Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Australian pub bars heterosexuals

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
I would like to point out some questions regarding this article to see what others think!


"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," the hotel's manager, Tom McFeely, told Australian radio, according to the Reuters news agency.


He says "limit" when in fact he means "ban".


He said while Melbourne had 2,000 venues catering for heterosexuals, his was the only bar aimed exclusively at gay men.


He says "hetrosexuals" when in fact he should have said "people".

What is going on!!!!!

[edit on 28/5/2007 by nerbot]




posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
ermmm??

urgh...

i am now seriously confused



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
OK, I think I get it.

Not ALL hetrosexuals will be banned maybe.

This IS confusing and needs more clarity and information I think.

I think the "Peel Hotel" in question should think up some money-making ideas PDQ to make up for the financial losses they are bound to suffer!

What a mad, mad, mad world.


Also.......;;what if he had tried to ban the "gays"????? Whole new ball game I bet!

[edit on 28/5/2007 by nerbot]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
It's comments like the above from the hotel owner that I seriously question.
Why do Gay men have a need for their own bars and clubs? Why do they put themselves above ordinary people and always seem to have something to prove, even amongst themselves (who's the gayest?).

I mean, if they want to go have a drink in a bar then why do they need an exclusively Gay venue?



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
soon he will want his own private estate then suburb



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
OK, I think I get it.

Not ALL hetrosexuals will be banned maybe.

This IS confusing and needs more clarity and information I think.



Haha so what, they're only going to let in a few heterosexuals so that they are the minority and the homosexuals can feel good about themselves?


It's still discrimination! You're not allowed to only let a certain amount of gays into a bar making them a minority!



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Well if they are not banning everyone then I don't see a problem with it. There are many bars and clubs that only let certain people inside. They have doorman who only let the people they want inside. These gay bars just seem to want to keep out the dudes who are only coming to the bar to start trouble. If I owned a bar I would want to keep out troublemakers also so that my customers inside the bar can enjoy a friendly, safe environment. What straight guys are complaining that they cannot get into the gay bar anyway? Are straight guys running over eachother trying to get into the door? If they are then maybe they aren't so straight after all.


[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   
This is so stupid.

If they are having a problem with homophobes and gay bashers, why don't they go and hire BOUNCERS like any other normal bar would do? If they can't rely on the police, they can hire some very large, well built beefy gay men as security at the door and inside, to toss out and knock the crap out of anyone who is being problem?

Banning lesbians is simply an act of discrimination, as it is highly unlikely lesbians are gonna go in and beat up gay men or give them unwanted sexual advances.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
What straight guys are complaining that they cannot get into the gay bar anyway? Are straight guys running over eachother trying to get into the door? If they are then maybe they aren't so straight after all.


No it's the fact that it is the same sort of sexual discrimination that gays are always condemning and it goes against the equality that they fight for.

If someone opened a 'straights only' bar in this day and age they would be utterly condemned by equality-seeking homosexuals. But they are allowed to open a 'gays only' bar? It's a one rule for them and another for those mentality.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by malganis
If someone opened a 'straights only' bar in this day and age they would be utterly condemned by equality-seeking homosexuals. But they are allowed to open a 'gays only' bar? It's a one rule for them and another for those mentality.


I guess my opinion is that most bars and clubs already discriminate and no one seems to care unless it is a gay bar wanting to keep others from getting in. There are many bars and clubs here in Columbus OH that won't let you in unless you are dressed nice or have the right kind of shirt on. Where is the outcry against these places that won't let us patrons who do not want to dress up at? I just think there are a lot of bars and you can alway find another. If gay people want to have their own personal bars it doesn't have any effect on me what-so-ever. I would say almost everyone who is complaining have never been to a gay bar and probably will never be in a gay bar. But that doesn't stop them from complaining.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]

[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Britguy
I mean, if they want to go have a drink in a bar then why do they need an exclusively Gay venue?


Exactly. It's not as if everywhere else is specifically "hetero", they just cater for People and don't care who you happen to be giving it to or in what manner.

When I go into a pub I don't go looking for one full of heterosexual's, I go looking for one that is nice and I can enjoy myself in.

I don't give a monkey's who's shagging who, it's their business not mine, or for that matter anyone else's, let alone the place I happen to be having a beer.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Zerotime, you're missing the point. This is a legal case which has set a dangerous precedent.
I don't think anyone really wants to go to the bar in question it's the fact that a minority group has won a case allowing only the minority access to said venue.
As someone has already mentioned, any minority group like white supremists or the like can now use this precedent to isolate any group it wishes.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Well if they are not banning everyone then I don't see a problem with it. There are many bars and clubs that only let certain people inside. They have doorman who only let the people they want inside. These gay bars just seem to want to keep out the dudes who are only coming to the bar to start trouble. If I owned a bar I would want to keep out troublemakers also so that my customers inside the bar can enjoy a friendly, safe environment.


Troublemakers doth not equal heterosexual....... And vice versa. Bottom line is, they cannot exclude anyone on the basis of sexuality. They would scream blue murder if Heterosexuals did it, or if we banned all those nasty "darkies"...


Originally posted by zerotime
What straight guys are complaining that they cannot get into the gay bar anyway? Are straight guys running over eachother trying to get into the door? If they are then maybe they aren't so straight after all.


I have a gay mate and we have, on occasion, gone into a gay bar on a night out. They are actually rather nice and everyone seems chilled and friendly... It might have something to do with them fancying me
but I'm cool with it as I know who I am.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Hetro bars do discrimate against gays. If you don't think they do then you are living in a fantasy world. I live in Ohio - a big redneck state. Several Ohio cities are dominated by the KKK and the KKK's national HQ is run out of Ohio. I have been to many bars that will not serve gay men and places were their very lives are in danger if they enter.

Like it or not minorities do get special advantages in order to keep them safe. These places have already said they don't want to ban all hetro people. They just want the right to limit them for a couple of reasons. 1. hetro woman think gay guys are entertaining. The gay guys don't seem to like being treated like a freak show for hetro woman. 2. some hetro guys go to gay bars because they hate gay people. they want to start trouble and hurt people.

If gay bars want to limit those types from interfering with their regular patrons I find nothing wrong with it. If you are not a gay man but have a gay friend and go to this bar together you are not going to be thrown out.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Hetro bars do discrimate against gays.


Hetero bar? What's that then?

We don't have ANY hetero bars in the UK, come to think of it, even those places which are frequented by gays are open to hetero's as well, so they're not really gay bars either.


Originally posted by zerotime
If you don't think they do then you are living in a fantasy world. I live in Ohio - a big redneck state. Several Ohio cities are dominated by the KKK and the KKK's national HQ is run out of Ohio. I have been to many bars that will not serve gay men and places were their very lives are in danger if they enter.


Ok, well outside of Hicksville, USA, most people are pretty damn tolerant of everyone else, so equating something that happens in the boondocks to the rest of the world is way off base, chum.

In fact, it is completely irrelevant and just demonstrates that conservative, red-neck America is socially decades behind the rest of the developed world.


Originally posted by zerotime
Like it or not minorities do get special advantages in order to keep them safe.


If people would just grow up, they wouldn't need it. Besides, the law prohibits discrimination based upon sex, race, gender or age, so whether it's Gays, hetero's or Martians, they ALL have the same rights.


Originally posted by zerotime
These places have already said they don't want to ban all hetro people. They just want the right to limit them for a couple of reasons. 1. hetro woman think gay guys are entertaining. The gay guys don't seem to like being treated like a freak show for hetro woman. 2. some hetro guys go to gay bars because they hate gay people. they want to start trouble and hurt people.


Really..... Where I live in the UK there are several known "gay" (again, they are not officially just Gay, they are just were alot of gays go) pubs. Not once in the 15 years I have lived here has anything ever happened to a gay man inside or outside those pubs like what your describing. In fact, they are the quietest pubs in town, in terms of violence.

Except for two occasions I can think of when chaps were raped by other GAY chaps because they had drinks bought for them but didn't put out.

It must be a redneck phenomenon your describing.

Even so, whatever their reasons, it's illegal.


Originally posted by zerotime
If gay bars want to limit those types from interfering with their regular patrons I find nothing wrong with it. If you are not a gay man but have a gay friend and go to this bar together you are not going to be thrown out.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]


But it's illegal and it's discrimination.

Lets put the boot on the other foot for a moment and imagine I opened a straight only bar.

I mean, I don't want gay men going round checking out my straight male patrons.

After all, it makes them feel uncomfortable. What if they have unwanted sexual advances upon them? What if a group of gay men want a straight man for sex but he doesn't put out and they might rape him?

See..

Works both ways or not at all. Can't have special treatment for one group, no matter what BS excuses you come up with.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
A female spokesperson from the Equal Opportunity Commission said on the evening news that the move to ban heterosexuals from the Sir Robert Peel hotel was 'positive' discrimination', or words to that effect. The tv news (all channels) were featuring the story as a 'headline'.

The owner of the hotel in question claimed that people attending bucks' nights and ladies' nights were drinking elsewhere earlier in the evening and then turning up at his hotel (the 'Peel') to watch the gay patrons as if it were a zoo.

All three tv channels interviewed the same lone gay man, which is unusual. It would be expected the tv-news would have arranged to speak with several gays at least and usually, gays are happy to be interviewed.

Possibly, the hotel owner was the one who contacted the media. He appeared happy to be interviewed. Free and widespread publicity for his business of course ... especially as the media featured numerous long-shots of the hotel, interspersed with close-ups of the hotel's signage/name and explicit interior features: everyone now knows exactly what the hotel looks like, plus its name, so they'll have no problem locating it if they wish.

Only one person (allegedly spokesperson for the Equal Opportunities Commission) spoke on behalf of 'officialdom' and there were a few brief shots of a typed document and some paragraphs in particular.

Maybe there'll be a more formal explanation of this discriminatory ruling in a day or so.

The interior shots of the hotel were, to my mind, amateurish and in poor taste and included what appeared a hand-drawn, large illustration of two inanely grinning naked men, arms around each other, numerous posters of similar with 'Boys Room Only -->' and truncated, pseudo-bronzes, life-sized, with what appeared a bundle of red string draped across the genitals.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect there are hoardes of gay men who would be anxious to avoid such tackiness or be associated with it AND the 'Peel'. It's almost like a joke. The whole thing reeks of exploitation of gays, for profit, with the Equal Opportunities Commission looking less than competent.

Don't think there can be much doubt that this widespread media coverage will result in dozens of the newly-curious turning up at the Peel, with gays being forced to push their way past same to gain entry.

Having seen the hotel's interior decor on tv, people could be excused for believing the Peel is just a licenced bath-house. After all, do ordinary hotels feature naked 'statues' of heterosexual couples embracing and draped with string? Do ordinary hotels feature posters of naked heterosexual couples grinning stupidly, arms entwined, above directions to 'Boys and Girls Room upstairs ' ?

Hotels which cater to heterosexuals and ALL sexual orientations, feature advertisements for liquor or raffles or coming entertainment. They don't look like cheap bordellos.

Further, the lone gay man available to the tv-new cameras appeared heterosexual, sounded heterosexual, dressed like a heterosexual and looked as if he'd win at least half of any fist-fight he found himself in. He certainly didn't look as if he were a 'victim' of heterosexuals. Instead, he looked as if he would fit in without undue attention in any hotel or establishment anywhere.

He at first said: ' Gay men want a place where they don't have to feel guilty ... ah ... er ... I mean where they can relax.'

He *didn't* mention that he'd personally suffered 'cruel heterosexual' taunts or victimisation or any other unwanted heterosexual behaviour.

Compulsive gamblers, crystal meth users, negligent parents, obsessive stamp-collectors, grandparents who dye their hair and people who spend too much time in forums would undoubtedly 'like a place where they don't have to feel guilty' too, but I doubt the Equal Opportunities Commission would rule to grant them their own, exclusive venues.

I agree with the posts above which remarked that the exception made for the Peel is a backwards step.

How did this situation come to be? Was it an unwise decision made by the EOC that will soon be legally overturned, or is it part of an agenda to herald in a new wave of sexual discrimination against gays, under cover of appearing to 'favour' gays?



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I believe it is in any mans right to ban another group they don't like.. discrimination is a right of free will and should not be encouraged, but not ended.. because suppressing discrimination is a suppression of free will.

However, if Homosexuals do ban Heterosexuals.. then Heteros can then ban Homos. No?

Seems like it might be a bad idea to antagonize someone because they can always hit back harder so to speak.

But I defend their right to do so, I just think its stupid.

What straight guy goes to a gay bar anyways?



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
What straight guy goes to a gay bar anyways?


Why not?

I have been because I have a gay friend.

You might also get a couple of free drinks



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Ok, well outside of Hicksville, USA, most people are pretty damn tolerant of everyone else, so equating something that happens in the boondocks to the rest of the world is way off base, chum.

In fact, it is completely irrelevant and just demonstrates that conservative, red-neck America is socially decades behind the rest of the developed world.


Really? there is no racism or nazi's in England? If I google search that nothing will come up? That's amazing.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The Peel Hotel in Melbourne applied for and won exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act to prevent insults and abuse being directed at their mainly gay patrons.

The decision by the Victoria state Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) gives the hotel the right to refuse entry to people considered a threat to the safety and comfort of its patrons.

Where does the exemption state 'banning' heterosexuals?

It gives the right to the Hotel to refuse entry or ban people considered a threat to the safety of patrons It does not give the Hotel the right to ban heterosexuals

*sheesh...





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join