Australian pub bars heterosexuals

Originally posted by stumason
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.

Wrong! You must be from England (UK=England!) cos up here in Scotland you can't smoke in bars even where there is no food. It's brilliant and the pubs are just as busy as before. I'm english by the way....

it was being discussed on skynews last night..

I have to say, that its very PC to the extreme.

Originally posted by jamesbonduk007
thats unreal they protest for years about being treated equal etc then they start there own little hate gang...they should do a tour of russia right now they would be welcomed there..right said fred....lol

Please don't say 'they' like this is unilateral undertaking by the entire homosexual human population. It's the owner of a single bar, in Australia.

Personally, I can't see it doing any good at all. It would give ammunition to homophobes, and foster an atmosphere of segregation (and when has that ever done anything positive?) And I fail to to see how it would protect anyone. Any sub-human who wanted to take the time to go all the way down there simply to verbally or physically attack any patrons of the pub could simply wait outside at closing time. It might be fine and dandy inside, but I know as I walked OUT of the pub, I'd be a little apprehensive.

And..... How are they going to judge who is gay and straight?.... Will they only allow mincing super-effeminate skinny men and drag queens through the door?.....

[edit on 29-5-2007 by VelvetSplash]

Originally posted by Togetic
But to say that one group should be able to exclude while the other can't? That's inconsistent: it either serves a value being wantonly disregarded by society or rejects a value embraced by society.

I never said that one group should be able to and another shouldn't.

BTW, bottom line in this whole mess is this. I'm not a lawyer or know the law well but I believe here in the US, management has the right to refuse service to ANYONE. Not sure how it works downunder but if they have the same laws, what's the problem? The management is just refusing to serve a certain type of people.

Originally posted by hippichick
A genuine hetero wouldn't be seen dead in a gay haunt. Ergo - all males who walk in the door of the Peel Hotel are gay and should be let in. The male patrons of the Peel Hotel who allege that they are straight are really still in the closet and are just pretending until they come out.

You're kidding right? I've been to a gay bar and trust me, I'm not gay, the wife and 3 kids will attest to this. I went because a couple of gay friends invited me. I had a helluva time. Believe me I was surprised at how welcome I was. Very nice people.

As to being in the closet, if I was, it would be with a flashlight and a Playboy.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Togetic
But to say that one group should be able to exclude while the other can't? That's inconsistent: it either serves a value being wantonly disregarded by society or rejects a value embraced by society.

I never said that one group should be able to and another shouldn't.

No, I know you don't think that. I am sorry if it came across that way. I am commenting on those who would say "group A must let everyone in, but group B can exclude." That's what I don't like. Again, sorry if it sounded like I was dragging you personally in.

Originally posted by Togetic
Again, sorry if it sounded like I was dragging you personally in.

No worries. I was wondering because I basically agree with you. Take care.

Originally posted by infinite

The ban came about because homosexuals wanted to relax in places without fear of bullying or intimidation. But wouldn't a ban backfire? I'm thinking it has the potential to make the problem even worse.

Boy they just openened Pandoras Box Big time. Now if a Heterosexual bar banned gays the very same court would have to rule in their favor also right?

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by infinite

The ban came about because homosexuals wanted to relax in places without fear of bullying or intimidation. But wouldn't a ban backfire? I'm thinking it has the potential to make the problem even worse.

Boy they just openened Pandoras Box Big time. Now if a Heterosexual bar banned gays the very same court would have to rule in their favor also right?

Technically, well, atleast in America, a private establishment (a store or a bar, for example) has the legal right to choose whom they wish to have in there store.If you wanted to, you could easily ban homosexuals from a bar. Ofcourse, youd have an uproar from people about it, but legally, its in your right as a private establishment to exclude anybody.

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Technically, well, atleast in America, a private establishment (a store or a bar, for example) has the legal right to choose whom they wish to have in there store.If you wanted to, you could easily ban homosexuals from a bar. Ofcourse, youd have an uproar from people about it, but legally, its in your right as a private establishment to exclude anybody.

Understood. However since they wrote the civil rights amendment/equal rights Amendment you might be able to refuse service to an individual for other reasons (and they better be good ones) but you can not if you refuse service because of their SEX and or sexual preferences.


I could be wrong but my assumption is that would be a form of sexual discrimination.

Achtung!

Keine Hunde, homosexuells unt Juden erlaubt!

[edit on 29-5-2007 by Orwells Ghost]

Originally posted by shots
Now if a Heterosexual bar banned gays the very same court would have to rule in their favor also right?

I would hope so. Because if not, there is no equal.

Let's turn this discussion around for a second. How many of you know that it is still legal to fire someone because they are gay in most states? And people wonder why the gay community is so pissed off at the straights.

Edit: I don't see anyone comming out to protest this. Yet, if it were heterosexuals getting the boot because they are straight, how many of you would be up in arms?

[edit on 5/29/2007 by Griff]

Excuse me but the majority of heterosexuals are not interested what other people do in the bedroom. Everybody has the same rights as people. I'm sick of hearing people whinge about gay rights. Would gays prefer it was more like 20 years ago? It is their choice, they have to live with it. Why should 20 million people change their attitudes because a minority choose to be gay? Get over yourselves! Oh BTW, if your'e gay ya might wanna stop telling everybody how they should be thinking.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

Originally posted by Griff
Let's turn this discussion around for a second. How many of you know that it is still legal to fire someone because they are gay in most states? And people wonder why the gay community is so pissed off at the straights.

Well most states have At Will Employeement laws. That means that if you willingly are working at a company, you represent that company 24 hours a day, meaning actions you take outside of work is an action of the company, and you can be held responsible for disrespectful things you do outside in the workplace.

And since several states have sodomy as a crime, that would mean that homosexuals, in that state, are preforming a criminal act, and due to at will employeement laws, are disgracing the company, and that company, if they find that action to be disrespectful or inappropriate to the company, can terminate the employement.

I don't see anyone comming out to protest this. Yet, if it were heterosexuals getting the boot because they are straight, how many of you would be up in arms?
[edit on 5/29/2007 by Griff]

I personally wouldn't protest it, because that company wouldbe shooting itself in the foot. They'd go out of business rather quickly as they would have a severally understaffed store.

Originally posted by DuncanIdahoGholem
It is their choice, they have to live with it. Why should 20 million people change their attitudes because a minority choose to be gay? Get over yourselves! Oh BTW, if your'e gay ya might wanna stop telling everybody how they should be thinking.

[edit on 29-5-2007 by DuncanIdahoGholem]

I was wondering when this type of post was going to show it's ugly head around here. Oh BTW, if your IQ is less than 125, I don't think you should be breading Mr. DIG.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
and you can be held responsible for disrespectful things you do outside in the workplace.

Wouldn't hetero's also be subject to this. BTW, anal sex is not exclusive to homosexuals.

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation. Furthermore, Sodomy has many synonyms: buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act, deviant sexual intercourse. It also has a range of similar euphemisms.[1]

While in theory this may include heterosexual oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, and bestiality, in practice such laws are primarily enforced against sex between men (particularly anal sex).[2]

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

And since several states have sodomy as a crime, that would mean that homosexuals, in that state, are preforming a criminal act,

Not since 2003. The Supreme Court overturned all sodomy laws in the US in the decision of Lawrence vs. Texas.

to at will employeement laws, are disgracing the company, and that company, if they find that action to be disrespectful or inappropriate to the company, can terminate the employement.

So, if I feel it's a crime against nature to be black, I can fire someone for being black? I don't know the law but that doesn't sound right to me.

I personally wouldn't protest it, because that company wouldbe shooting itself in the foot. They'd go out of business rather quickly as they would have a severally understaffed store.

I guess you've never been to a department store? Or a doctor's office. Or a hair salon? How'd people like it if they were fired from a hairdressing job because the owner thinks that heterosexual women having a period was disrepectful and inappropriate to the company? Would that be ok?

This is quite funny to me ... I guess only because recently I was hit on by a gay person ... and my fiance' was sitting there telling me .. that guy is gay .. he has the hots for you ... and I am like .. Whatever ... Whatever ... Well he got drunk alittle later on that night and started telling me about how he felt ... HAHAHAHHAHAHAH .... I am sorry ... it is not funny .. I didn't wanna hurt his feelings ... BUT ... I did laugh ... Thank God ... I am not the person I was 5 years ago ... I would probably have been in jail ... for a while ...


Anyways ... This does have a point to it ... HOW DO THEY KNOW IF SOMEONE IS GAY OR NOT ???????????????

Originally posted by northwolf
My 2 cents on this:
Equality is a great thing, special rights to minorities is not.

If you give gays the right to be racist against non gays, then regular bars should be able to deny entrance to gays. Fair play.

:

Originally posted by WolfofWar
And since several states have sodomy as a crime, that would mean that homosexuals, in that state, are preforming a criminal act, and due to at will employeement laws, are disgracing the company, and that company, if they find that action to be disrespectful or inappropriate to the company, can terminate the employement.

This has me seriously wondering a few things. 1- In a gay relationship is sodomy always practiced? I don't know. Maybe not. 2- Why do people always assume this to be the case?

And since several states have sodomy as a crime, that would mean that homosexuals, in that state, are preforming a criminal act

No longer true.

The US Supreme Court ruled the sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence V. Texas in 2003 - thus striking all sodomy laws in the US off the books.