Lesbian lip-lock prompts rights complaint

[The Kernel]

Yes, resturants and stores, etc are NOT private organizations.

Yes they are, they're private organizations in service to the public. They just aren't allowed to discriminate.

Don't be obtuse, you know the distinction between an organization that is closed to the public and one that isn't. Whether or not he got the terminology right is irrelevent.

[Plekhanov]

We had an interesting inversion of the lesbians “imposing their lifestyle on the patrons” of what was no doubt a god fearing, straight bar in Britain I few years ago. A few Gay Bars in London attempted to ban straights from entering as the regulars were fed up of crowds of women (often on hen nights) and to a lesser extent men coming in and watching gay couples kissing and so forth, pointing and laughing and generally behaving like they were in a zoo or something. I don’t recall if the bars were allowed to get away with it though.

I know this is a bit of a (or possibly a complete) double standard but I think this jerk in Canada was wrong but that the gay bars trying to keep out the gawpers were justified and should be allowed to do so. Not sure if I can set out a clear and well reasoned justification though.

[BoyRocketeer]

so are the gay bars segregated or something? It would be pretty funny if some straight people filed a civil lawsuit against a gay bar for not letting them in, ha ha ha.

[Plekhanov]

No, most "gay bars" here are just nondescript bars with a largely gay cliental, I frequent them on occasion with gay friends without a problem. The bars in question were high profile places, more like the flashier bars in queer as folk (the original british one) for example, which is why they attracted cackling crowds of idiots who thought they were out on safari.

I don’t know if they were allowed to blanket ban straights (which they never really wanted to do) or just had to start posting extra bouncers in the bars to chuck people out the moment they star pointing and screeching.

[Johonebesus]

Parading down the street in only a leather thong and humping a total stranger while riding on a float shaped like a phallus is shoving it down people's throats. A little kissing in a bar is not. While I might not particularly enjoy seeing lesbians make out, I can always look away. The problem with conservatives is that some start out almost sensible. I think a lot of gays do go too far in public. However, even relatively moderate conservatives consider it "shoving down our throats" if you so much as stick your big toe out of the closet. To them, not going out of your way to hide your orientation is shoving it in their face.

[kojikun]

Gay clubs tend to be non-biased. Infact, the popular ones tend to be very welcoming to straight people.

[BoyRocketeer]

Parading down the street in only a leather thong and humping a total stranger while riding on a float shaped like a phallus is shoving it down people's throats. A little kissing in a bar is not. While I might not particularly enjoy seeing lesbians make out, I can always look away. The problem with conservatives is that some start out almost sensible. I think a lot of gays do go too far in public. However, even relatively moderate conservatives consider it "shoving down our throats" if you so much as stick your big toe out of the closet. To them, not going out of your way to hide your orientation is shoving it in their face.

Once I was talking with a girl waiting for the bus to school and this gay couple started making out and kept looking at us, as in showing off. I don't approve it but we just looked away because it'd be stupid for us to reprimand them or start making out ourselves.

[kojikun]

I'm thinking I need to snap some pictures of the lesbians that go to my youth group. Granetd, only the younger people here would find them attractive, but still, it's the principle.

[Frank Hipper]

so are the gay bars segregated or something? It would be pretty funny if some straight people filed a civil lawsuit against a gay bar for not letting them in, ha ha ha.

A hotel that caters to gays recently refused service to a straight couple in Key West.

[kojikun]

A hotel that caters to gays recently refused service to a straight couple in Key West.

WTF? Wasn't that a gay nude resort not a gay hotel? Because then it's almost understandable..

[Plekhanov]

Gay clubs tend to be non-biased. Infact, the popular ones tend to be very welcoming to straight people.

I know I’ve certainly never had a problem, I should reiterate that this was a small number of bars a few years ago and I’ve no idea if this is still a problem, there was a bit of a thing about it in the media and then the issue dropped from view.

The bars weren’t really objecting to straight people so much as large groups of straight people treating the regulars as some kind of freak show. I think the ban was an over reaction but the bars weren’t sure how else to handle the problem other than having the right to turn away people simply because they weren’t gay.

[Frank Hipper]

A hotel that caters to gays recently refused service to a straight couple in Key West.

WTF? Wasn't that a gay nude resort not a gay hotel? Because then it's almost understandable..

Here's how it was presented.

This small article was in the paper today.

"Florida - Gay-friendly hotel turns away straights.

KEY WEST - Three heterosexual couples said they were turned away from a hotel in this gay-friendly tourist spot because of their sexual orientation.

The six were vacationing with a gay couple and had reservatios at a hotel, Big Ruby's, when the straight couples were turned away. 'The manager literally said "We don't want you here"', said Jim Pirih, vacationing with his partner and straight friends."

[AdmiralKanos]

Parading down the street in only a leather thong and humping a total stranger while riding on a float shaped like a phallus is shoving it down people's throats.

By that logic, constructing large visible buildings with crosses on them is most definitely shoving Christianity down peoples' throats, yet most people require more obnoxious behaviour than that (eg- bhothering you repeatedly in your home, sticking literature under your windshield wiper, accosting you when you're in the mall with your wife and kids, etc) before they'll accuse Christians of shoving their religion down peoples' throats, and often not even then.

[Metrion Cascade]

What does the law say about clubs that have bouncers and arbitrarily select who gets in, if anything? Would those laws protect gay bars that don't want to let str8s in?

[Johonebesus]

Parading down the street in only a leather thong and humping a total stranger while riding on a float shaped like a phallus is shoving it down people's throats.

By that logic, constructing large visible buildings with crosses on them is most definitely shoving Christianity down peoples' throats, yet most people require more obnoxious behaviour than that (eg- bhothering you repeatedly in your home, sticking literature under your windshield wiper, accosting you when you're in the mall with your wife and kids, etc) before they'll accuse Christians of shoving their religion down peoples' throats, and often not even then.

No, by that logic having a float in a parade carrying huge signs saying "non-Christians are going to burn in hell forever" would be shoving religion down our throats. Do you find a large display of a cross to be downright offensive? Does it disgust you on a visceral level? Even you have said that you have no problem with Christians as long as they don't actively bother you about it. The vast majority of people don't want to see graphic public displays of sexuality, myself included. Even I am mildly disgusted at seeing folks all but having sex in the middle of the street. The fact is American culture views sexuality as something that is private and not fit for public displays. I am sure you disagree with that sentiment, but that's the way it is.

Besides, such displays just give fuel to the conservatives. A few folks go to Disney World and engage in acts that would be considered lewd regardless of gender, and the Right rushes in with videos proving that every year Disney hosts a huge gay orgy and that all gays are sex fiends with no sense of decency.

[Tsyroc]

We had an interesting inversion of the lesbians “imposing their lifestyle on the patrons” of what was no doubt a god fearing, straight bar in Britain I few years ago. A few Gay Bars in London attempted to ban straights from entering as the regulars were fed up of crowds of women (often on hen nights) and to a lesser extent men coming in and watching gay couples kissing and so forth, pointing and laughing and generally behaving like they were in a zoo or something. I don’t recall if the bars were allowed to get away with it though.

That's a tough one. Buisnesses should be allowed to provide a atmosphere that is comfortable for their primary and intended clientel. These gawkers sound obnoxious so I would think the owners of the clubs should be within their rights of asking them to leave and maybe in barring them entry all together. It's not like there aren't plenty of strip clubs that would be happy to take the money of people who want to be obnoxious and gawk.

The question then becomes whether the owner who got upset about the two girls kissing should be allowed to do boot them on the same principle. Personally I don't think he should unless he's going to apply the same "no making out" rules to the hetero clientel.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of having to watch other people's extended make out sessions in public (unless it's part of the floor show) but it's after awhile I just tune them out.

[SAMAS]

Quick! All niggers and spics get the fuck out before they see you, too!

What if I'm both a nigger and a spic?!?

Go play Golf?

Seriously, unless that bar has a rule against PDA's, that's stupid. Those two should wait until the next straight couple kisses, and ask the bartender why he doesn't break them up.

[frigidmagi]

Once again, stupidity is proven to be more common than hydrogen.

Kissing is not imposing your life sytle. When they strip naked and start having sex on your bar, while chanting anti-hetro slogans (are there any?)then you got a case...

[Darth Wong]

Parading down the street in only a leather thong and humping a total stranger while riding on a float shaped like a phallus is shoving it down people's throats.

By that logic, constructing large visible buildings with crosses on them is most definitely shoving Christianity down peoples' throats, yet most people require more obnoxious behaviour than that (eg- bhothering you repeatedly in your home, sticking literature under your windshield wiper, accosting you when you're in the mall with your wife and kids, etc) before they'll accuse Christians of shoving their religion down peoples' throats, and often not even then.

No, by that logic having a float in a parade carrying huge signs saying "non-Christians are going to burn in hell forever" would be shoving religion down our throats.

Bullshit. No one is advocating death or pain to anyone by wearing a thong or gyrating in public, moron.

Do you find a large display of a cross to be downright offensive? Does it disgust you on a visceral level? Even you have said that you have no problem with Christians as long as they don't actively bother you about it.

I see you completely evade the point about how there's a distinction between doing something to people and doing something in view of people. What the fuck difference does it make whether I personally find crosses that offensive? All that proves is that I'm being more reasonable than the idiot Christians who would consider it "shoving something down your throat" to be open about your sexuality in public.

The vast majority of people don't want to see graphic public displays of sexuality, myself included.

Too fucking bad. You haven't shown why it's wrong, nor have you shown how it is remotely equivalent to advocating death or suffering to social minorities.

Even I am mildly disgusted at seeing folks all but having sex in the middle of the street. The fact is American culture views sexuality as something that is private and not fit for public displays. I am sure you disagree with that sentiment, but that's the way it is.

"Appeal to popular opinion" fallacy.

Besides, such displays just give fuel to the conservatives. A few folks go to Disney World and engage in acts that would be considered lewd regardless of gender, and the Right rushes in with videos proving that every year Disney hosts a huge gay orgy and that all gays are sex fiends with no sense of decency.

None of whch proves your claim that public displays of lewdness are any more intrinsically pushy than public displays of religion. Your entire argument boils down to "people find it offensive, therefore it must be more pushy, because it can't possibly be due to anything wrong with the people themselves".

If your argument was that it's politically unwise for gays to act like that in public, I'd agree. That's the reality of the social situation in present-day society. However, you have argued that public displays of lewdness are intrinsically just as aggressive as outright hatemongering, which is just fucking stupid.

[The Third Man]

What does the law say about clubs that have bouncers and arbitrarily select who gets in, if anything?

Where I am you often see the magic word "R.O.A.R". It means that the management reserve the right of admission, which I guess means they can bar anyone they want for any reason, without giving the reason.

The status of a "pub" here is interesting - it's of course literally a "public house"; historically someone who's decided to let the public into his/her house. It follows from this that the landlord of a boozer can decide who comes into their gaff in pretty much as arbitrary a way as any householder. I seem to remember there was a legal case about this very issue recently, I don't recall the outcome - but it was considered an unusual event. Landlords are generally kept from causing too much trouble over admission policy by the threat of loss of licence (issued by the local authority, and can be a pretty arbitrary decision itself )

Would those laws protect gay bars that don't want to let str8s in?

The wise venue operator would bar the str8s without giving any reason, under the ROAR clause. It's also perfectly permissible to bar people for, say, "being too drunk" or "being too rowdy" or "not complying with dress code" - that would do the job without all the fuss.

[Keevan_Colton]

being too drunk

That's because it's actually illegal to be drunk in a pub or club here...

[Rogue 9]

being too drunk

That's because it's actually illegal to be drunk in a pub or club here...

I'll have to inform the other guys in the choir of that. They'll be brokenhearted, I'm sure.

[BoyRocketeer]

It's okay to hold a big phallic gay parade or something down in Castro St. San Francisco, but it'd be pretty weird to hold one in surburb Orange County. Depends on where it takes place and the situation that surrounds it. I wouldnt want one in my hometown but that doesnt mean I'm a super anti-gay fascist. You mofos don't need to get that damn extreme.

[Keevan_Colton]

being too drunk

That's because it's actually illegal to be drunk in a pub or club here...

I'll have to inform the other guys in the choir of that. They'll be brokenhearted, I'm sure.

Generally speaking bouncers are told not to throw you out till you're drunk & broke or drunk & abusive though

[Johonebesus]

To Mike:

Look twit, you're completely missing the point, or maybe redefining the point to better suit your tastes (in fact, this isn't the first time you've done it). I'm not talking about moral absolutes. I was never arguing that any sexual displays are intrinsically more pushy than religious displays, because "pushy" is necessarily subjective. What is pushy to you may not be pushy to me. This discussion is about relative social norms, not intrinsic absolutes. I never made any appeal to popular opinion, because we are talking precisely about popular attitudes. From an absolute perspective, it's pretty hard to have "pushy" sexuality. Anything short of persistent, unwanted advances isn't quite "pushy", and I don't know if "pushy" adequately describes rape. You are correct that my point boils down to "people find it [highly] offensive, therefore it must be more pushy," because I was talking about subjective values.

Now, perhaps I should have been a bit more clear and precise to begin with, but I wasn't trying to start a detailed philosophic debate. Let me try to be more clear. "Shoving it in their face" is necessarily relative to social norms and values. It is my belief that homosexuality should be judged by the same standards as heterosexuality. Society isn't there yet, but that is where we are headed, despite the best efforts of the conservatives.

Now, there are two significant differences between the lesbians in the bar and sex on parade. First, there is a difference in degree. Our society holds that graphic sexuality is inappropriate for public display. That is called lewd or indecent. "Light" displays of sexuality, holding hands, hugging, a little kissing, even heavy kissing in a semi-private environment like a bar, are generally considered acceptable. Stripping almost naked and simulating sexual acts in public is not. Most people do not like it. The degree of distaste runs from mildly put off to greatly offended and shocked, but the vast majority of folks find it inappropriate at some level. According to the last polls I saw on the matter, the public is about evenly split as to whether little displays of homosexual affection are highly offensive. Many people who would find my float offensive wouldn't be much bothered by just seeing two guys kissing.

The second difference is the level of intrusiveness. A "little" display can be ignored quite easily. If you see two men kissing and don't like it, you can very easily look away. In fact, you might not even notice it if you don't look for it. On the other hand, my float is a very large display, on the public street, not only in clear view of everybody nearby, but designed specifically to grab as much attention as possible. The very point of the display is to call folk's attention and make it difficult for them to ignore the offending behavior. It is much more intrusive than a little kissing. A large building is somewhere in the middle. While it is large and harder to ignore, it is still passive. If you drive down the street and see a large church, then my float turns the corner, which one is going to grab your attention?

Now, inherent in this line of reasoning, but unstated previously, is that society has norms and values that are relative and subjective, but real none-the-less, and that it is undesirable to deliberately shock and offend as many people as you can for no good reason. Perhaps I should have stated it in previous posts, but it didn't seem necessary. Obviously, I was wrong. It does seem to me that, whether one agrees with social norms or not, it is at best counter-productive, and at worst morally wrong, to try to offend as many people as possible with no goal other than to make them mad or upset. You started to get the point when you agreed that "it's politically unwise for gays to act like that in public," but then you went back to insisting that I must be talking about moral absolutes, which I was not. Anytime we discuss concepts of lewdness or indecency, we can only discuss them in terms of relative social norms. If you want to analyze those norms to determine whether they are logical or have any real value in an absolute way, then that's fine, and I would likely agree with many of your conclusions. However, that is not what I was doing. If I was unclear, then I apologize, but your previous post was not arguing with me; it was arguing past me, not against what I was really arguing but against what you thought I was arguing.