Heterosexuals banned from bar

Grabmygoblin · Post by **Grabmygoblin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:23 am

I dunno, a milk store caters to a much more diverse crowd than a gay bar.

I think this bar would be better off making a wall of shame and putting a lifetime ban on some people with a court order to give it some teeth, but I also think it's a bit of a jump to compare a milk store banning a racial group to a gay bar banning non-gays.

Dotty · Post by **Dotty** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:10 am

I'd have to concur. That's a really bad comparison.

You can keep yelling that it's wrong...and it is, I've never denied that, but one thing I have noted; there's been no more violence. Can I get one of those YeahDuff agreements of "if this explodes in the wrong way, obviously I was wrong"?

The whole situation annoys the shit out of me, because it's not like theres a shortage of heterobars in australia. The gay community has a lot fewer choices to hang out and relax from the stress that this sort of bullshit puts you through during the work week. Why can't people simply grow the fuck up. PEOPLE ARE GAY. PEOPLE CHANGE GENDERS. PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE IN BABY JESUS, AND PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN. GROW THE FUCK UP AND ACCEPT IT. Sorry if it rocks your world or something.

I'm still really wondering about how they screen patrons though. Like...really wondering.

Killbert-Robby · Post by **Killbert-Robby** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:16 am

A) This means that IF someone starts crap, and they're found to be straight, their charges could be more severe (?)
B) They do it the same way they ask for ID going into a club here : If you look it, you're in. If not, good bye.

Dotty · Post by **Dotty** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:25 am

They have IDs for this? Oh, that was a comparison. You know, it's not really that difficult to dress up as the stereotypical homosexual.

But yes, the A) point is a good one. They'd be lying, going in with intention to do harm. Good ol' premeditative actions.

Now if they'd finish up with what rkolter said and get more/better bouncers, everything would be set.

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:50 am

But wouldn't it force some homosexuals to have to dress and act like a stereotype?

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:06 am

grabmygoblin wrote:I dunno, a milk store caters to a much more diverse crowd than a gay bar.

I think this bar would be better off making a wall of shame and putting a lifetime ban on some people with a court order to give it some teeth, but I also think it's a bit of a jump to compare a milk store banning a racial group to a gay bar banning non-gays.

See, I guess we really do have to agree to disagree. I see no jump whatsoever.

Grabmygoblin · Post by **Grabmygoblin** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:23 pm

the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, has the right to disassociate from gays and non-believers in God.

the KKK and the Nazis have the right to disassociate from... well pretty much everyone.

the Black Panthers have the right to disassociate from non-blacks.

this gay bar has the right to disassociate from non-gays.

I don't like it all the time, but I agree with the logic.

with the milk store, it's not a ___ milk store, it's a business, one that usually caters to everyone, and if it doesn't and even goes so far as to add a rule that a group is not allowed, it'll face economic reprisal. so yeah, it has the right as a private organization to disassociate, but it's not smart and will almost certianly end up in court because of that milk store/___ milk store separation.

under the boy scouts descion, the milk store may win that court case, but may also lose because it carries items regulated/subsidised by the government and probably accepts food stamps and government subsidies/tax breaks. I'm not sure what the stance is on a discriminatory club that accepts subsidies... it may not have come up yet in court.

but all that is kinda moot since this is australia and not the us...

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:07 pm

The Boy Scouts of America, the KKK, the neo-Nazi movement and the Black Panthers are all private organizations and have the right, as a private organization, to decide who gets in.

A bar is not a private organization. A bar is a business that caters to the public. The fact that they've called it a Gay bar, and that it is frequented heavily by gay people does not make it a private organization. You are comparing apples to oranges.

And likewise, a convienence store is not a private organization. It is a business that caters to the public.

They are exactly, precisely, and entirely alike. That the convienence store might suffer reprisals in the revocation of it's food stamp rights (for example) is irrelevant if the store owner thinks that the move would provide his customers with better safety.

If you allow a discriminatory bar owner to discriminate against heterosexuals, you MUST allow a discriminatory convienence store owner to discriminate against blacks.

Everyone loses in discrimination. It's never ok.

Dotty · Post by **Dotty** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:40 pm

The Neko wrote:But wouldn't it force some homosexuals to have to dress and act like a stereotype?

This is definitely one of the things confusing me about the issue. I know they don't have a gay-dar, and I can't see them forcing a dress code...so I have no idea how they could logically work this.

rkolter wrote:A bar is not a private organization. A bar is a business that caters to the public. The fact that they've called it a Gay bar, and that it is frequented heavily by gay people does not make it a private organization. You are comparing apples to oranges.

>_>

There are most definitely private bars, though typically they're called clubs. I'm not sure if this is a bar, or a club, but a lot of the time those are very much the same thing.

Not trying to reach to refute your logic, because it is fairly sound, but that part there leaped off the page.

I kind of wager this Bar or Club or whatever it is (it may be referred to as a bar because the term "gay bar" comes up when it's a homosexually-centered drinking establishment. It could very well be a club, but I don't hear the term "gay club" up north very often.) is likely going to end up being a private club, which could be one way for them to determine who is gay and who is not. It would most certainly hurt buisness though.

Rkolter · Post by **Rkolter** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:41 pm

Dotty wrote:
rkolter wrote:A bar is not a private organization. A bar is a business that caters to the public. The fact that they've called it a Gay bar, and that it is frequented heavily by gay people does not make it a private organization. You are comparing apples to oranges.
>_>

There are most definitely private bars, though typically they're called clubs. I'm not sure if this is a bar, or a club, but a lot of the time those are very much the same thing.

Not trying to reach to refute your logic, because it is fairly sound, but that part there leaped off the page.

It's a public bar, not a private club. I actually made the point a couple pages back that they needed to either hire bouncers or turn it into a private club.

Dotty · Post by **Dotty** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:45 pm

Ah, then I agree unconditionally!

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:29 am

grabmygoblin wrote:the Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, has the right to disassociate from gays and non-believers in God.

the KKK and the Nazis have the right to disassociate from... well pretty much everyone.

the Black Panthers have the right to disassociate from non-blacks.

this gay bar has the right to disassociate from non-gays.

I don't like it all the time, but I agree with the logic.

with the milk store, it's not a ___ milk store, it's a business, one that usually caters to everyone, and if it doesn't and even goes so far as to add a rule that a group is not allowed, it'll face economic reprisal. so yeah, it has the right as a private organization to disassociate, but it's not smart and will almost certianly end up in court because of that milk store/___ milk store separation.

under the boy scouts descion, the milk store may win that court case, but may also lose because it carries items regulated/subsidised by the government and probably accepts food stamps and government subsidies/tax breaks. I'm not sure what the stance is on a discriminatory club that accepts subsidies... it may not have come up yet in court.

but all that is kinda moot since this is australia and not the us...

Goblin, Rkolter's metaphore was a caricature, exageration. Exageration that, I think, helps bringing the point home more efficiently than un-exagerated case could. The point in question is that, while acting with good intentions and for safety reasons, people can still do undoubtedly wrong things. By following a simplifying, generalization-based logic, people will often do wrong things. I think that having in mind that basic point, differences you mentioned only make this point stronger because they make absurd of Rkolter's example more obvious. There's no reason to get neatpicky because I don't think that Rkolter's intention was to be faithful to original story in it's every segment.