Australian pub bars heterosexuals

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Exactly. We've had over 30 years of trouble in this country because people decided to segregate themselves. It's only now that we're (slowly) starting to re-integrate that things are getting better.

Separation may be of some help to the 'downtrodden' minority initially, but in the long-run it just causes more division.




posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:07 AM
link   
White nationalists and neo-nazi's in Australia are going to have a field day with this one. Its simply more propaganda for the far right. And it will be used by them.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Please don't split hairs


Out here racism is concidered as discrimination against a group... and since this pretty much equals as racial segregation i chose to use the word. I meant mainly that the behaivour is stereotypally racist.

But sorry if i offended any racists out there, english is not my native language.


Ps. sanctum, previous sentence doesn't mean that i think that you are a racist



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
exactly,
thats what I was thinking. By placing a ban, which is legal under law, is asking for more trouble if you ask me. It solves nothing.


My only question on this is, was the response for trouble lighter because of the fact that the patrons of the bar were gay, and the police didn't see the need to be bothered? I know it runs like that in a few areas. Fortunately not here, if someone goes in and starts punching someone in a gay bar, or any bar, they're going to jail.

I remember when I was working security during Mardi Gras '04, this woman punched the owner of the club I was working for. The police were there quickly. Great response time.

Was it different in this case? Did they feel so unprotected that this was the only resort they saw?

I'm not condoning the idea, just trying to find an understanding.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Its ok as long as other bars are allowed to ban gays from entering.

If you have the right to ban one, you have to have the right to ban the other.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanctum

Originally posted by northwolf
If you give gays the right to be racist against non gays


How does racism relate to homosexuality?

Homosexuality is not a race.

sanc





I think the train of thought went like this:

Racism=Discrimination This ban=Discrimination ergo; This ban=Racism.

Not a technically correct term, but no need to be quite so pedanctic when it is quite obvious what was implied.

Anyhoo..

OT, I think this is a good idea. After all, people should be free to do what they want in their own business. Now I'm going to open a bar and ban gays, blacks and gingers. I'm going to cash in on the niche redneck market.

After all, this is equal rights isn't it?

They can do it, then so can I.

If not...Why not?

[edit on 28/5/07 by stumason]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Aren't there anti-discrimination laws in Oz like there are in the UK? Try something like this in London and you could use the 'denial of services' legislation to stop it.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
But sorry if i offended any racists out there, english is not my native language.


Thanks for the clarification, northwolf.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimboman
Aren't there anti-discrimination laws in Oz like there are in the UK? Try something like this in London and you could use the 'denial of services' legislation to stop it.


Well yes, but I wasn't actually going to open a bar and ban blacks, gays and gingers......


Just kind of illustrating a point....



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Just a side note but I don't think the ban is racists. They aren't banning races of poeple. The ban would be sexist.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Just a side note but I don't think the ban is racists. They aren't banning races of poeple. The ban would be sexist.


I really don't think this matters in the scheme of things, but the ban would be discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.

I hope laws like this never come about in the U.S. I am all for building bridges, not torching them. If someone feels the need to be that isolationist, they should have their own islands.

Also for this ban on straight people, does this include transgendered people, who may have gone from male>female and now like men? Once they've completed the "change" I generally perceive them as straight.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Well yes, but I wasn't actually going to open a bar and ban blacks, gays and gingers......



I never knew gingers were an ethnic group


But can't this bar just be linked to the local police? all the pubs and clubs in the City of Canterbury (where i live) are all linked to the police. first sign of the trouble, the panda car arrives. why not take a page out of the UK?



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
with all the anti-smoking legislation that's going on, I am wondering, could someone legally open a resturant or bar, for just smokers, hiring only smokers? there would be no need for them to ban smoking in such a place since there's no one to protect from the second hand smoke...

seems to me, that if one could open a bar for just homosexuals, one could open one for just smokers.....



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Ginger people...urrgh..... don't get me started....



Originally posted by dawnstar
with all the anti-smoking legislation that's going on, I am wondering, could someone legally open a resturant or bar, for just smokers, hiring only smokers? there would be no need for them to ban smoking in such a place since there's no one to protect from the second hand smoke...

seems to me, that if one could open a bar for just homosexuals, one could open one for just smokers.....


In the UK, even after July 1st, if your not serving food in your Pub/Bar/Club, then you can still smoke.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
The creation of sexual apartheid (is that even a term?) is dangerous.

whats next? shops, cinemas, toilets divided up for sexual preferences? I know the pub is trying to clamp out homophobia, but this is an extreme way of dealing with it that has damaging social effects.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by infinite]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Oh dear, oh dear,

I can't see a good result coming from this decision, for a start, this isn't going to solve the original problem in my opinion.

How many regular bars will now want to ban homosexuals?

If there was a sexist problem before, this has just advertised the fact and focus by a greater number of anti-homosexuals now have a "target" for their attacks.

This is going to get interesting as things progress. The bar owner in question should know better, and be thinking a little further into possible consiquences of this decision. Bluntly, it only takes one "molotov" from an extremist to bring his whole business down and deprive his gay patrons a place to socialise.

I wonder how much his customers played a part in this ruling. Do they realise, they have in effect changed the the bar from a "public" to a "private" bar?

This is ignorant in my opinion and will become ironic if violence comes TO this bar because of anti-homosexual behavior and feelings.

Should have left it alone and dealt with problems as, and when they arose. Not alienate themselves from the rest of the people. Acceptance can come with integration can't it? Not isolation.

Just my 2p



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   
There are so many things wrong with this decision it is hard to know where to begin.

First the sad irony of an equal rights commision supporting inequality, what the?? Second banning gay women, how were they intimidating and harrasing gay men? Wouldn't that be just a tad hypocritcal? Third it is I understand not a private club but an ordinary pub with a standard operating/liquor licence. Generaly you can reserve the right to turn away patrons but you must provide a reasonable excuse like "Im sorry sir you are already too intoxicated you cannot come in", if you don't somebody could have the grounds to bring a discrimination case. Fourth it is illegal in all Australian states and under federal law to discriminate against someone based on their sex, sexual preference, race or religion, so the question begs to be asked how is this sexual preference discrimination acceptable or legal?

Will there now be pubs banning gay men on the basis that they may incite violence among other patrons which constitutes a hazzard to all patrons and staff? This decision has set back equal rights, not taken it forward. It sends a message to all the P.C. extremists that it really is OK to have your cake and eat it too. To all the ultra conservative wacko's it proves that equal rights and minority groups are driving their own agenda so they can't be trusted, great!. Just like the creationism v's evolution debate nutters on both sides will drive the wedge deeper, not remove it.

OH man, I can feel another South Park story line brewing on this one, that is if they haven't already covered it?

LEE.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

OT, I think this is a good idea. After all, people should be free to do what they want in their own business. Now I'm going to open a bar and ban gays, blacks and gingers. I'm going to cash in on the niche redneck market.

After all, this is equal rights isn't it?

They can do it, then so can I.


This is a good point, if you did try to open a bar and ban gays you would be seen as evil.

Yet you could open a bar banning heterosexuals.

They're both discrimination.

One question though, how could the doormen judge whether someone's gay or not? They can't start judging by the way that homosexuals act or look like, because they would have just committed sexual stereotyping.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Infinite: don't get me wrong, I utterly dislike where this is going and I disagree with any and all bans on things.

I was just saying that from a legal standpoint, this is brilliant, the process of getting this law was a win/win situation for anti-whatever groups, not for the gay bar, for them its a loose/loose situation and they don't even know it

If the gay bar lost, the anti-gays would've been happy, so they could bug gay people in these bars like they always do.
If the gay bar won (which it did), it opens the door for anti-whatever groups to use it as precedent against ALL minority groups in oh so many ways.

This gay bar was maneuvered into stabbing their, and every other minority groups, own back and they don't even seem to know it.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Something just occured to me...............

What if you are celibate, could you still be called "hetrosexual"?

Could they still deny entry, do you have to be "officially" gay?

And most importantly......how is ones sexuality proved on the doorstep of a pub!

Sounds more "elitest" than "sexist" to me!

[edit on 28/5/2007 by nerbot]






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join