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

[volition]

I'd have to agree with waf on this. GIVEN that we have anti-discrimination legislation, it would be inconsistent to allow some places to discriminate and others not to.

The solution: allow people the right to their private property and give them the choice to discriminate however they want to.

I think what we'd probably see is pub owners letting people in anyway because otherwise they would be missing out on business.

 

[townie]

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).

wow, what sweeping generalisations

 

[townie]

i do believe this is utterley stupid though, i mean, what they should really do is lobby for more powers to eject unruly patrons

 

[kami]

The bars new policy is rather moronic, having an open establishment promotes profits since people who are gay/bi that have hetero friends with them (though I shudder at the term, many gay men do go clubbing with their 'faghags') will simply go elsewhere. It isn't like they can really tell what sexuality someone is either unless they discriminate using stereotypes, so again people will be turned away because they don't 'fit'. Less money for venue, different venue for customer - its a lose-lose situation.

If they want to reduce violence and similar issues, then wouldn't it be more appropriate to have an increased police presence on the streets in the area? As people would become far more vulnerable to violence outside the venues, especially since they'd be drunk and perhaps alone. It also would make it safer for all of the local gay venues (which tend to cluster together) instead of just the one.

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.

Every group that discriminates thinks they're superior in some way; I don't think being gay has anything to do with it. Rather it's just whether or not a person chooses to be close minded. Also if you act or dress in a manner outside of the norm in any community then you're going to be ostracised to some extent.

The things you mention are valid issues, but I don't think they're gay issues and identifying them as such won't really get you anywhere since they're issues for all sectors of society.

i do believe this is utterley stupid though, i mean, what they should really do is lobby for more powers to eject unruly patrons

Don't they currently have the right to eject violent and/or unruly patrons? I mean that is what the bouncer is there for.

 

[withoutaface]

I thought the role of bouncers was to cause as much injury as possible to the maximum number of patrons chosen on an arbitrary basis.

Or is Cyph a poor example to make generalisations about his profession from?

 

[jimmayyy]

wow, what sweeping generalisations

]

thanks for addressing this before i got the chance to.

@ the original poster: CASE IN POINT LAWL

 

[xeuyrawp]

wow, what sweeping generalisations

Yup, but true.

Every group that discriminates thinks they're superior in some way;

Duh...? Why would they discriminate if they think they're inferior? 'Oh, sorry, we don't like you. You're actually too good for us!' lol?

I don't think being gay has anything to do with it. Rather it's just whether or not a person chooses to be close minded. Also if you act or dress in a manner outside of the norm in any community then you're going to be ostracised to some extent.

I totally agree. My point is that the gay community is very closed-minded to anything outside of their social norms. I think it's hilariously ironic that the queer community isolates itself more by promoting and condoning nasty social norms, which if you don't endorse, you're essentially excluded. Things like Mardi Gras proper are just a massive show for the outside world - when you end up at the parties afterword, or any queer event for that matter, you see what it's actually like.

The things you mention are valid issues, but I don't think they're gay issues and identifying them as such won't really get you anywhere since they're issues for all sectors of society.

No I don't think they're as prevalent anywhere else in society, only in certain isolated communities; geographically or intellectually. I'd classify the gay community as the latter.

Edit:

thanks for addressing this before i got the chance to.

@ the original poster: CASE IN POINT LAWL

Well after spending a great deal of time and energy inside the gay community, I think I'd have some perspective on the issue. I will definitely admit to being biased, though.

 

[kami]

Duh...? Why would they discriminate if they think they're inferior? 'Oh, sorry, we don't like you. You're actually too good for us!' lol?

If it's such a blatantly obvious point then why bother making it? Kinda redundant non?

But I was actually responding to the idea that gays believe they're superior - you find that everywhere. It's not like its a special thing engendered by gays.

I totally agree. My point is that the gay community is very closed-minded to anything outside of their social norms. I think it's hilariously ironic that the queer community isolates itself more by promoting and condoning nasty social norms, which if you don't endorse, you're essentially excluded. Things like Mardi Gras proper are just a massive show for the outside world - when you end up at the parties afterword, or any queer event for that matter, you see what it's actually like.

No I don't think they're as prevalent anywhere else in society, only in certain isolated communities; geographically or intellectually. I'd classify the gay community as the latter.

There's a huuuuge difference between gay people and the 'gay community' though - there are a large amount of people who aren't part of that community. Despite being gay, lesbian, bi, trans, intersex or what have you. In fact alot of those people are excluded from that 'community' - something which I think you're familiar with.

As long as you don't fit the stereotype you'll find the same happens elsewhere all the time - try to get involved in the goth scene for example and you might have similar issues.

 

[xeuyrawp]

If it's such a blatantly obvious point then why bother making it? Kinda redundant non?

You're the one who made it? Just to clarify:

I said: Gay community is discriminatory and thinks it's superior.
You said: Any group that discriminates will think it's superior.
I said: Obviously. See original point.

As far as I'm concerned, my original point isn't redundant.

But I was actually responding to the idea that gays believe they're superior - you find that everywhere. It's not like its a special thing engendered by gays.

I'm not saying it's special, either. If you actually read my post, you would see that I'm responding to OP's post about the gay community being tolerant blah blah.

There's a huuuuge difference between gay people and the 'gay community' though - there are a large amount of people who aren't part of that community. Despite being gay, lesbian, bi, trans, intersex or what have you.

Definitely. I think only the gay people who are outside the community are worth my time. That majority of gay people who are out are scenesters, though, part of the community, and thus part of my original point.

In fact alot of those people are excluded from that 'community' - something which I think you're familiar with.

No, I'd disagree about it being a lot of people - I think only a few are rejected by the community. Most gay people who are out fit within the stereotype of a smoking/camp/care-free/druggo/moron/slut.

As long as you don't fit the stereotype you'll find the same happens elsewhere all the time - try to get involved in the goth scene for example and you might have similar issues.

Are you suggesting that goths don't have a choice to be goths? Gay people, in my opinion, don't have a choice.

The gay community should be more open and accepting because part of being queer is being 'stuck with it'.

 

[kami]

You're the one who made it? Just to clarify:

I said: Gay community is discriminatory and thinks it's superior.
You said: Any group that discriminates will think it's superior.
I said: Obviously. See original point.

As far as I'm concerned, my original point isn't redundant.

Fine.

I'm not saying it's special, either. If you actually read my post, you would see that I'm responding to OP's post about the gay community being tolerant blah blah.

Well he didn't say they were tolerant if you want to be a stickler - he just said they prided themselves for such.

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.

That is pretty much separating anyone who is gay from the rest of the pack and labeling them unconditionally intolerant - how is that not making it special?

Definitely. I think only the gay people who are outside the community are worth my time. That majority of gay people who are out are scenesters, though, part of the community, and thus part of my original point.

I'm not sure they are the majority though, they might just be the most visible of those who are out. As long as they're not utterly stereotypical then people simply assume straightness - you don't even need to be in the closet for people to pass you by.

Or perhaps I'm just optimistic.

No, I'd disagree about it being a lot of people - I think only a few are rejected by the community. Most gay people who are out fit within the stereotype of a smoking/camp/care-free/druggo/moron/slut.

Again - how visible are people who aren't in the scene or don't lobby for queer rights?

Are you suggesting that goths don't have a choice to be goths? Gay people, in my opinion, don't have a choice.

The gay community should be more open and accepting because part of being queer is being 'stuck with it'.

Well its better than being emo.

But really, its the same thing, everyone chooses whether or not they fill out those stereotypes. Just like people choose to be goth or emo or punk. They may not have a choice regarding their sexuality but they do about their behaviour and I believe there are more people who exercise that choice, in very different ways, than you might think.

 

[sam04u]

I said: Gay community is discriminatory and thinks it's superior.
You said: Any group that discriminates will think it's superior.
I said: Obviously. See original point.


As far as I'm concerned, my original point isn't redundant.

Actually the latter part becomes redundant, since discriminating implies superiority in some sense according to the both of you. However, I believe xenophobia plays apart (not in the sense of "outsiders") but rather xenophobic of people outside of the community.

Point being, you accepted his claim that all discrimination is based on an ideal of superiority, when the gay community is apparently intolerant of "those outside" the community because of their differences, rather than because they think they're superior.

This leads to a question though. In what way do 'queers' think they're superior to heterosexual people?

I'm not saying it's special, either. If you actually read my post, you would see that I'm responding to OP's post about the gay community being tolerant blah blah.

They're no less tolerant than many other groups. Citing this example alone as a claim that the 'queer' community is intolerant is a logical fallacy. Communities extend further than single bars. (Care to cite any other examples or even specific anecdotes?)

No, I'd disagree about it being a lot of people - I think only a few are rejected by the community.

Only a few people? Who are these few people?

Are you suggesting that goths don't have a choice to be goths?

I don't think you understand how preferences work. I did not choose to like ice cream more than I chose to like spaghetti or women. You can not choose what you like, and what you prefer. Goths like the goth culture and music because it appeals to them, there is no choice in terms of preferences just conditioning.

Basically the point he was making was that just like "any" community, inconsistancies or people out of the norm are marginally discriminated.

Gay people, in my opinion, don't have a choice.

They have no more a choice than goths do. They are conditioned to liking something, and hence they like it.

The gay community should be more open and accepting because part of being queer is being 'stuck with it'.

People have "grown" out of phases, just as people have discovered they're homosexual and 'came out'.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Fine.

haha, sorry I just didn't want to be arguing over nothing.

That is pretty much separating anyone who is gay from the rest of the pack and labeling them unconditionally intolerant - how is that not making it special?

That's a good point, I think I mean that the gay community, like many others, is intolerant.

I'm not sure they are the majority though, they might just be the most visible of those who are out. As long as they're not utterly stereotypical then people simply assume straightness - you don't even need to be in the closet for people to pass you by.

I'm definitely making assumptions, to be sure, but I've had a fair amount of experience, I think.

Or perhaps I'm just optimistic.

Why didn't you just point out the obvious, that I'm pessimistic.

But really, its the same thing, everyone chooses whether or not they fill out those stereotypes. Just like people choose to be goth or emo or punk. They may not have a choice regarding their sexuality but they do about their behaviour and I believe there are more people who exercise that choice, in very different ways, than you might think.

Well this falls back on whether we're aware of straight-acting gay people, which is a problem.

 

[jb_nc]

i spose that's alright but then again if i own a hotel i should have the right to dissalow negroes and negresses, gaylords and dykes and anyone else i want not to set foot on my property.

 

[kami]

haha, sorry I just didn't want to be arguing over nothing.

Hah, thats ok.

That's a good point, I think I mean that the gay community, like many others, is intolerant.

I think I can settle with that.

I'm definitely making assumptions, to be sure, but I've had a fair amount of experience, I think.

May I ask, out of curiousity, from where? Because I always had the impression that you avoided other gays like the plague.

Why didn't you just point out the obvious, that I'm pessimistic.

Well ... you said it not I.

Well this falls back on whether we're aware of straight-acting gay people, which is a problem.

'We're not gay; not that there's anything wrong with that!'

You're right - I think a part of that is that we presume that there is a given straight or gay behaviour. Being gay (or straight) isn't a way of life, it's a part of it and I think there needs to be more of an awareness that the way one dresses or speaks doesn't decide their sexuality.

 

[xeuyrawp]

May I ask, out of curiousity, from where? Because I always had the impression that you avoided other gays like the plague.

I came out when I was 14/15. From then to about 18/19, I had a lot of queer friends, was involved in ACON's youth activities (part of which was the successful petition to lower the age of consent for queers), went to lots of queer parties, etc. It was only half way through first year that I really started to hate the whole community.

I'm not trying to compare Aborigines with queers, but I can really relate to the minority of Aboriginal people who are utterly disappointed with how the members of their community treat themselves. It sounds so cliched and Oprah-esque, but they seem to just not look after themselves beyond the nearest source of quick-fix fun.

Well ... you said it not I.

Everybody says it! ;p

'We're not gay; not that there's anything wrong with that!'

Haha, I watched that on the weekend. One of my favourite episodes. Apparently the writers wrote the script and realised that it was essentially homophobic, so Seinfeld told them to scrap it.

Then Larry David apparently said something like 'we don't want the homosexual community to think we're homophobic. But we definitely don't want any of the main characters to be gay... Not that there's anything wrong with that!' So they stuck that line in in the script, and all was good.

You're right - I think a part of that is that we presume that there is a given straight or gay behaviour. Being gay (or straight) isn't a way of life, it's a part of it and I think there needs to be more of an awareness that the way one dresses or speaks doesn't decide their sexuality.

Definitely. I don't want to go all linguistics-defines-existence, but the words associated with sexuality are all very labelling, as well - even something like 'label free' is a label.

 

[kami]

I came out when I was 14/15. From then to about 18/19, I had a lot of queer friends, was involved in ACON's youth activities (part of which was the successful petition to lower the age of consent for queers), went to lots of queer parties, etc. It was only half way through first year that I really started to hate the whole community.

I'm not trying to compare Aborigines with queers, but I can really relate to the minority of Aboriginal people who are utterly disappointed with how the members of their community treat themselves. It sounds so cliched and Oprah-esque, but they seem to just not look after themselves beyond the nearest source of quick-fix fun.

I unconditionally cringe when Oprah is mentioned.

It wasn't the uni queerspace political stuff that tipped the scale was it? I'm kinda surprised you came out and got involved in the gay circles so early though, most (reaad: all) of the gay guys I've met from Barker at uni mention its not the most hospitable environment for that.

Everybody says it! ;p

Are you asking me to jump on the bandwagon then?

Haha, I watched that on the weekend. One of my favourite episodes. Apparently the writers wrote the script and realised that it was essentially homophobic, so Seinfeld told them to scrap it.

Then Larry David apparently said something like 'we don't want the homosexual community to think we're homophobic. But we definitely don't want any of the main characters to be gay... Not that there's anything wrong with that!' So they stuck that line in in the script, and all was good.

Haha, that's so awesome. That episode was definitely up there with The Pen (STEEELLLLLAAA!!!) and the puffy shirt episode.

Definitely. I don't want to go all linguistics-defines-existence, but the words associated with sexuality are all very labelling, as well - even something like 'label free' is a label.

It's funny you mention that - my tutor was going on in the last lesson about language (whether linguistic or sensory) constructing reality and how that configures our ways of dealing with things. As long as we need to think of someone as a 'something' we limit our ideas of who and what they are.

 

[Iron]

Fwa. Interesting.

It's only VCAT. They were just finding the best decision on the facts, unfettered by real law.
But I like the decision. It's obviously impossible to enforce, so maybe the intention was to just be a deterent to people who go there to gawk.
It's not serious law until appealed.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I unconditionally cringe when Oprah is mentioned.

It wasn't the uni queerspace political stuff that tipped the scale was it? I'm kinda surprised you came out and got involved in the gay circles so early though, most (reaad: all) of the gay guys I've met from Barker at uni mention its not the most hospitable environment for that.

I was really the only person to come out during school time in my year. It wasn't too bad. I had a bad experience with friends essentially stop talking to me, but I couldn't really think of them as friends in hindsight.

There were a few other bad moments, a group of lame wannabes were coming back from cricket, or something, and wanted a fight. I gave them a fight - nailed a couple of them and threw the leader down some stairs, actually - and that was that. One of my queer friends (very camp) was picked on a lot, though, and I think that was the most difficult part.

I think the secret is to be strong emotionally and socially. I was lucky in that I had the socially powerful characters on my side and that I could defend myself from it all.

Haha, that's so awesome. That episode was definitely up there with The Pen (STEEELLLLLAAA!!!) and the puffy shirt episode.

The Pen, hahah. 'Mrs Seinfeld, I beg you... Please turn up the airconditioner.'

It's funny you mention that - my tutor was going on in the last lesson about language (whether linguistic or sensory) constructing reality and how that configures our ways of dealing with things. As long as we need to think of someone as a 'something' we limit our ideas of who and what they are.

Oh people have a field-day with that sort of stuff.