Australian pub bars heterosexuals

Originally posted by stumason

But it's illegal and it's discrimination.

Apparently it is not. If you read the article is says that the legislation has been passed in Australia. It went through a legal process the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled the Peel Hotel could ban patrons based on their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by zerotime

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]

Yes, but we don't have White only bars, or bars that ban gays, or KKK cells running around the country lynching those "nasty darkies"..

EDIT: On the one time I met a BNP member in a pub, he was playing pool with a Black man....Go figure....

Point being, we're a very tolerant society and by your own admission, your's is not.

[edit on 28/5/07 by stumason]

kinda funny when you think about it. How do you ban someone when you can't tell that a person is gay just by looking at them, most of the time. Do they issue "gay" cards?

Originally posted by NJE777


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...

Clever wording.. But why did they need a new law passing to do something they should be doing anyway?

Or am I missing something here?

It also depends on how they are going to enforce it. How do they know who is going to be a danger? Or are they just going to bar any heterosexual just too be safe?

Originally posted by zerotime
Apparently it is not. If you read the article is says that the legislation has been passed in Australia. It went through a legal process the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled the Peel Hotel could ban patrons based on their sexual orientation.

Surely that contravenes Australian Federal Law?

Here is the full citation of the decision...

www.austlii.edu.au...

In this exemption, “specified conduct” means –

• to refuse or restrict entry to the Peel Hotel Pty Ltd at 113 Wellington Street Collingwood to people who do not identify as homosexual males where to allow entry or unrestricted entry would, in the opinion of the applicant, its agent or employee, adversely affect the safety or comfort of the venue for its homosexual male patrons, or the nature of that venue as a venue primarily for homosexual male patrons; and
• to advertise those matters.

You can't just run with half the decision...

Originally posted by stumason

Yes, but we don't have White only bars, or bars that ban gays, or KKK cells running around the country lynching those "nasty darkies"..

EDIT: On the one time I met a BNP member in a pub, he was playing pool with a Black man....Go figure....

Point being, we're a very tolerant society and by your own admission, your's is not.

hmm. I googled racist pubs England and found and endless amount of information. They don't lynch because it looks like they axe. news.bbc.co.uk...
Anyway, this is offtopic.


I can give another example of legal discrimination that is in my area. We have a gym that is only available to the handicap and the disabled. The reasons are simple. They need some special equipment and more room to get around and they don’t want to work out in front of people who might make fun of them. I don’t think anyone who is not handicap is going to complain that they cannot join this gym, although I could be wrong.


[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]

This is silly! If homosexuals can have their own bars then so can heterosexuals. Whats next? Bans on race?

Gays generally, enjoy a very 'accepting' environment in Australia.

For those unaware of it, Australia is reknowned as the 'gay capitol' of the world, or at least that's how the publicity puts it each year in the run-up to the Gay Mardi Gras held each year and in which thousands of gays from all over the world parade down the centre of Sydney, dressed in baby-oil, feathers, drag, nappies, sporting bananas attached to their g-strings, etc. etc.

Tens of thousands of onlookers, including many family-groups, line the streets, wave and cheer and the entire several hours' long parade is televised or was until very recently. Everyone is so keen to be seen as politically-corret and non-discriminatory.

Oxford Street, close to the Sydney CBD, is a famous gay-stronghold and tourist attraction ------ where 'straights' are very much in a minority and feel it.

Undoubtedly it's the same in Melbourne (home of the Peel Hotel).

That's why this Equal Opportunities Commission ruling is so bizarre. The ruling gives credence to highly-doubtful claims that gay men are so unaccepted and discriminated against by heterosexuals that there is a valid need for a 'gay only' venue --- when this is clearly not the case.

Certainly, the hotel owner is keen to portray the situation in this light: his motives are obvious -- dollars. But the Equal Opportunities Commission doesn't operate in a vacuum: it cannot claim to be unaware of the wide-spread acceptance of gays by the general community -- a situation that has existed for ages.

The Equal Opportunites Commission has ruled in direct contradiction to its own charter: that body was instigated in order to make illegal all forms of discrimination, yet it has just made a ruling that IS discriminatory !

If the hotel owner hadn't broadcast the EOC's 'gay only' ruling to futher his OWN interests, the ruling may well have flown under the radar until the government, to further some of ITS agenda, could have unveiled it.

After all, if gays wish to drink and have sex --- like the rest of us, they'd be best advised to find a room and privacy (their own abode or a motel or whatever).

If heterosexuals were to start having sex on hotel dance-floors or if hotels provided explicitly-signed rooms where groups of heterosexuals could engage in group sex or sex in separate groups, that hotel and those heteroxexual patrons would be arrested for indecency.

Sure, some people go to hotels in the hope of picking someone up, but they don't consumate their relationship in a hotel's public areas.

The Peel obviously actively encourages gay-sex, as made obvious by it's explicit decor and signed 'special' rooms. So what differentiates the Peel from a gay bath-house or brothel? In any event, there are already hundreds of gay bath-house type venues. Does the EOC intend to make those 'gay only' venues too? Just in case 'straights' are tempted to 'harrass' copulating gays?

WHY is the gay-scene SO focused on sex? Why are the gay Mardi Gras so focused on gay-sex? It gives the strong impression that sex is the beginning and end of gay life. Yet there are millions of gay men who live normal lifestyles with their partners: shared hobbies and interests, travel, study, housework, extended family, pets, washing the car, struggling to pay the mortgage ... just like 'straights'.

The OEC has chosen to condone the worst possible advertisement for gays -- the lurid, tacky, sex-mad Peel hotel, judging by the tv-news footage. In which case, the OEC hasn't done gays any favours at all.

In fact, the Peel's explicit decor undoubtedly attracts curious non-gays.

Are gays incapable of going to a hotel in the same manner as straights?

Straights manage to control their overtly sexual behaviours whilst in public hotels. Why don't or can't gays?

The fact gays feel the need to engage in overtly or actual sexual activity whilst at a hotel -- to the point this supposedly requires 'protection' from the Equal Opportunities Commission --- says a lot more about gays than it does about heterosexuals.

Maybe gays should cease being so exhibitionistic regarding their sexual activities? If they did, though --- they'd pass for 'ordinary' folk. And for some, the idea of NOT being observed is too awful to contemplate.

Those gays who simply go to hotels for a drink with friends and who do NOT feel the need to remove their clothes or grops the man next to them -- draw neither unwanted attention OR discrimination from the public.

So maybe, instead of this bizarre ruling, the EOC should have alerted gays to the necessity for them to STOP utilizing public houses as if they were bath houses, thus offending the MAJORITY ?

Originally posted by Dock6
Maybe gays should cease being so exhibitionistic regarding their sexual activities? If they did, though --- they'd pass for 'ordinary' folk. And for some, the idea of NOT being observed is too awful to contemplate.

Those gays who simply go to hotels for a drink with friends and who do NOT feel the need to remove their clothes or grops the man next to them -- draw neither unwanted attention OR discrimination from the public.

So maybe, instead of this bizarre ruling, the EOC should have alerted gays to the necessity for them to STOP utilizing public houses as if they were bath houses, thus offending the MAJORITY ?

That was actually an issue in the Uk a few years back with a law that prohibited gay sex in public, or some such. gay rights groups forced the Government to repeal the law. Now, why do they feel the need to shag in public? I can't remember the particular law, but it did cause quite a stir as it was scene to be allowing them to engage in acts that otherwise would land straight people in jail.

My gay mate isn't like that. He's a little camp, but you wouldn't know him from Adam. Many others are like that too.

Why the need and focus on sex? You don't see straight couples shagging in public or feeling the need to flaunt their straightness by engaging in public acts of indecency, but it seems to be a major part of the gay scene.

Why is this?

I mean, what is the problem? Why can they just not be gay, like straight people are straight? Why the need to shove it down everyones throat (pardon the pun....)?

At the end of the day, what you do in PRIVATE is your concern. Doing in front of my face is likely to cause offence. I just don't want to actually see two men engaging in lewd acts, nor do I want to see a man and a woman either, but it seems on the gay scene that this is the be all and end all of a gay lifestyle.

Wow. Dock6 post denys ignorance huh?

In half of his post you can substitute the word "gay" for "straight".

Here are some examples:
WHY is the straight-scene SO focused on sex?
Why are the straight Mardi Gras so focused on straight-sex?
Maybe straights should cease being so exhibitionistic regarding their sexual activities?

Then there are other statements like this...

Originally posted by Dock6
Straights manage to control their overtly sexual behaviours whilst in public hotels.

Sure, some people go to hotels in the hope of picking someone up, but they don't consumate their relationship in a hotel's public areas.

I did not know that Dock6 conducted sex studies. I would love to see the results and evidence to back up these statements that on paper appear to be opinions presented as fact.

I for one have been on many spring breaks and I have seen countless people having sex in various public places including hotels and none of them have been gay.

Originally posted by Dock6
Maybe gays should cease being so exhibitionistic regarding their sexual activities? If they did, though --- they'd pass for 'ordinary' folk. And for some, the idea of NOT being observed is too awful to contemplate.

Who are these ordinary folk you speak of and why should anyone do something to appease them?


[edit on 28-5-2007 by zerotime]

I think the easiest and least path of problems here for them would have been to make a private club for gay men only, not open to the public, because as soon as you ban anyone, anywhere it draws attention. IMO

Originally posted by infinite
The question here is this, lets say another group, religious/ethnic/whatever, wanted to do the same thing. Banning an opposite from a social center, would it be allowed to pass?

Ask the Boyscouts.

This could explode if this was denied to someone else.

Why? happens to gays and blacks all the time. Why is now an issue? Because it's white heterosexuals being discriminated against? I say too bad. No offense infinite.

Originally posted by niteboy82
Why can't they just boot anyone from the club that is causing trouble in the first place? Do the police refuse to arrest people that become a physical threat inside the bar?

You would think that would solve the problem. Although I am against banning anyone from anywhere because of skin colore or sexual orientation, I don't see a problem with this. There are establishments in the US that have banned gays. The Boyscouts for one. So, I don't really see that big of a difference. other than the whole private establishment thing.

Originally posted by intrepid
kinda funny when you think about it. How do you ban someone when you can't tell that a person is gay just by looking at them, most of the time. Do they issue "gay" cards?

Good question. I was thinking this also.

Stumason: I agree. In fact, it's the exhibitionism of many gays which is responsible for many of the general public's negative opinions, re: gays.

The Gay Mardi Gras was supposedly the culmination and triumph of decades of protests and calls for 'equal rights' by gays.

So fine, gays were provided their own venue in which to demonstrate to the general public (the MAJORITY) that, as they claimed: 'We're just like you, only gay'.

Gay Mardi Gras ! announced the banners and leaflets and media. Come and see the Gay Mardi Gras -- or, if you prefer -- watch the extended tv coverage. But whichever way you choose to watch it --- PLEASE suport gays and the Gay Mardi Gras.

Gays had a year in which to decide how best to showcase themselves. A year in which to organise and rehearse.

Now, if heterosexuals were provided a Heterosexual Mardi Gras via which to showcase themselves as a group and the diverse ways in which they choose to express themselves individually: their skills and talents, training, etc. --- how do you imagine they would have appeared?

I'm guessing there would have been the Police, Firemen, military, butchers, bakers, candlestick-makers, etc., --- all proudly marching in their uniforms and clothes and accoutriments of their trade. There would also have been the Bird-Watchers and Train-spotters and Equestrian formations, plus the nurses and doctors and dentists and child-carers, the musicians, the professional dancers, house-wives and house-husbands, accountants, bus and taxi drivers, etc. etc. ALL of them keen to portray themselves and the group to which they believed they belonged, to the best advantage.

So what happened at the Gay Mardi Gras? Year after year after year?

Well, the crowds of supporters and onlookers arrived and took their places in orderly fashion along the sides of the streets. They had little flags and home-made banners. They were dressed for comfort: many of the older folk were dressed in their best.

Then, along came the gays, to the welcoming roar from the crowds.

Gays in nappies. Gays with bananas attached to the g-strings. Gays in baby-oil and a few feathers. Gays in leather and studs. Semi-naked gay females, riding Harleys with their gay girl-friends riding pillion. Gays on high floats, wearing very little and lots of thigh-high boots and whips. Gays in tight leather with the buttocks cut away, or the crotch cut out. Gays oiled up and wearing pink tights. Gays in formation in tight white briefs. Gays in chains being pretend-whipped by oiled, virtually naked gays. Gays performing simulated sex, thrusting their way down the road. Lots of thrusting generally. Lots of oiled skin.

The message: sex, sex, sex, sex.

Fathers with their kids sitting astride their shoulders didn't know what they should do. Should they turn around so their little kids wouldn't see the gays in animal suits performing gag-causing simulated sex three metres away? Would it seem 'old fashioned' if they told their wife: ' Ok. That's it. We've seen enough. We're going home. And then I'm going to stick my fingers down my throat to get rid of the vomit clogging up my mouth, after which I'm taking the kids to a psychiatrist so he can removed all this filth from their poor little memory banks. WHY did you drag us out here today woman? Do you think this sort of depravity is funny, kewl, good for our kids' development? Tell you something --- I won't be coming back next year and if you ever subject our children to this scum behaviour again, I'll divorce you."

Elderly people watched in disbelief. Many of them decided they couldn't really have seen what they THOUGHT they'd seen -- they must need new glasses.

The media tried to put a 'fun' spin on the gays 'Sex is All We Are' message and the gays claimed their mardi gras had been a 'great success' which had done so much to create acceptance and tolerance and promote the gay lifestyle.

The waxing-salons claimed they'd been flat out for months, ditto the gay-gyms.

People hoped that now the gays had gotten it all out of their systems, they'd show us next year what they actually STAND for -- show us how much 'like us' they are.

Next year was a repeat of the first year, only with MORE oiled flesh on display. And on and on, year after year. Until people voted with their feet and stayed away or turned off their tv.

Oooooh. We've lost our government funding for our mardi gras, wailed the gays.

About damn time, muttered the rest of us. WE had been paying for the gays shameless, tasteless orgy of self-absorption and exhibitionism.

So the question to be answered (because the gays have never answered) is WHY the gays couldn't see past their genitals, when provided the opportunity to show us they are " Just like everyone else".

Do gays imagine that straights don't HAVE skin to be bared?

Do gays believe that only GAYS know how to have sex?

Guess what, gays: heterosexuals not only have nice smooth skin and know how to have fulfilling, sexual relationships (long term, monogamous relationships in many cases, that involves genuine love and respect for their partner), they ALSO know how to have babies and raise their children in decent homes in which the focus is on self-respect, consideration, decency, sacrifice, integrity, hard work, respect and recognition for others, self-control and dozens of other worthwhile qualities.

SURE, straights know how to have sex. And usually, it lasts a lot longer than the three minute jokes that are the mainstay of bath houses and other bonobo-type establishments.

Undoubtedly, there are gay men who are doctors, dentists, firemen, butchers, cab-drivers. But where ARE they? Did they ALSO strip down and wax off and oil up and parade down the city streets wearing nothing except a plastic banana tied to their g-strings?

Is THAT how they hoped to earn our respect for themselves and the gay community, when given the opportunity, at tax payers' expense, to show the world that gays are Just Like Everyone Else?

If so, they FAILED. And in the process ---- they showed us they are NOT at ALL 'like the rest of us'. They showed us they are NOT worthy of the community's respect. They showed us they are unable to control their basic instincts and desperate need for attention and DISapproval.

That's right. Gays INSIST on courting and encouraging DISapproval.

Maybe when gays are able to approve of their own behaviours, they will STOP FORCING the community to voice the disapproval that gays feel about themSELVES.

When or maybe IF gays are able to behave 'like the rest of us' -- i.e., civilized and sexually mature -- then gays will stop being subject of ANYone's discussion. In the same way heterosexuals don't feel the compulsion to discuss themselves endlessly or have sex with their wives out on the lawn or in the local shopping mall and THEN claim they are being 'harrassed and discriminated against'. Sure, and pigs might some day fly.

So now it's gone back to the way things were, with gays who insist on having sex with multiple strangers in pubs --- claiming they need protection.

The Straights stepped up to the plate.
The Straights were willing to give gays the chance to be Just Like Everyone Else.

It was the gays --- the noisy, attention seeking factions --- who decided they didn't WANT to be like the rest of us.

Ok. Have your Peel hotel.

Just shut the hell up now please, gays, until you have something worthwhile to say and are willing to PROVE that you are deserving of respect and actually ARE capable of behaving with the same self-restraint, self-respect (as the rest of us) and the general decency and consideration to appreciate that very FEW people actually wish to see your bared behind or your boring sex lives.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by intrepid
kinda funny when you think about it. How do you ban someone when you can't tell that a person is gay just by looking at them, most of the time. Do they issue "gay" cards?

Good question. I was thinking this also.

I know ways to find out but I don't think describing them is allowed on this forum :p

For the rest, as you might know, homosexuals usually easelly recognize if someone is gay or not and some straight people (like me) recognize homosexuals (both male and female) easelly too. Just seeing them walking up to you can usually give you plenty of telltales to see if they are or aren't. If that doesn't give it away, hearing them talk usually does.

Yeah lurid behavior is not the exclusive property of drunken gay guys - there's plenty of straight people getting freaky in public too. Especially at something like Mardi Gras.

Still I feel this ruling is a little silly - as someone pointed out a little earlier in the thread, it seems impossible to enforce. There's no ID cards for sexual preference. How are they going to tell whether someone is gay or straight?

It might be an easy task with some guys, but with most, you can't tell without being told. If a straight guy really wants to to to the gay bar all he has to do is lie.

It sets a bad precedent IMHO. The rules have to be the same for everyone or else they're worthless. Discrimination is discrimination.

If the bar has a problem with their customers getting hassled, well that's what bouncers are for. Go to a gay bar in Chelsea in NYC, start hassling gay men, and see how long it takes until some 7' weightlifter guy is sending you back out through the front door upside-down

It seems shady to me, like a publicity stunt.

Just seeing them walking up to you can usually give you plenty of telltales to see if they are or aren't. If that doesn't give it away, hearing them talk usually does.

Ha - that might work for some, but I guarantee not for all.
IME it's a small minority of gay men that act or look effeminate.
Most are indistinguishable in their behavior from straights, and some are way over the other side of the equation - there are quite a few hypermasculine types too.

[edit on 5/28/07 by xmotex]

It doesn't take a genius to know who will be most pleased and most displeased about the EOC ruling.

Most pleased = the Peel's owner. His business could NEVER have paid for all the publicity it's receiving.

Most displeased/unhappy = the gays who once frequented the Peel hotel and who now (should the ruling cause straights to avoid the place) will be taking their patronage to other hotels.

Why?

Because a large number of gays SEEK attention and cannot live without it.

It was their exhibitionism that attracted the allged straights from bucks' nights and hens' parties.

Deprived of an audience, the exhibitionistic gays (SO many of them) will desert the Peel.

Leaving the EOC with egg on its face, deservedly.

I'm gay.

I've been to at least 12 different gay bars in my 49 years, just in North Carolina and South Carolina, in various cities.

In one case, when I was still "not single" (as was with most of my visits), we accidentally found ourselves in a LESBIAN bar.

They looked a tad stunned, but served us without complaint.

One of the most famous local bars, Encore, now LONG GONE, in Greensboro, Norht Carolina, on any given Friday night was as much as 50% straight, and NO ONE MINDED.

And it was PACKED.

The reason, at that time, in the lat 70's and early-to-mid 80's was that Mama Jo, the owner, a lesbian, had the BEST STATE OF THE ART dance floor around town for MILES, and everyone knew it.

We used to say that her dance floor did everything but burp you! It had the smoke, and EVERYTHING, and was very much what made her bar SO popular with both gays and straights.

Here in the Myrtle Beach area, they don't care who comes into the gay bars, as long as they don't cause problems, and they don't. Likewise, the straight bars.

The problem is that people are showing up apparently with the INTENT to CAUSE problems.

That's what a decent bar has BOUNCERS for - to extract the problem people from their environment.

Mama Jo was a BIG woman, and didn't NEED a bouncer! She was kind, but if you got out of line, she would NOT hesitate to make a NEW FIRE EXIT through ONE OF HER WALLS, with YOUR BODY, and everyone KNEW it too.

NO ONE crossed Mama Jo.

And NO ONE was EVER bothered.

Maybe HATEFUL VENGEFUL homophobia is stronger in Australia than here. I don't know. It could be a cultural difference, or lack of good management.

[edit on 5/28/2007 by rm8471]