Gay pub wins right to ban straights

[paul_valaru]

But there is no way to justify that. I can see the whole sexual orientation & gender issue but not skin color, etc.

99% of my clientle is white, and blacks make them nervous.

hate to say it discrimination is discrimination no matter how you candy coat it.

 

[spike]

Another item. Seems like it be pretty hard to check sexual orientation at the door. It's not like it's on your driver's license.

 

[Starya]

I don't think the general idea is that every visitor must flash their rainbow tattoo at the door. From other articles I've read the main problem was hen nights, bachelor parties, i.e. people coming in large groups to party. An example was posted above about a gay couple being asked to leave because of kissing. I'm pretty sure that clubs/bars that are mainly frequented* by straight people might find a way to close the door to a group of gay men coming to party.

That being said, I don't like the idea of this ban. I think all bars/clubs should welcome all visitors unless it's membership required. I sure as hell don't mind seeing just as many gay couples kissing/groping out on the town as I see straight couples doing the same. So, I agree with all of you, who in this thread object to the discrimination of straight (and, I assume then also gay) people. Let's all drink, dance and be merry together, straight or gay! Certainly, none of those posting here would ever narrow their eyes and glare at a gay couple on the dance floor next to them, right?




*Is this proper English? It's past my bedtime, can't be bothered to check it myself.

 

[spike]

So, I agree with all of you, who in this thread object to the discrimination of straight (and, I assume then also gay) people. Let's all drink, dance and be merry together, straight or gay!

Sounds reasonable.

Certainly, none of those posting here would ever narrow their eyes and glare at a gay couple on the dance floor next to them, right?

 

[Gonz]

Indeed. IMHO a business owner should be able to make that decision for himself if he can justify a reason for it.

Or even if s/he can't.

Owner is the key word.

I see no problem with this, as long as it goes both ways (or would that make a third bar?)

 

[Gato_Solo]

Of course not. That'd be discrimination.

I been trying to warn y'all shit like this was coming.

I'd rather be told outright that I wasn't welcome than to be served by a vindictive barkeep/waiter/waitress. I'd also rather this kind of thing be a private club. Public is public and private is private. This is akin to the smoking bans IMO.

 

[Gonz]

What makes it PUBLIC? A taxpayer supported park is public. How about the privately owned Publix? If UCLA is public, why isn't Dartmouth?