No straights allowed

[perthjames]

That wasn't my point.

There's a strong degree of anti-Americanism in Australia. As a general rule, we really like Americans and American culture, but we get annoyed by your governments sometimes, and we often feel we are taken for granted. But hey, if Canada isn't significant, you can imagine where that places Australia. There is the joking feeling that Australia is just another state of the USA, and hence the joking by blocko and myself about US supreme court rulings not applying here... yet.

 

[B_big dirigible]

There is the joking feeling that Australia is just another state of the USA, and hence the joking by blocko and myself about US supreme court rulings not applying here... yet.

Hey, everybody has problems - the map doesn't tell all. Florida is a province of Cuba, Brooklyn is the largest city in Israel, and Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Lower California are Mexican colonies. My town here in New England recently became a suburb of Rio de Janeiro. It's all very exciting, I suppose.

 

[fortiesfun]

I am so straight I was barred from following the link.

They must not have heard that today you are 1% gay.

 

[B_big dirigible]

So sorry someone demanded the special right of not being beaten or killed because of how someone perceives their orientation. Shame on those pushy queers.

The reducto ad absurdum is always a weak argument. The right to eject anyone threatening to beat or kill partons is hardly in dispute.

Don't forget to include, for my legal state of residence, the right to form a legally binding contract of any kind.

You don't have such an unrestricted right anywhere in the Union. Try selling yourself as an indentured servant, or an outright slave. You have certain civil rights which you cannot waive, no matter how many pieces of paper you sign.

 

[DC_DEEP]

The reducto ad absurdum is always a weak argument. The right to eject anyone threatening to beat or kill partons is hardly in dispute.

I'm certain that you do know exactly what is in dispute. The article undoubtedly covered every single detail of the reason for the dispensation. Please forgive the ignorance of everyone besides yourself.

You don't have such an unrestricted right anywhere in the Union. Try selling yourself as an indentured servant, or an outright slave. You have certain civil rights which you cannot waive, no matter how many pieces of paper you sign.

Nowhere did I say "unrestricted." Do us all a favor, and read the new Virginia law, so that you know what both you AND I are talking about.

 

[Lex]

Shelby and BD--taking up the cause of oppressed and marginalized white men worldwide.

What ever would they do without you?

 

[dong20]

Shelby and BD--taking up the cause of oppressed and marginalized white men worldwide.

What ever would they do without you?

It seems to me the one introducing colour into the mix is you. I thought this was about a homosexual bar.

Whatever would we do without you?

 

[crescendo69]

Doorman at gay bar: Are you gay?

Straight-looking guy: Uh, not really, well, maybe a little.

Doorman: Well, I'm gonna need some proof. Follow me into the back room...

 

[Shelby]

How does wanting to have a few drinks without having some redneck scream "faggot" in your ear all night make you a hypocrite? Also, if you re-read the article, there is no mention of the actual patrons petitioning for the change, only the ownership. The patrons may have exercised their right to not go to this establishment, and the proprietor is taking corrective measures to get his client base back.

No problem.

I assume you'd be just as supportive if the owners sought to ban gays instead?

 

[invisibleman]

I deleted my comment as it screwed up the formatting.

 

[mindseye]

Try selling yourself as an indentured servant, or an outright slave. You have certain civil rights which you cannot waive, no matter how many pieces of paper you sign.

Unless you enlist.

 

[Lex]

It seems to me the one introducing colour into the mix is you. I thought this was about a homosexual bar.

Whatever would we do without you?

Given their past post history, you and I both know what I meant by "White men" but I can spell it out for you, since you are in the mood and I feel like dancing:

Just as the "men" in "...all men were created equal..." meant "white men with property", Shelby and BD (ex- and im-plicitly) champion the plight of the American white male, whose status is being threatened by women, minorities, the GBLT community, and any other group who would dare challenge his stranglehold on rights and equal treatment.

You know me well enough to know what I meant. Or maybe you don't. Whatever.

I hope it is clear now.

 

[CPearl]

The problem was really getting out of hand and ruining the environment for the patrons. It got a fair bit of TV coverage... in the end, this is not a ban on straight people, it's the right to refuse entry to people they think are going to cause trouble and destroy the carefully constructed business of the owner.

I imagine they'll only turn away rowdy bucks and hens nights or pub crawls of obviously straight people fresh off a party bus.

That clarifies things quite a bit.

 

[fortiesfun]

Ah, those wacky Aussies, they do everything tospy-turvy. They stand on the earth upside down, they have to go down to get to heaven, and now they are acting like (sometimes) gay people can exclude straights the same way that straight people can exclude gays. What will they think of next?

But you know how it is in these Southern hemisphere former British colonies: First South Africa lets blacks have rights and next thing you know they are running the place. It won't be long now until they Aussies have their own queen, and not the good kind.

Does Rush know about this? I need to know what I think!

 

[DC_DEEP]

No problem.

I assume you'd be just as supportive if the owners sought to ban gays instead?

Not if it was privately owned, and especially if there had been a past history of gays causing problems and picking fights in the straight establishment, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[rob_just_rob]

I thought all bars had the right to eject or deny admission to anyone they wanted. Private establishments and whatnot.

I suspect that this new rule will be enforced inconsistently or rarely. After all, as has been pointed out, how do you confirm heterosexuality/homosexuality at the door?

One wonders why the bar felt the need to openly demand the right to a blanket policy, when most bars/clubs simply refuse admittance on a one-off basis without explanation when they want to. That suggests the harassment problem was pretty bad. Around here, some of the sex clubs I've been to have had "membership" policies - you have to pay a token fee of $5-15 to be a "member", and not everyone who asks is given a membership. No membership card, no entry. Simple.

 

[dong20]

I thought all bars had the right to eject or deny admission to anyone they wanted. Private establishments and whatnot.

Not if such a policy breaches legislation. At least in the UK.

No problem.

I assume you'd be just as supportive if the owners sought to ban gays instead?

Not if it was privately owned, and especially if there had been a past history of gays causing problems and picking fights in the straight establishment, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

No argument from me.

Given the long history of sexual, religious and race related bias in society the concept of what goes around comes around resulting from this may cause a justifiably smug smile on some faces, I can understand that. But while even if justified it hardly moves things forward. With any application of logic or common sense it’s clear what’s intended here, but since when have bigots responded well to logic or common sense.

In a nutshell; this is undoubtedly an innocent move by an owner to protect a business and I’m perfectly comfortable with that, what I’m less comfortable with is potential precedent and the possible backlash.

What I suspect Shelby is asking is - does the principle of this ruling send a message to any community minority or not that legally sanctioned segregation is OK (again). And, in that context I think his question is on point.

 

[heavyproducer]

Ive got to agree with the bar owners choice on this one, that being said im sure if he has existing straight regular customers hes not going to turn them away... id hope not anyway after all he is running a business

But! theres something inside me that still not 100% on this and the question is, how would i react if a straight club decided to ban gay patrons? id probrably be outraged... but whats the difference? I think the point im trying to make to myself that not every situation is the same, a few more details are required to make an educated decision, if the level of abuse from either party in either club was getting out of hand then yes by all means ban them..... but it realy is still a generalisation! arrr tough call

For the most i understand and agree with equal rights, But theres definalty ways to take it to far! No point assuming that everyone in the world is exactly the same, because were not!


peace

 

[vino123]

Let's just be honest,
We have Gay and Straight people in this world and we do need both of them in order to run this world.

I do believe in equal rights

 

[Lex]

Not if it was privately owned, and especially if there had been a past history of gays causing problems and picking fights in the straight establishment, no, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Agreed. Private clubs have always had the rights to exclude, so within that context, this is nothing new. And equal rightrs does not mean that you have the right to come in a disrupt an establishment. It does not give you the right to go around being a prick because you feel like it.

I have a good friend who was brutally attacked outside a gay bar in MA. He was in the gay bar and was approached by some "Straight boys" who wanted to hook up with a guy. Little did he know that they were just out for a night of gay bashing. He barely escaped with his life.

So, until, the Shelby's of the world have to walk and look over their shoulders all the time in their own supposedly "safe" places, I really don't have the time to entertain their whining and bitching.

I can agree that the stautory ruling can set dangerous precendent in the wrong hands. I also contend that, in the face of that danger, how out-of-control must this situation must have been for them to have made this ruling? Consider that.