zoo exhibit".

In 2005 Scruffy Murphy's in Sydney also decided to ban certain patrons (in this case those of Middle Eastern or Islander appearance) for similar reasons (i.e. because the owner felt they were initiating violence), and the pub was found to be in breach of anti-discrimination legislation.

My Fundamental View
I believe that both pubs should be allowed to have whatever door policies they want, and, indeed, so should anywhere else.

On a principled basis I believe this because the pub is private property, and one of the most fundamental rights in owning property is the ability to say who can and can't enter it.

On a practical basis, following the bans. we have one of two situations arising:
1. The pubs fears are founded, and certain demographics do cause trouble. The ban leads to a safer pub, with no broken chairs or tables and a greater patronage from those who aren't being excluded because they enjoy the pleasant atmosphere.

2. The fears are unfounded, and the owners are just bigots. The atmosphere in the pub remains exactly the same, so no more of the non-excluded demographics are likely to attend, and the whole venture becomes less profitable. Ergo, the owner loses money for their bigotry.

It is here that many people will think I'm suggesting we reinstate apartheid, but if this is the case then you've taken situation 1, thereby assuming that some groups of people will always create fights when put together. Ergo you've taken your own bigotted premise, put it through my argument, and acted shocked when the conclusion was also discriminatory.

In the real world, more often than not, we see situation 2, and those who have racist/homophobic/heterophobic door policies will be outcompeted by those owners with a level head. The result is a more open and inclusive society where people can go just about anywhere they want without being made to feel unwelcome through more passive forms of discrimination. This can be applied to discrimination legislation in general (e.g. workplace), and I'll probably write a note on this at some later date when I have time to do some proper research on the topic and dredge up some examples.

What should happen now
Unifrom governance is perhaps the most important step towards true equality of opportunity, and this means neither minorties, nor the majority, should get special status under the law. As such the Victorian government should have rejected the application for an exemption, and instead sat down and considered the laws as a whole, and whether they really foster the inclusiveness that they set out to create.

 

[xeuyrawp]

You can put up a "Management reserves right to blah blah blah", but I think if it can be clearly demonstrated that if you're of a certain ethnicity/sexuality/whatever then you'll be denied access, it becomes a matter for anti-discrimination legislation.
If you had one or two gay guys continually being denied access but other gay men being allowed into place of business A, it'd be fairly difficult to make a case that their homosexuality has brought about A's actions.

EDIT:

But as far as I've seen, you don't have to legally put up a sign in order to be able to ask people to leave. When you ask them, you don't have to give a reason.

 

[withoutaface]

I don't think whether you legally have to have a sign up to remove people from the premises or not would affect the decisions of most shopkeepers anyway, given the people they're ejecting aren't lawyers and in most cases they'll be teenagers or rowdy individuals who are unlikely to complain to somewhere higher about being kicked out. When it comes to specifically targetting a homosexual/black/disabled man/woman and kicking him/her out it'd be pretty hard to prove that the reason was discriminatory unless:
a) it happened to a lot of others of the same demographic; or
b) that was the reason given at the time.
Otherwise most places are just going to fabricate some other reason if approached by the discrimination board.

 

[wheredanton]

But as far as I've seen, you don't have to legally put up a sign in order to be able to ask people to leave.

You don't. When you enter onto someone's property you only have a bare (and unenforceable) licence that can be revoked at will by the land owner. A licence is only enforceable if it is supported by a contract (ie you have paid for the right to be on the land).

This rule probably doesn't apply so much to pubs because of their public nature. Obviously this explains why anti discrimination laws would apply to a pub and not your family home.

 

[dagwoman]

I think the aim of the ruling was to decrease violence, which I think is valid. However, I don't see why straight people shouldn't be allowed to go to such venues as long as they're respectcul (i.e. not physically or verbally abusive). I understand the need for GLBT people to have their own safe spaces, but when it goes too far it just becomes hypocritical. I don't see why they can't have bouncers at the front to make sure violent/abusive people don't go in, without the ruling.

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Let them...when the end of life is near...they're all going to hell anyways...so the bible says :rofl:

Come on, was that necessary? Who are you to decide who is going to Hell?

 

[ari89]

Sure you did.

I'm glad you acknowledged it however it wasn't really necessary

Maybe the implemented dress code could include a jesters hat. Since you seem to be so very funny (Judging by your post.)

Because a jester hat is so reasonable.

Right, it's a consequence that a homeless persons clothing didn't meet an economic standard set by a private club. :rofl: Maybe the clubs where you go too have a dress code which accepts torn clothes.

There was no economic standard imposed by the club, there was a dress code. Please take the initiative to understand what is being said as you seem to be very far off the mark.:rofl:

What's the point of a dress-code though? Isn't it to ensure that people who are "dressed" a certain way, and thus be like-minded with the other customers/members?

If a dress code shows like mindedness I must conclude that you are a very shallow person. A dress code is merely to ensure that the atmosphere isn't cheapened and if you choose to attend it is perfectly reasonable assumption that the average person can wear shoes and a shirt. However, I don't find it reasonable, as by implication that you suggest, that heterosexuals can simply change their shell and become homosexual. If you want to prove your point I suggest another analogy as the one you have chosen appears to have no correllation with the point you are trying to prove. Maybe wait for the case to come out on Austlii and borrow one of their examples to give your argument the much needed subtance it deserves.

 

[Serius]

I think the aim of the ruling was to decrease violence, which I think is valid. However, I don't see why straight people shouldn't be allowed to go to such venues as long as they're respectcul (i.e. not physically or verbally abusive). I understand the need for GLBT people to have their own safe spaces, but when it goes too far it just becomes hypocritical. I don't see why they can't have bouncers at the front to make sure violent/abusive people don't go in, without the ruling.

Yeah, some sort of big sign saying like " this is a gay safe haven first and foremost, and whilst we welcome heterosexual patrons we ask them to conduct themselves in a respectful and non-descriminatory way. If you choose to display homophobic language or actions you will be asked to leave"

I dont understand why female only gyms exist. What happens if i walk up and ask for a membership? they wont give it to me because iam a male, but isnt that descrimination? why do we need to segregate society into seperate gyms? and why dont i see any male only gyms? surely the reasons for female only gyms [something like they want to exercise without males judging them] would be just as valid for a male gym. I dont want to show up to a gym with some hot girls in it and make a fool of myself when i dont know how to use the equipment or when i can hardly lift 10kg or if i rip a massive fart doing squats[or something else likely to cause flatulence] That would be totally embarassing and they would be judging me.

Ofcourse i can put up with that embarasment, because i dont beleive we need to ban people from gyms based on their gender.

 

[sam04u]

It's nothing like that.

Why do we have Male and Female toilets?

It's simple. People want privacy, they want to be able to do things and talk about things comfortably with "like-minded" people. It has nothing to do with the differences, I keep saying that. It's kind of like a place where they can kick back and chill. Why are you so offended by it really? (I mean I agree there are negatives too it. But the positives exist as well.)

 

[Serius]

Privacy? its a gym, its not the same as displaying your genitals in a toilet. Its not about being like minded are not, its about descrimination plain and simple. Otherwise why dont we see gay only gyms? straight male gyms only? no-blackies-allowed buses?

a water fountain for whites and a water fountain for coloreds'

If you really wanted privacy you will spend money to buy a home gym, just like if you enjoy swimming but have a body image you buy a pool. Going the opposite direction would be to have "fatties only" public pools.

Plus it seems like the muslim route, making everything divided up by gender [and we all know how well that works for muslim countries, just look at their shitty racism, sexism, pathetic legal system and poor ecconomic status!]

 

[Josie]

I visit a gay bar pretty often. The atmosphere is always good, its always furnished nicely, better music, poles and cages, cocktails for cheap etc. Plus its like about 80% straight girls and 19% gay guys so picking up is simply a matter of shooting into the barrel and pulling out what you got.

Go Castros!




Reverse discrimination. If gays weren't allowed in straight bars, then yes. But if you're going to have anti-discrimination laws, bloody hell.

Saying it's the same as a dress code is bullshit. You can change what you're wearing. You can't (arguably) change your sexuality for a night out.

 

[Josie]

It's a gay bar, why would hetrosexuals really need to go there. If they want a gay bar experience there are plenty of other gay bars in Melbourne that will not have the exclusionary policy.

Expect to see a spate of homosexual bars banning straight people.


Does anyone else think they're going to have less people, make less money etc... I know the gay bar around here makes most of its money from straight people.

 

[Gilbert1]

Yes. I understand that that're reverse discrimination. How would they know whether or not someone is heterosexual?

Gay chicken?