Article: Melbourne gay pub wins heterosexual ban policy

[DiamondDog]

It sounds like a really bad idea and I'd be mad if I couldn't go to hetero bars/clubs with friends because I'm not heterosexual.

*sigh* This is another example of the "us vs them" mentality, and heterophobia that the gay "community ®" has that I don't like.

I don't like the idea of being seen like an animal in a zoo in a queer space or gay bar but I don't think that banning ALL heterosexuals is a good idea at all if everyone wants equality and equal rights.

Will it be like John Waters' movie Pecker when everyone starts going to a gay strip bar and the bouncer asks for "Gay ID only!"? LMAO

I know that in lots of gay/queer bars where it's getting popular for hetero people to go there are signs on the door that say "you're entering a gay/queer bar if you have a problem with that please leave" or the bartenders let the clueless drunk patrons know that it's not a hetero bar/club.
----

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/822/Gay_Bar_Wins_Right_To_Out_Straights

Gay Bar Wins Right To Out Straights

Local News, By Tim D, 28th May, 2007

A gay bar in Melbourne has won a landmark case allowing it, for the first time in Australian history, the ability to legally refuse entry to heterosexual people.

The Peel Hotel in Melbourne’s Collingwood applied to the Victorian planning tribunal for the right to not allow entry to straight men and women on the basis of preventing “sexually based insults and violence”.

Last week the tribunal granted The Peel an exemption to the Equal Opportunity Act that allows it to prohibit heterosexuals from the venue if it wishes. The Deputy President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Cate McKenzie, wrote in her findings that “sometimes heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons.”

She mentioned that some women booked hens’ nights at the venue using the gay patrons of The Peel as entertainment. “To regard the gay male patrons of the venue as providing an entertainment or spectacle to be stared at, as one would at an animal at a zoo, devalues and dehumanises them.”

”[It} seeks to give gay men a space in which they may, without inhibition, meet, socialise and express physical attraction to each other in a non-threatening atmosphere.”

The Peel has been in the news lately after weathering a mini-controversy over an inappropriate ANZAC Day ad featuring the image of a near-naked solider in a slouch hat next to a real-life memorial guard. And now, it seems, the Peel has been dragged back into the news by setting this Australian legla precedent.

[TaylorMade]

how will they be able to tell?

And. . .in my eyes, that makes them no better than bars that kick out gay people.

But, oh well.

*Taylor*

[Long Duck Dong]

mmm lets all work together to wipe out discrimination, but practise it at the same time....

I accept that they are requesting the rights to exclude heterosexual people...... but thats a bit like saying that you can enjoy our presence unless you are one of us


The Deputy President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Cate McKenzie, wrote in her findings that “sometimes heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons.”

She mentioned that some women booked hens’ nights at the venue using the gay patrons of The Peel as entertainment. “To regard the gay male patrons of the venue as providing an entertainment or spectacle to be stared at, as one would at an animal at a zoo, devalues and dehumanises them.

sorry but thats like saying that its ok for people to put themselves on display, but not ok for people to view them

the same rule doesn't apply to circus clowns, as they are a entertainment......so in theory the same applies to strippers.... they are entertainment.... and entertainment is there to entertain people.....unless your purpose is not just to entertain people, but to engage members of the public in forms of entertainment that is not suitable or deemed suitable for some groups

[Azrael]

how will they be able to tell?

And. . .in my eyes, that makes them no better than bars that kick out gay people.

But, oh well.

*Taylor*
Agreed.

[scubaman]

I agree with TaylorMade as well. And, how are they going to tell? There are several gay men who do not "act gay" so will they have to provide proof? I bet there will be more to this story as time passes.

[allbimyself]

I had read this story on the BBC site just before coming here. I'm impressed (and relieved) that so far everyone here seems to be having the same thoughts I had.

Reverse discrimination does not solve problems of acceptance.

I'm not sure how the law is in Oz, but in the US an establishment has the right to refuse service and remove someone that is causing a disturbance, harassing employees or other patrons, etc, etc. If a str8 person or group of people is causing a problem, throw them out. I'm unable to see how a minority group that isn't doing one of those things can cause the majority group to be uncomfortable. Hmmm, seems like that's the basis str8's use to discriminate, too.

[happyjoe68]

How will they prove you're straight or not? Will they demand to see polaroid action shots?

[eyelinerprincess]

"Hell, you're not straight, are you?"
"No, sir"
"Alright...."

They won't be able to prove it. I know that my mate is gay, and you wouldn't be able to tell if you'd just met him, and his boyfriend is the straightest-acting guy you'd ever meet. What do they want? A special ID and a flag draped around them? Lesbian haircut and "I [heart] women" t-shirt?

[TaylorMade]

And what if a bi chick shows up with her bi male friend/boyfriend/husband?

This wasn't well thought out.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

For woteva reason its fukkin disgraceful.. wot the hell r sum peeps thinkin bout...makes me despair wetha we eva wanna b accepted in our own rite as human beins.

[Johnny Reb]

And what if a bi chick shows up with her bi male friend/boyfriend/husband?

This wasn't well thought out.

*Taylor*

The whole thing is just stupid. What's next? Gay only bathrooms and water fountains?

[TaylorMade]

The whole thing is just stupid. What's next? Gay only bathrooms and water fountains?


We tried that before with one group....see how well that turned out.

<snerk>

*Taylor*

[Johnny Reb]

We tried that before with one group....see how well that turned out.

<snerk>

*Taylor*

Exactly my point

[izzfan]

Yeah, my first response when I read the article was "What a bloody stupid idea!". I mean this is a real retrograde step and it does no good to anyone, I mean if gay bars in Australia have the right to refuse entry based on sexuality then what's to stop straight bars doing the same? However well-intentioned the court ruling is, it has set a dangerous precedent which could put LGBT rights in Australia back a decade or two. Also, it could also cause more homophobia by causing division and segregation.

Also, as many people have pointed out. How do you 'prove' that you're gay, do you have to mince about and fill every stereotype of a gay person before they let you in? do you have to be accompanied with a boyfriend? Do you have to snog the doorman? Seriously, I do wonder about how they are going to enforce this ban on straight people. Then there is the issue of bisexual people - how would such a bar react to bisexual people. Or "Straight-acting" gay people as well for that matter? Seriously, anyone who thinks that you can tell a person's sexuality purely from appaerence will often get proved wrong.

I remeber that there was some controversy in the UK about the new equality laws meaning that straight people could go into gay bars. However, for once, our government seems to have done the right thing and not given them any kind of exemption. Also, who cares if straight people go into gay bars, I mean as long as they're not being homophobic then its really not a problem. I mean, gay people go to straight bars - the Australian court is foolish to think that gay people only go to gay bars.

Annoyingly, I have never actually been to a gay bar yet. I've been to a bar which labelled itself as 'gay-friendly' but wasn't really a gay bar. Visiting a gay bar is something I have always been curious about and the thought of being turned away because I am partially straight is greatly annoying.

Izzfan :flag2:

[FalconAngel]

While we can see the reasoning behind the decision, it sets a very bad precedent.

Discrimination is discrimination. The solution is both easy and difficult. The real solution is to just have some bouncers in the club to deal with those who refuse to respect the rules and rights of the patrons who are there to just relax and enjoy themselves. The difficult part is to get the place to pay for it.
We, personally, would rather have to go to a bouncer to remove an unruly patron than to have to deal with them standing outside of the bar making trouble out there.

[Oh Yeah]

As a libertarian, I believe that businesses should be able to discriminate. As hard as it is for me, I still don't feel like I have the right to determine what people do with their property.