Please use quote tags when posting from other sources - The Moderating Team
| Quote: |
BBC:
A gay pub in the city of Melbourne has won the right to ban heterosexuals - the first time such legislation has been passed in Australia.
The Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled the Peel Hotel could ban patrons based on their sexual orientation.
The pub's management said the move would stop groups of heterosexual men and women abusing gay people.
Civil liberties groups have supported the decision.
'Safe balance'
The tribunal's president said groups of straight women found homosexual men entertaining but that such attention was dehumanising, the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says.
Managers complained raucous hen nights and stag parties created a poisonous atmosphere for its gay clientele, our correspondent says.
"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.
Mr McFeely says he wants a "safe balance"
He said while Melbourne had 2,000 venues catering for heterosexuals, his was the only bar aimed exclusively at gay men.
Civil liberties groups said homosexuals should be allowed to relax in places without fear of bullying or intimidation.
Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent discrimination based on race, religion or sexuality. |
Hetrosexual pepole is not a minority. But i wonder how they will see if pepeole are gay or not KIss this female/man in the same sex?? Can be fun to see or do they have to dress like YMCA to get in ??
I think this is rather ironic. What about bisexual people? The reasoning sounds good, after all if you're dating someone you do not want to be harassed for that.
Any discrimination based on sexual orientation is stupid. Gays complain when they are barred, so they should be the last ones to do it themselves.
I don't know how it works and Australia but in the US business have the right to refuse service to anyone (its been done to me more then once). But yea. It doesn't make much sense because their is no way to know who is what orientation. And in all the gay clubs and bars Iv been in, more then the average straight man, I have never seen a problem of 'abuse'. Any heterosexual going to a gay bar to start trouble is going to find themselves extremely out numbered by people that know how to fight more then you think (its a survival thing).
This is not the banning of hetrosexuals - it's the legal banning of hetrosexuals. It's been accomplished by legislation. If it had been the hetrosexual owners of a hotel who had even mentioned trying to get legislation to ban gays, the gays would have been up in arms. It's outrageous. If someone is abusive physically or verbally there are already laws to deal with this. This is an indictment of just how stupid this PC crap can be. This is just PC shit gone too far. 
| rein wrote: |
| Any discrimination based on sexual orientation is stupid. Gays complain when they are barred, so they should be the last ones to do it themselves. |
Agreed.I think that the word banning has been taken out of context. I thought that the reason they went to court was because of the large number of incidents where bucks parties of men would turn up and want to come and "watch the gays".
I can see the reasoning behind their request to refuse entry to guests based on their sexual orientation. I also think it would be obvious to a bouncer who works the doors of a gay pub to be quite familiar with the patrons.
When a large group of roudy men turn up they should have the right to protect their guests by refusing entry.
I believe the courts also saw this as reasonable that is why they granted their request.
This is one of the subjects that don't deserv much attention. This is 'pathetic' and that's all.
Are the heteros becoming a problem in Australia?
I think a better policy would be to kick the homophobic jerks out. Then the pleasant experience is maintained for those who are there for good reason, such as dating.
Apparently if you dress up like Tinky Winky the Teletubbie they'll let you in.
Well, that's what the Chaser did. 
| ligho wrote: |
| Quote: | BBC:
A gay pub in the city of Melbourne has won the right to ban heterosexuals - the first time such legislation has been passed in Australia. |
|
STUPID Political Correctness gone mad! Where is the equality of treatment?
| Quote: |
Civil liberties groups have supported the decision. |
No wonder!
| Quote: |
The tribunal's president said groups of straight women found homosexual men entertaining but that such attention was dehumanising, the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says.
...
Civil liberties groups said homosexuals should be allowed to relax in places without fear of bullying or intimidation. |
... as opposed to their noisy and flashy gay parades!
P.S.
I do not dislike homosexuals. Many homosexuals were/are great writers, artists, scientists, etc or simply good people. Nonetheless homosexuality is just one of the many sexual aberrations (they hide behind the euphemism Sexual Minority).Having it put into law is taking it too far, but that said I understand the reasoning behind it - it doesn't really matter what your views on homosexuality are in this instance, I think you need to look at the reason why they are doing this. If heterosexuals were becoming a significant problem, then it's certainly fine for them to take action - but if it was just a measure to be more 'exclusive' then I think they have it wrong.
I would think the owners of the nightclub would have been aware of the potential for uproar from it and might have even wanted the attention - but it's pretty negative publicity and I wouldn't have thought so. I don't really see how you can determine someon's sexual orientation for them anyway - there's nothing to stop you telling them whatever you like..
| Quote: |
But then i read some of the reasons for the ban; and it became clear that this isn't about checking anybody's sexual credentials at the door - This is about the way people treat those who do make their sexual credentials obvious:
I quote the Nine News website, quoting the Herald-Sun, quoting VCAT deputy president Cate McKenzie: "Sometimes heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons."
McKenzie said some straight women came to the club because they found the gay patrons entertaining.
"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."
I don't know how they plan to use the newly granted powers, but in theory, you wouldn't nessecarily be barred entry if you were just turning up to enjoy the music/atmosphere/have a drink. I imagine you would be asked to leave if it became clear that you were just there to treat the other patrons as zoo animals (in McKenzie's words) or to pick a fight or generally act like a dickhead. |
Look up your facts.Haha, yeah. Its the only anti heterosexual pub here in Australia and everyone seems to hate it.
It gets targeted so much by comedy groups - its great. 
Maybe it's a publicity scheme by the management to get free attention and to advertise their gay bar. Now everyone knows about the bar .... but it's getting a negative response by the public. Objection causes more discontent and thus further dicrimination amongst humans. It may fairly well work against them in the long run.
The idea is businessly good, but as I think that this is such an EXTREME LACK OF JUDGMENT of the court that decided in favor of the bar, perhaps a bribery occurred. If those comedy groups make fun of it, then it will get more notoriety. That's all the admins want.
I would seriously doubt that VCAT is corrupt like that - it's not the sort of practice that generally takes place in Australia and if there was a chance that was the case, then I'm sure it would have been brought up at some point in the media (which, to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't).
| Tim Graham wrote: |
| I would seriously doubt that VCAT is corrupt like that - it's not the sort of practice that generally takes place in Australia and if there was a chance that was the case, then I'm sure it would have been brought up at some point in the media (which, to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't). |
No ofense to Australia, even although I'm brazilian, one of the most *funny* countries, I would tell you to keep your mind open. Generally and "naturally" speaking, money seduces. You can be depressed and whatever, but when an opportunity to get rich comes up, you forget about your depression and start thinking about a plan to use the opportunity. I'm viewing under the perspective of the businessman. Depending on the possible income, a risk would be thinkable of. Besides, almost everyone is subject to bribery.Although Australia is probably the most effective "Democracy" in the world, in my opinion, this is one of the weird side effects of the freedom of democracy. Catering to every fringe of society to prevent offending them. It is stupid and non productive in my opinion.
And how the heck could anyone prove someone was or wasn't homosexual anyway when they want to get in?
| Da Rossa wrote: |
| No ofense to Australia, even although I'm brazilian, one of the most *funny* countries, I would tell you to keep your mind open. Generally and "naturally" speaking, money seduces. You can be depressed and whatever, but when an opportunity to get rich comes up, you forget about your depression and start thinking about a plan to use the opportunity. I'm viewing under the perspective of the businessman. Depending on the possible income, a risk would be thinkable of. Besides, almost everyone is subject to bribery. |
Thats true but in what I suppose you'd called developed countries like Australia, there really isn't much incentive for bribery - it's only the civil administrative tribunal, not a high court or anything, but to the best of my knowledge having such a position is not one that is poorly paid. I'm not saying that any of these systems aren't vulnerable to bribery, but that the risk in a position like that would be far too high. The reality of the situation here is that it was only a big deal for the night, maybe the days after the actual event - there hasn't been anything to suggest that VCAT or the nightclub involved were involved in underhanded practices.
| paul_indo wrote: |
Although Australia is probably the most effective "Democracy" in the world, in my opinion, this is one of the weird side effects of the freedom of democracy. Catering to every fringe of society to prevent offending them. It is stupid and non productive in my opinion.
And how the heck could anyone prove someone was or wasn't homosexual anyway when they want to get in? |
That was my point - you can't physically test whether someone is homosexual or not, it's not possible - you could ask them, but that's about as far as it could really go. In my view what they were really trying to do was weed out those attempting to intimidate or humiliate their patrons (and thus target market), and this was the simplest way to achieve that.This isn't fair since no heterosexual bars ban gays. But whatever, if it keeps them away and stops them from poaching heterosexuals I guess its good.
How the hell would they know, anyway?! Do you have to make out with someone of the same sex at the door in order to get in?!
Basically, it just gives them the right to kick out people who are behaving homophobic, without getting slapped with an anti-discrimination lawsuit.
