Weekly News Thread 5/28-6/3

[Jabrwock]

Australian pub bars heterosexuals (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6697469.stm)

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 pub's management said the move would stop groups of heterosexual men and women abusing gay people.

Civil liberties groups have supported the decision....

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....

[The manager] 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.

Canada Catholics 'ordain' women (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6697271.stm)
Five women and a married man, all Roman Catholics, have been ordained as priests and deacons by a female Catholic bishop.

However, the Vatican says it will not recognise either the ordinations or the group carrying them out....

They watched as Bishop Patricia Fresen, one of the most well-known figures in the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement, led the five women and one married man through a number of rituals to mark their ordination.

Bishop Fresen was herself ordained in a secret ceremony in Spain in 2003.

But the archdiocese of Toronto said that the organisation responsible for the ordinations had no affiliation or any dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church.

It said that ordaining men into the priesthood was a sacrament that cannot be changed.

But the bishops in the Womenpriests movement claim they are part of the Church's valid apostolic succession, because Catholic bishops in good standing ordained them secretly.

Japan's farm minister commits suicide (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/28/japan-minister-070528.html)

Japan's agricultural minister died Monday after reportedly hanging himself just hours before he was to face questioning in parliament in a political scandal, officials said.

He was under fire for allegedly claiming more than $236,600 in utility fees even though he rented a parliamentary office where utility costs are free. Opposition lawmakers had demanded his resignation, but Matsuoka denied any wrongdoing.

[Pelor]

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.
wtf?
Civil liberties groups have supported the decision....
WTF?!

[The manager] said while Melbourne had 2,000 venues catering for heterosexuals, his was the only bar aimed exclusively at gay men.
WTF?!

Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent discrimination based on race, religion or sexuality.
WTF?!

srsly, wtf?

[weatherlight]

Eh, there have been some women priest that have been ordained roman catholic as well as married men that have legitimately become priests. Its not a standard occurrence, but on rare occasions it has happened. In this case they were intentional deceitful and circumventing the hierarchy. The fact that the roman catholic church, wont recognize the ordination is not surprising.

[weatherlight]

wtf?

WTF?!


WTF?!


WTF?!

srsly, wtf?
I just want to see what would happen if they tried to ban gay men/women from a straight bar.

[Jabrwock]

I just want to see what would happen if they tried to ban gay men/women from a straight bar.
The thing is though, they wouldn't really be able to come up with a good reason. The law does allow for exceptions, it's a bit flexible, and being overwhelmed by "non-gay" clientele that are only there to mock the regular clientele, well, it's a decent reason.

If homosexuals went to a regular bar to harass the other patrons, it wouldn't be against the law to tell them to leave.

The only reason this passed is that there is one gay bar, and 2,000 regular ones. So it's not like the heterosexuals are being denied the right to go to bars... just this one. If there were more gay bars, it probably wouldn't have passed.

It's not uncommon. In fact, if they made it a "members only" bar, it would be 100% legal.

[Jabrwock]

Here's some more details about how they got the excemption:

The decision gives the hotel the right to refuse entry to people considered a threat to the safety and comfort of its patrons.So they aren't necessarily banning all hetero customers, just mainly groups like the stags/stagettes that disrupt the bar.

[bayushisan]

I just want to see what would happen if they tried to ban gay men/women from a straight bar.

If someone were to try that, then that bar would be sued out of existence for being discriminatory based on sexual preference. Kinda like what the gay bar was doing, only in their case its ok. Which makes no sense at all.

[Jabrwock]

If someone were to try that, then that bar would be sued out of existence for being discriminatory based on sexual preference. Kinda like what the gay bar was doing, only in their case its ok. Which makes no sense at all.
Like I said, the straight bar wouldn't have a valid reason. In this particular instance, the gay bar DOES have a reason to discriminate, namely that large groups of hetero patrons are going to that particular bar with the express intent of harassing/humiliating it's regular patrons.

If this hadn't happened, the bar wouldn't have had a valid case...

[Jabrwock]

Lohan arrested on DUI charge after crash (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18885358/)

It's the new fashionable thing to do! Next up, Lohan drives without a license, blames her publicist, starts praying to Jesus, and asks her fans to demand Gubernator Ahhhh-nold release her from jail!

Lindsay Lohan was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence Saturday after her convertible struck a curb, and investigators found what they believe is cocaine at the scene, police said.

[bayushisan]

Like I said, the straight bar wouldn't have a valid reason. In this particular instance, the gay bar DOES have a reason to discriminate, namely that large groups of hetero patrons are going to that particular bar with the express intent of harassing/humiliating it's regular patrons.

If this hadn't happened, the bar wouldn't have had a valid case...

A straight bar could have a completely valid reason for trying to ban gay people. They could potentially use the same argument the gay bar did, only in their case it would be homophobic and the case would get thrown out. The bar would also likely be sued and have to shut down.

Besides why not just kick the offenders out? Why take it court in the first place? Unless the intent to make discrimination on their side legal and keep it illegal for straight bars to do the same.

[KN]

A straight bar could have a completely valid reason for trying to ban gay people. They could potentially use the same argument the gay bar did, only in their case it would be homophobic and the case would get thrown out. The bar would also likely be sued and have to shut down.

Besides why not just kick the offenders out? Why take it court in the first place? Unless the intent to make discrimination on their side legal and keep it illegal for straight bars to do the same.

Protip: there are no straight bars.

[Jabrwock]

A straight bar could have a completely valid reason for trying to ban gay people. They could potentially use the same argument the gay bar did, only in their case it would be homophobic and the case would get thrown out. The bar would also likely be sued and have to shut down.Not if they could prove that the gay patrons were a major disruption. If perhaps the gay patrons were only there to ridicule and abuse the hetero patrons on a regular basis, and it could be shown that it was ONLY gay patrons doing the abusing, they'd have a case under Aus law.

Besides why not just kick the offenders out? Why take it court in the first place?They probably got tired of kicking people out, day in and day out, when it's the same kinds of people all the time. So they want permission to pre-screen, which would be illegal. You need to apply for gov. permission to circumvent it. Which is why they applied to the Commission for Equality for an exemption.

Unless the intent to make discrimination on their side legal and keep it illegal for straight bars to do the same.Great straw man argument. The Commission has the power to hand the same ability to straight bars, but as I said, without a valid reason, they won't. This decision doesn't affect the legality of straight bars at all, and in fact doesn't apply to *any other* gay bars. They'd have to apply for their own exceptions.

[bayushisan]

Protip: there are no straight bars.

The point being is that if a bar tried to ban gay people, using the same argument, they'd be labeled homophobes and likely be sued into bankruptcy. Its a double standard and more than a little hypocritical to demand to be treated equally and then turn around and demand the right to discriminate yourself.

[Jabrwock]

Alabama Department of Homeland Security Closes Web Site That Named Political Activist Groups on Terror List (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275835,00.html)

This is the source of the "I'm a terrorist, as certified by the Alabama FBI" tags...

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/images/domestic-terrorist/468x60.png

The Alabama Department of Homeland Security has taken down a Web site it operated that included gay rights and anti-war organizations in a list of groups that could include terrorists.

The Web site identified different types of terrorists, and included a list of groups it believed could spawn terrorists. The list also included environmentalists, animal rights advocates and abortion opponents.

The director of the department, Jim Walker, said his agency received a number of calls and e-mails from people who said they felt the site unfairly targeted certain people just because of their beliefs. He said he plans to put the Web site back on the Internet, but will no longer identify specific types of groups.

[Jabrwock]

The point being is that if a bar tried to ban gay people, using the same argument, they'd be labeled homophobes and likely be sued into bankruptcy.I'd like to see a regular bar try to claim that they're being overwhelmed by hordes of gays who show up just to mock and harass their "straight" clientèle. That would be a sight to behold.

And you know what? As I said, under Aus law they'd get an exemption. Which would protect them from any lawsuit.

There's a gay bar here in my city that turned itself into a "members-only" club to deal with the fact that people would show up from other bars, usually drunk, to harass their patrons. Because it was "members-only" it circumvents the "equality" rules. They still let hetero's in, but you need to be "sponsored" by a current member.

[KN]

At least they were right about the pro-lifers and some of the animal rights activists. But Jesus ****ing Christ, what's the last time a gay rights activist has bombed a church?

[Jabrwock]

But, there was that one time, I mean I'm sure my friend heard of one, they did something. Maybe it was mooned a church. Or demanded same-sex marriage or something. Still, equivalent to blowing up children, right? ;)

[Pelor]

The thing is though, they wouldn't really be able to come up with a good reason. The law does allow for exceptions, it's a bit flexible, and being overwhelmed by "non-gay" clientele that are only there to mock the regular clientele, well, it's a decent reason.

If homosexuals went to a regular bar to harass the other patrons, it wouldn't be against the law to tell them to leave.
You don't need sexual discrimination to kick out unruly patrons. Don't they have the right to kick out unruly patrons? Do they have to specifically target heterosexuals do kick the unruly ones out? Let's take a look at this court ruling:

"The Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled the Peel Hotel could ban patrons based on their sexual orientation."

That's a pretty straight-forward decision, don't you agree? Now you defend it.

The only reason this passed is that there is one gay bar, and 2,000 regular ones. So it's not like the heterosexuals are being denied the right to go to bars... just this one. If there were more gay bars, it probably wouldn't have passed.
That's idiot logic. Are there any laws preventing new gay-bars from being opened? Why is there only one?

It's because there isn't enough demand for gay bars.

But let's do an experiment. I'm going to take exactly what you wrote and change the subjects a bit. You tell me if it is still a convincing argument:

"The only reason this [anti-gay law] passed is that there are no straight bars, and 2,000 regular ones. So it's not like the homosexuals are being denied the right to go to bars... just this one. If there were more straight bars, it probably wouldn't have passed."

It's not uncommon. In fact, if they made it a "members only" bar, it would be 100% legal.And if they denied membership to gay people, then it would be illegal again.


Just for the hell of it, I'm going to make some more comments about the newsstory.
"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance,"
OMG! Racial profiling! er... sexual profiling... but that's bad...
Also maybe all Muslims should be strip searched before entering a plane... for safety reasons :rolleyes:

Oh yeah... they have an exemption... so much for the rule of law and equality under the law.

If they don't like it, they should abolish anti-discrimination laws completely.

[bayushisan]

I'd like to see a regular bar try to claim that they're being overwhelmed by hordes of gays who show up just to mock and harass their "straight" clientèle. That would be a sight to behold.

And you know what? As I said, under Aus law they'd get an exemption. Which would protect them from any lawsuit.

There's a gay bar here in my city that turned itself into a "members-only" club to deal with the fact that people would show up from other bars, usually drunk, to harass their patrons. Because it was "members-only" it circumvents the "equality" rules. They still let hetero's in, but you need to be "sponsored" by a current member.

If the bar in the article had done that then there would hardly be an issue. My point is that if another bar tried to make the same lawsuit they'd be labeled as being homophobic. Its difficult to make the case that they wouldn't be labeled as such.

[Pelor]

Also, I love how they call straight people a threat to the safety of homosexuals. Absolutely lovely.


Just abolish the anti-discrimination laws entirely.

[KN]

If the bar in the article had done that then there would hardly be an issue. My point is that if another bar tried to make the same lawsuit they'd be labeled as being homophobic. Its difficult to make the case that they wouldn't be labeled as such.

Maybe because gay people don't go into a 'straight' bar to beat people up? Ever thought of that? OH WAIT, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. Sorry to offend your sensibilities >.>

[Jabrwock]

You don't need sexual discrimination to kick out unruly patrons. Don't they have the right to kick out unruly patrons? Do they have to specifically target heterosexuals do kick the unruly ones out?They're not asking for permission to kick them out, they're asking for permission to deny them entry in the first place, which without the ruling they cannot do.

"The only reason this [anti-gay law] passed is that there are no straight bars, and 2,000 regular ones. So it's not like the homosexuals are being denied the right to go to bars... just this one. If there were more straight bars, it probably wouldn't have passed."I'll admit I worded my argument badly. Number of bars really has nothing to do with it. A poor choice of argument on my part.

But, if said "straight" bar was being purposefully targeted by "gay" patrons who only showed up to ridicule, harass, and intimidate the "straight" patrons, would the owner not be justified in asking for permission to ban certain patrons from entry?

This isn't based on a "fear" of ridicule. It's based on the argument that the simplest solution to the huge amount of actual cases of hassling going on is to allow permission to ban those doing the hassling.

OMG! Racial profiling! er... sexual profiling... but that's bad...
Also maybe all Muslims should be strip searched before entering a plane... for safety reasons :rolleyes: What if 99% of Muslims who showed up to the bar started a fight. And these fights happened on a daily basis? Would it not be reasonable to ask for an exemption in that regards? If it was based on unfounded fears of "possible" violence, then it wouldn't be justified, but if they had a history of violence at that particular bar?

I'll bring up another example of legal discrimination. "women-only" gyms. They are granted an exception if they can show that in the past, men only showed up to the gym to harass the female clients. (if the history isn't there, the exception is usually NOT granted) The sex-based profiling is then seen as a reasonable restriction in order to ensure that the female patrons are free from harassment.

[ZippyDSMlee]

[QUOTE=Pelor;39805]You don't need sexual discrimination to kick out unruly patrons. Don't they have the right to kick out unruly patrons? Do they have to specifically target heterosexuals do kick the unruly ones out? Let's take a look at this court ruling:

"The Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled the Peel Hotel could ban patrons based on their sexual orientation."

That's a pretty straight-forward decision, don't you agree? Now you defend it.
There is no deffence only offense!

That's idiot logic. Are there any laws preventing new gay-bars from being opened? Why is there only one?

It's because there isn't enough demand for gay bars.

But let's do an experiment. I'm going to take exactly what you wrote and change the subjects a bit. You tell me if it is still a convincing argument:

"The only reason this [anti-gay law] passed is that there are no straight bars, and 2,000 regular ones. So it's not like the homosexuals are being denied the right to go to bars... just this one. If there were more straight bars, it probably wouldn't have passed."

And if they denied membership to gay people, then it would be illegal again.

Not really there are a few private clubs/bars I doubt they would close them down due to some being more picky unlike golf clubs and other sports clubs bars and such are for socializing,drinking and sex I don't think either side wants to "mingle" so badly.



Just for the hell of it, I'm going to make some more comments about the newsstory.

OMG! Racial profiling! er... sexual profiling... but that's bad...
Also maybe all Muslims should be strip searched before entering a plane... for safety reasons :rolleyes:

Oh yeah... they have an exemption... so much for the rule of law and equality under the law.

If they don't like it, they should abolish anti-discrimination laws completely.

Depends upon the context if some lazy white wanna be cop store security person harness blacks and wiggas in a store thats in the hood he has no place there,if a person of the street goes to le posh le money store and gets questioned some thats called balance altho going for the obvious is not always so obvious but to ban going after the obvious is a bit...PC no?

Untill the goverment can track people better thos who look Muslim are in for no end of grief,CNN did a report the other day abotu a guy that works in canda hes a US citizen and Muslim it takes him 2-5 hours to get to work ontop of the drive because border security has to "clear" him every time.
heres a thought put him in the system as clear give him a ID card and let the man alone till hard evedance pops up,each time the ID card is checked it tell the computer system to double check his info thus is anythign came up he would be delayed then,not every fing time.

[ZippyDSMlee]

They're not asking for permission to kick them out, they're asking for permission to deny them entry in the first place, which without the ruling they cannot do.

I'll admit I worded my argument badly. Number of bars really has nothing to do with it. A poor choice of argument on my part.

But, if said "straight" bar was being purposefully targeted by "gay" patrons who only showed up to ridicule, harass, and intimidate the "straight" patrons, would the owner not be justified in asking for permission to ban certain patrons from entry?

This isn't based on a "fear" of ridicule. It's based on the argument that the simplest solution to the huge amount of actual cases of hassling going on is to allow permission to ban those doing the hassling.

What if 99% of Muslims who showed up to the bar started a fight. And these fights happened on a daily basis? Would it not be reasonable to ask for an exemption in that regards? If it was based on unfounded fears of "possible" violence, then it wouldn't be justified, but if they had a history of violence at that particular bar?

I'll bring up another example of legal discrimination. "women-only" gyms. They are granted an exception if they can show that in the past, men only showed up to the gym to harass the female clients. (if the history isn't there, the exception is usually NOT granted) The sex-based profiling is then seen as a reasonable restriction in order to ensure that the female patrons are free from harassment.

damn your good :P

[bayushisan]

Maybe because gay people don't go into a 'straight' bar to beat people up? Ever thought of that? OH WAIT, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. Sorry to offend your sensibilities >.>

Yes because harassment just means physical right?

I agree with Pelor on this one.

They're discriminating based on sexual preferance; which if I remember correctly, is supposed to be wrong. Because its, you know, biggoted and all.

Either the laws shoud stand or they should be eliminated. You can't have it both ways.

[Jabrwock]

[QUOTE]Not really there are a few private clubs/bars I doubt they would close them down due to some being more picky unlike golf clubs and other sports clubs bars and such are for socializing,drinking and sex I don't think either side wants to "mingle" so badly.I don't know if private clubs are granted exception in Aus, here they are. They've had a few court fights over "gentleman's clubs", but the court ruled that since they are "members only" they can discriminate all they want.

I believe this bar likely wants to remain open to the public, and not need "membership", but still wants the ability to turn people away.

[KN]

Yes because harassment just means physical right?

I agree with Pelor on this one.

They're discriminating based on sexual preferance; which if I remember correctly, is supposed to be wrong. Because its, you know, biggoted and all.

Either the laws shoud stand or they should be eliminated. You can't have it both ways.

So what you are basically saying is that if a church service was continuously disrupted by people, we would object to that church banning all non-members from the premises?

MOON LOGIC STRANGE

[ZippyDSMlee]

Also, I love how they call straight people a threat to the safety of homosexuals. Absolutely lovely.


Just abolish the anti-discrimination laws entirely.

So the many can happliy walk on the few? the point of the anti-discrimination laws are to let the few have some power to fight back against the odds of numbers. :P

Jabrwock

Ah makes sense,do they have to get a permit to turn away drunks to?
or is disorderly conduct good enough?

[bayushisan]

[QUOTE=ZippyDSMlee;39810]I don't know if private clubs are granted exception in Aus, here they are. They've had a few court fights over "gentleman's clubs", but the court ruled that since they are "members only" they can discriminate all they want.

I believe this bar likely wants to remain open to the public, and not need "membership", but still wants the ability to turn people away.

During the eighties there were a bunch of "gentlemen's" clubs that were sued by women because they were denied entry into the private clubs based on gender. Most of the women won those suits if memory serves yet now they want to have the same thing the men did but for them its ok to deny entrance based on gender.

This is a prime example of a double standard, and that's the problem I have with the story. Its a double standard and an observable one at that.

[KN]

I can only conclude from all this that Bayu wants to visit this club and is upset that he can't.

[ZippyDSMlee]

[QUOTE=Jabrwock;39813]

During the eighties there were a bunch of "gentlemen's" clubs that were sued by women because they were denied entry into the private clubs based on gender. Most of the women won those suits if memory serves yet now they want to have the same thing the men did but for them its ok to deny entrance based on gender.

This is a prime example of a double standard, and that's the problem I have with the story. Its a double standard and an observable one at that.

Ture however it was due more to political climate than reality, plus a lot(thank you theory! for the proper spelling of a lot) of those places were open to the public not really private.

It should be made clear that a private club for private members is private to go run to the polis because they wont let you in is weak.

[ZippyDSMlee]

I can only conclude from all this that Bayu wants to visit this club and is upset that he can't.

I wouldn't mind a drink and I need to get out of the house....0-o

:P

[Jabrwock]

Yes because harassment just means physical right?Give me ONE example of a bar that has even considered asking for special treatment because they are being overwhelmed by gays harassing regular patrons... Or even just complained about it. Just one. That's all I ask.

Think of it this way, the patrons of this bar have a right to be free FROM harassment. Your rights end where their's begin, right? So the Commission has drawn the line at the door, and said that since so many people ONLY go to that bar WITH THE EXPRESS INTENT of harassing customers, that such a group can, for the moment, be legally discriminated against.

They're discriminating based on sexual preferance; which if I remember correctly, is supposed to be wrong. Because its, you know, biggoted and all. Either the laws shoud stand or they should be eliminated. You can't have it both ways.Exceptions are always built in so that when one group is clearly abusing equality rights to harass another group, said group can be "reverse-discriminated" against in order to temporarily shield the harassed group.

[ZippyDSMlee]

So what you are basically saying is that if a church service was continuously disrupted by people, we would object to that church banning all non-members from the premises?

MOON LOGIC STRANGE

but churches are suppose to let people in and brain wash them...no bad LOL

but really I wonder how any churches have to drive people off.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Give me ONE example of a bar that has even considered asking for special treatment because they are being overwhelmed by gays harassing regular patrons... Or even just complained about it. Just one. That's all I ask.

Think of it this way, the patrons of this bar have a right to be free FROM harassment. Your rights end where their's begin, right? So the Commission has drawn the line at the door, and said that since so many people ONLY go to that bar WITH THE EXPRESS INTENT of harassing customers, that such a group can, for the moment, be legally discriminated against.

Exceptions are always built in so that when one group is clearly abusing equality rights to harass another group, said group can be "reverse-discriminated" against in order to temporarily shield the harassed group.

Its down to numbers thus why some "peoples" gain favor with the law to help balance society it is needed but rarely balanced well but then again humans are fickle things.

[Jabrwock]

Ah makes sense,do they have to get a permit to turn away drunks to? or is disorderly conduct good enough?Disorderly conduct is good enough, there's nothing in the equality laws saying you can't discriminate based on sobriety. ;)

My guess is that these "stagettes" show up sober, then get rip-roaring drunk and harass the regular patrons. So they were looking for an avenue to deny them entry in the first place, and since most of the offenders seem to be heterosexual women...

[Jabrwock]

Ture however it was due more to political climate than reality, plus a lot(thank you theory! for the proper spelling of a lot) of those places were open to the public not really private.

It should be made clear that a private club for private members is private to go run to the polis because they wont let you in is weak.That's the unique thing about this situation. They want to be open to the public (so gay patrons don't need a membership), but they also want to be able to turn away certain clientèle.

As I've said, if there wasn't a history of constant incidents at this particular bar, they probably WOULDN'T have been granted this exception.

[Jabrwock]

Poland targets 'gay' Teletubbies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6698753.stm)

Sheesh, they're like 5 years behind Jerry Falwell... slowpokes. [edited to fix who they were lagging behind...]

A senior Polish official has ordered psychologists to investigate whether the popular BBC TV show Teletubbies promotes a homosexual lifestyle.

The spokesperson for children's rights in Poland, Ewa Sowinska, singled out Tinky Winky, the purple character with a triangular aerial on his head.

"I noticed he was carrying a woman's handbag," she told a magazine. "At first, I didn't realise he was a boy."....

Poland was criticised recently after its education ministry announced plans to sack teachers who promote homosexuality.

Last month the European Union singled out Poland for criticism in its resolution condemning homophobia in the 27-member bloc.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Disorderly conduct is good enough, there's nothing in the equality laws saying you can't discriminate based on sobriety. ;)

My guess is that these "stagettes" show up sober, then get rip-roaring drunk and harass the regular patrons. So they were looking for an avenue to deny them entry in the first place, and since most of the offenders seem to be heterosexual women...
oh dear......wemon V gays which group will win...I wonder if they will cancel out each others attacks 0-o


That's the unique thing about this situation. They want to be open to the public (so gay patrons don't need a membership), but they also want to be able to turn away certain clientèle.

As I've said, if there wasn't a history of constant incidents at this particular bar, they probably WOULDN'T have been granted this exception.

Interesting,aus has not private club setup?
or is it that the pub wants to denie a few harassers and has to go threw OTT lengths to do it?

[Jabrwock]

Moscow anti-gay attack condemned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6698173.stm)

Gay rights activist Peter Tatchell and singer Richard Fairbrass have expressed their shock after being punched by anti-homosexual protesters in Moscow.

Both men were hit on the head during a gay rights march on Sunday. Protesters attacked with kicks, punches and eggs....

Richard Fairbrass, a singer with the band Right Said Fred, told BBC Radio Five Live that he would be travelling with security in Eastern Europe from now on.

"When it was over I actually felt more sorry for the guy that whacked me than I did for me... How threatened can he be, how insecure is he to be threatened by a bisexual pop singer who's most famous for singing 'I'm too sexy'?"

Italian MEP Marco Cappato was kicked by an anti-gay rights protester and then arrested when he demanded police protection.

[Mayor] Luzhkov has called homosexuality "satanic" and says he will never allow gay rights parades in Russia's capital.

The counter-demonstration was staged by ultra-nationalists and members of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some of them chanted "Moscow is not Sodom!"Sunday's march was to commemorate the 14th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Russia. I guess Moscow is a little bit behind the times...

[Jabrwock]

Interesting,aus has not private club setup?
or is it that the pub wants to denie a few harassers and has to go threw OTT lengths to do it?I think there's private club protection, but yes, I think their goal was to deny the harassers while still letting everyone else in with minimum fuss.

Perhaps the reason they went OTT was to protect themselves from any potential charges that they were violating the equality law. Probably easier to apply for permission in the first place than to defend denying entry in court... Because you know the first group they turned away would claim discrimination. And without the exception, they'd probably win...

[ZippyDSMlee]

Moscow anti-gay attack condemned (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6698173.stm)

Sunday's march was to commemorate the 14th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Russia. I guess Moscow is a little bit behind the times...

Nothing like lynch'ins to celebrate masculine chest pounding!


oy vay....

I think there's private club protection, but yes, I think their goal was to deny the harassers while still letting everyone else in with minimum fuss.

Perhaps the reason they went OTT was to protect themselves from any potential charges that they were violating the equality law. Probably easier to apply for permission in the first place than to defend denying entry in court... Because you know the first group they turned away would claim discrimination. And without the exception, they'd probably win...

ah

[Jabrwock]

Venezuela's Only Opposition TV Station Shut Down by Chavez (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275832,00.html)

Venezuela's oldest private television station was pushed off the air as President Hugo Chavez's government replaced the popular opposition-aligned network on Monday with a new state-funded channel.

Radio Caracas Television shut down just before midnight Sunday as its broadcast license expired. Chavez refused to renew its license, accusing the channel of "subversive" activities.

The new channel, TVES, launched its transmissions with artists singing pro-Chavez music, then carried an exercise program and a talk show, interspersed with government ads proclaiming, "Now Venezuela belongs to everyone."

Crowds of students took to the streets in Caracas to protest the move on Monday, saying they fear for the future of free speech.

[bayushisan]

Venezuela's Only Opposition TV Station Shut Down by Chavez (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275832,00.html)

I think most people saw this coming. Chavez has been becoming more and more of a dictator of late so this move should really come as no surprise.

[John]

During the eighties there were a bunch of "gentlemen's" clubs that were sued by women because they were denied entry into the private clubs based on gender. Most of the women won those suits if memory serves yet now they want to have the same thing the men did but for them its ok to deny entrance based on gender.

This is a prime example of a double standard, and that's the problem I have with the story. Its a double standard and an observable one at that.

Would you like it if a group of non-Christians came to your church every Sunday to stir **** up?

Wouldn't you get tired of having to always kick them out every Sunday?

Seriously, I'm iffy about this law. But they wouldn't have had to do it if those idiots didn't always come to stir **** up. It's pathetic and really bad for business. And businesses succeed on a loyal customer base. The last thing any business needs are idiots scaring away the customers.

[Jabrwock]

During the eighties there were a bunch of "gentlemen's" clubs that were sued by women because they were denied entry into the private clubs based on gender. Most of the women won those suits if memory serves yet now they want to have the same thing the men did but for them its ok to deny entrance based on gender.I'm not aware of any possibility for exception in the US laws. The Aus & Cdn versions have the ability to grant exceptions, if the reasoning behind the request is sound.

Besides, the men's reason for not wanting women to enter?

"Because"

Which is completely different from this case.

In the case of the Shreveport, LA country club, the judge even ruled that it didn't qualify as a "private" club, because they let non-members in all the time...

[edit] In Wisconsin, single-sex fitness clubs are allowed. Now both male-only and female-only gyms have opened.

[Jabrwock]

Venezuela's Only Opposition TV Station Shut Down by Chavez (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275832,00.html)
Apparently there's now huge protests that have paralyzed Caracas:

Rallies as Venezuelan TV closes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6696699.stm)Thousands of supporters of the station took to the streets, banging pots and pans to show their anger at the decision.

Meanwhile, fireworks exploded across the capital as Chavez supporters celebrated the end of the station.

All Sunday, the police had strived to keep both sides apart.

However, at the most volatile moment, a group of alleged Chavez supporters made it to within a few streets of the channel's headquarters and shots were fired, says the BBC's James Ingham in Caracas.

It is not clear who was shooting but the police responded in kind. The result was panic as people fled the scene, our correspondent says.

[Jabrwock]

Cellphones can disable Nissans (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garagebriefs26.2may26,1,5800673.story?coll=la-headlines-business&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Nissan North America has a warning for customers: Placing your electronic key too close to your cellphone could leave you stranded.

The automaker is asking customers driving new models of two of its flagship sedans to keep their car keys and cellphones at least an inch apart to avoid disabling the "intelligent keys."

Cellphones kept near Nissan's I-Keys — wireless devices designed to allow drivers to enter and start their cars at the push of a button — can erase the electronic code on the keys, rendering them unable to unlock or start the cars.

The problem has occurred on the 2007 Nissan Altima and Infiniti G35 sedans, two top-selling models, the company says.

"We discovered that if the I-Key touches a cellphone, outgoing or incoming calls have the potential to alter the electronic code inside the I-Key," Nissan spokesman Kyle Bazemore said.

"The car won't start and the I-Key cannot be reprogrammed."

Bazemore says current owners have been notified of the potential glitch via mail and can get new keys from dealers if they encounter the problem.Brings new meaning to the "don't use your cellphone in the car"... :D

[bayushisan]

I'm not aware of any possibility for exception in the US laws. The Aus & Cdn versions have the ability to grant exceptions, if the reasoning behind the request is sound.

Besides, the men's reason for not wanting women to enter?

"Because"

Which is completely different from this case.

In the case of the Shreveport, LA country club, the judge even ruled that it didn't qualify as a "private" club, because they let non-members in all the time...

[edit] In Wisconsin, single-sex fitness clubs are allowed. Now both male-only and female-only gyms have opened.

There's not much difference at all. Its still a double standard and smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

Its wrong to discriminate based on gender; unless you're opening a women's only gym.

Its wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation; unless its a gay bar doing the discriminating.

Do people honestly not see the double standard here? Do you honestly believe that if a regular bar tried to ban gay people that they WOULDN'T be lableled homophobic? Its the same with the gyms. Either discrimination is always wrong or its never wrong. Situational ethics don't apply.

[KN]

Again, Bayu.

Give me one example of a 'straight bar'.

[weatherlight]

My comment was pointing out a double standard. A friend of my father owned a bar outside of a military base in Tennessee, and it was taken over by a "gay" crowd and they disturbed and chased out the regular patrons until it became a "gay's only" bar. He tried legal action and he was sued for discrimination. So he had to close up his bar, because that was not the type of bar he wanted to run. Now tell me how that is not a double standard and how that is allowable.

Its just like the current feminist movement is hypocritical. They want all the freedom, respect and benefits of being a man, but also want to be treated like a women, with the guy paying for dinner, holds the door open, ect... Pick one and stick with it.

I have no problem with a bar owning saying he doesn't want: men, women, gay, straight, arab, black, white, in his bar, its his bar. But to say that a bar owners are allowed to discriminate against one group and not another is hypocritical and is reverse racism.

[ZippyDSMlee]

My comment was pointing out a double standard. A friend of my father owned a bar outside of a military base in Tennessee, and it was taken over by a "gay" crowd and they disturbed and chased out the regular patrons until it became a "gay's only" bar. He tried legal action and he was sued for discrimination. So he had to close up his bar, because that was not the type of bar he wanted to run. Now tell me how that is not a double standard and how that is allowable.

Its just like the current feminist movement is hypocritical. They want all the freedom, respect and benefits of being a man, but also want to be treated like a women, with the guy paying for dinner, holds the door open, ect... Pick one and stick with it.

I have no problem with a bar owning saying he doesn't want: men, women, gay, straight, arab, black, white, in his bar, its his bar. But to say that a bar owners are allowed to discriminate against one group and not another is hypocritical and is reverse racism.

The system is it self broken there is no balance just political pandering in a balanced system he would have been given the ability to toss out those causing trouble.

[bayushisan]

My comment was pointing out a double standard. A friend of my father owned a bar outside of a military base in Tennessee, and it was taken over by a "gay" crowd and they disturbed and chased out the regular patrons until it became a "gay's only" bar. He tried legal action and he was sued for discrimination. So he had to close up his bar, because that was not the type of bar he wanted to run. Now tell me how that is not a double standard and how that is allowable.

Its just like the current feminist movement is hypocritical. They want all the freedom, respect and benefits of being a man, but also want to be treated like a women, with the guy paying for dinner, holds the door open, ect... Pick one and stick with it.

I have no problem with a bar owning saying he doesn't want: men, women, gay, straight, arab, black, white, in his bar, its his bar. But to say that a bar owners are allowed to discriminate against one group and not another is hypocritical and is reverse racism.

Well said indeed.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Well said indeed.

better to have minor issues liek this that have lynchings and other anti "peoples" chest pounding activities,it sucks but its on the road to giving back balance.

[weatherlight]

[edit] In Wisconsin, single-sex fitness clubs are allowed. Now both male-only and female-only gyms have opened.
Well having grown up and lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for 20 years of my life. We have one men's athletic club, and it is known to be a place where you do not go unless interested in men, while there are at least three womens only health clubs. I have no problem with it, I just wanted to share that piece of information.

[bayushisan]

better to have minor issues liek this that have lynchings and other anti "peoples" chest pounding activities,it sucks but its on the road to giving back balance.

If there were balance I'd agree, however there is none. What's happening is that one group is demanding equal treatment under the law, but also demanding that they not have to extend that same treatment to others. Its nothing more than a double standard, and its wrong. I'm not really understanding why that's hard to see.

[weatherlight]

better to have minor issues liek this that have lynchings and other anti "peoples" chest pounding activities,it sucks but its on the road to giving back balance.
Its only a "minor issue" because they are in the minority. It is still racism, sexism and bigotry, the exact thing we are trying to prevent.

[Hannah]

I agree with bayu on this one. Discrimination is bad no matter who it targets -- discriminating against the majority merely legitimizes such behaviour in the eyes of those who might target minorities -- and if there is a problem with straights causing trouble, why not kick those people out on an individual basis? There are plenty of straight folks who go to gay bars (at least around here) and don't cause trouble: a hetero male friend of mine occasionally goes for the music, and other straights often go to keep gay friends company.

Besides, if they really are having problems with harassment, they can always institute a dress policy featuring assless chaps and elaborate codpieces -- that'll keep the homophobes out at the very least ;)

[ZippyDSMlee]

I agree with bayu on this one. Discrimination is bad no matter who it targets -- discriminating against the majority merely legitimizes such behaviour in the eyes of those who might target minorities -- and if there is a problem with straights causing trouble, why not kick those people out on an individual basis? There are plenty of straight folks who go to gay bars (at least around here) and don't cause trouble: a hetero male friend of mine occasionally goes for the music, and other straights often go to keep gay friends company.

Besides, if they really are having problems with harassment, they can always institute a dress policy featuring assless chaps and elaborate codpieces -- that'll keep the homophobes out at the very least ;)

mmm if zippy wears assless chaps that will keep everyone away :P

[nightwng2000]

On the "gay bar", I'd have to say I agree with the law, provisionally.

The "straight bars" as referred to, are bars for the "General Public" and can be frequented by anyone. There are, in fact, bars that, though they are not officially segregated, tend to specialize in one group or another. Bars that tend to cater to African-Americans (I'm in America), Spanish-Americans, and even a few "Country" or "Redneck" bars that tend to appear primarily European-American, among other groups.

While most of these bars don't advertise as bluntly, they do become segregated thanks to word of mouth. More than anything, it's the style of music that is advertised and leads to voluntary segregation.

And in most of those cases, it's more a visual difference between the patrons (racially). If someone goes to a segregated bar that isn't a part of the group, they may get stares, or even be asked to go to a different bar. That person will either leave or stay and prove whether they have earned the right to stay by being respectful.

But how those segregated bars handle groups of regular trouble makers from "outsiders" might make the difference between making repeated complaints to the police and/or the media and demanding formal protection for the segregated bar.

A bar that appears more of a bar for the "General Public" may actually be better seen as a "straight bar", but also may have a mix of other patrons as well. It's harder for a "General Public" bar to complain in favor of segregation protection, but because, as some have pointed out, there aren't a regular group of individuals who are acting up in a manner that might be considered harrassment or other abuse of other patrons.

If, however, there is repeated abuse by certain groups, then they may have a case of segregation protection. But for a "General Public" or even other segragation bars to straight out request formal segregation protection without any prior events to prove abuse by "opposing" groups WOULD be bigoted. As it would have been bigoted if the "gay bar" had made such a request for segregation protection against non-homosexuals without prior events of abuse as evidence. But since there was evidence, then they should be justified. Indeed, the argument that there are other bars for other groups to go to is irrelevant. The fact that there is evidence of repeated abuse would be a justifiable argument for this law.

So, Hannah, while you make a logical point that there ARE good individuals who may go to such a bar, this particular bar has had problems and provided evidence of such. Perhaps they could have gone Private as a solution, I don't know the Aus. legal system. Nor do I know how many failed versus not failed reports to the police regarding what appears to be privately organized harassing groups of individuals. It may be that there have been enough failed reports (whether the Aus police intentionally ignored the complaints or whatever) to go further to request special segregation protection.

It's true that I prefer laws that protect EVERYONE, but this may be a unique situation that required going further.

[Jabrwock]

My comment was pointing out a double standard. A friend of my father owned a bar outside of a military base in Tennessee, and it was taken over by a "gay" crowd and they disturbed and chased out the regular patrons until it became a "gay's only" bar. He tried legal action and he was sued for discrimination. So he had to close up his bar, because that was not the type of bar he wanted to run. Now tell me how that is not a double standard and how that is allowable.Had he been in Aus, he could have and probably would have received an exemption, since it would be easy to prove that one "class" of patrons protected under the act were in fact a major disruption to his business on a regular basis. IE he'd have just cause to keep certain people out.

BUT!!!! Had he just discriminated WITHOUT an exemption, he would have been operating illegally under the equality act, and could still be fined/sued.

[Jabrwock]

If there were balance I'd agree, however there is none. What's happening is that one group is demanding equal treatment under the law, but also demanding that they not have to extend that same treatment to others. Its nothing more than a double standard, and its wrong. I'm not really understanding why that's hard to see.
Again, your context is way off. I'm willing to bet that there are no "gay-only" bars allowed in Tennessee either. Or if there are, no one has challenged them in court.

Until you can show that one group is being favoured over another, under the SAME CIRCUMSTANCES as those in the bar in Australia, under the same general set of laws (ie equality is enforced, except under execption), you're just quoting vaguely similar situations in the hopes they'll prove your point. Which at the moment they don't.

[Garbage Pail Kid]

Equality with exceptions is not equality.

mmm if zippy wears assless chaps that will keep everyone away :P

I just had a vision of Zippy as that guy from The Road Warrior.

[Jabrwock]

Equality with exceptions is not equality.



I just had a vision of Zippy as that guy from The Road Warrior.
Remember it's only being allowed under *very* specific circumstances. I doubt just any old gay bar would have gotten such an exemption.

At least it's an equal opportunity discriminator. Had it been a "singles" bar bitching about being overwhelmed by gays that were actively harassing patrons, the Commission would likely have allowed the bar to discriminate against gays...

[bayushisan]

Equality with exceptions is not equality.



I just had a vision of Zippy as that guy from The Road Warrior.

Exactly.
Either its always wrong to discriminate or its never wrong; being able to exempt oneself from laws designed to establish and enforce equality is not equality it is special treatment.

[John]

How about we take this from a business point-of-view, eh?

These asshole were ruining the owners business. Owner had them banned.

Now, does anyone have any complaints? Or should we allow those bratty teenagers hang out around 7/11?

[ZippyDSMlee]

Exactly.
Either its always wrong to discriminate or its never wrong; being able to exempt oneself from laws designed to establish and enforce equality is not equality it is special treatment.

exemption comes when one group is abusing the other however tis not the laws fault that thos who judge the law are biased to the politicalness of it.

[bayushisan]

How about we take this from a business point-of-view, eh?

These asshole were ruining the owners business. Owner had them banned.

Now, does anyone have any complaints? Or should we allow those bratty teenagers hang out around 7/11?

Had that been the argument instead of saying he needed to "protect" his clientel from heterosexuals I'd agree. Heck if they knew who the troublemakers were they could have just had the bar's bouncer deny them entry in the first place. Why was a lawsuit necessary when means outside the legal system existed and wouldn't have set a double standard?

[John]

Had that been the argument instead of saying he needed to "protect" his clientel from heterosexuals I'd agree. Heck if they knew who the troublemakers were they could have just had the bar's bouncer deny them entry in the first place. Why was a lawsuit necessary when means outside the legal system existed and wouldn't have set a double standard?

Maybe it was the last ditch effort. I don't know. But for them to seek legal means to deal with it means it was probably out of control to begin with.

Either way, it's their bar, and they has the right to allow to disallow whoever they want in it. And if any of the other bars wanted to ban gay people or whatever from the establishment for whatever reason, whether it be for being unrulely or just plain own bigotry, whatever, they can, it's their own business.

I will bitch about it, but it's still their bar. And if they want to turn away paying customers, their choice.

[Jabrwock]

Heck if they knew who the troublemakers were they could have just had the bar's bouncer deny them entry in the first place.And if it was always heterosexual women (which it apparently was), he could have been successfully sued for sexual discrimination under the equality laws, because it can be shown, quite easily, that he's not turning anyone else away. So basically as with the case in Tennessee, if he complains, he's screwed, and either has to put up with the harassment, or shut down. This is why he applied for the exemption.

This is what the exemption is for. When one group is using the right to equality, as an excuse to be abusive towards another group.

[Jabrwock]

This blog words it very well:

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/watercooler/index.php/couriermail/comments/a_right_to_be_different/

The acid test to me, is whether the group missing out are being disadvantaged, whether the discrimination is arbitrary or is reasoned, and whether it is bullying of a minority group.1. Being denied the ability to harass someone is hardly being "disadvantaged".
2. Yes, said group is mainly responsible for all the harassment and threats towards other patrons, and keeping them out would provide a safe haven for patrons.
3. Heterosexual women can hardly be considered a minority in comparison to gay men...

[Jabrwock]

China's top drug regulator given death penalty (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/28/china-drug.html)China's top drug regulator has been sentenced to death on charges of corruption and official negligence, state media said Tuesday.

It was the latest development stemming from growing alarm over the country's poor food-safety record.

Zheng Xiaoyu was convicted and sentenced "on charges of taking bribes and dereliction of duty" at the Beijing Municipal No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, the Xinhua News Agency said in a brief dispatch. No other details were given.

Zheng was fired in 2005 on charges he took up to $780,000 US in bribes to approve medicine that had not been tested to ensure its safety.

State media have reported that drugs improperly approved by Zheng's agency included an antibiotic that killed at least 10 patients last year before it was taken off the market.:eek:

Now if only corruption in the US warranted the death penalty. I imagine half of Cheney's staff would be lined up against the wall... ;)

[weatherlight]

1. Being denied the ability to harass someone is hardly being "disadvantaged".
2. Yes, said group is mainly responsible for all the harassment and threats towards other patrons, and keeping them out would provide a safe haven for patrons.
3. Heterosexual women can hardly be considered a minority in comparison to gay men...
Being denied the ability to enter a bar because of what someone else did of the same gender/sexual orientation. Is discrimination. Its doesn't matter if it is done by a majority or minority it is still discrimination.

That would be like saying because car bombers are predominantly Muslim we should not allow them to drive. Bad analogy, but it works.

As I said before, I would like to see them try and get a "straight only" bar, and just see how many "gays" have a **** fit about discrimination.

[Pelor]

They're not asking for permission to kick them out, they're asking for permission to deny them entry in the first place, which without the ruling they cannot do.
touche, but hardly an important distinction.

But, if said "straight" bar was being purposefully targeted by "gay" patrons who only showed up to ridicule, harass, and intimidate the "straight" patrons, would the owner not be justified in asking for permission to ban certain patrons from entry?

This isn't based on a "fear" of ridicule. It's based on the argument that the simplest solution to the huge amount of actual cases of hassling going on is to allow permission to ban those doing the hassling.

What if 99% of Muslims who showed up to the bar started a fight. And these fights happened on a daily basis? Would it not be reasonable to ask for an exemption in that regards? If it was based on unfounded fears of "possible" violence, then it wouldn't be justified, but if they had a history of violence at that particular bar?

I'll bring up another example of legal discrimination. "women-only" gyms. They are granted an exception if they can show that in the past, men only showed up to the gym to harass the female clients. (if the history isn't there, the exception is usually NOT granted) The sex-based profiling is then seen as a reasonable restriction in order to ensure that the female patrons are free from harassment.
I'm going to make a separate thread about why profiling does not work. I'll respond to this there.

But I will give you a long list of people that aren't allowed in this bar.
Martin Luther King Jr. (the figure-head of the American civil-rights movement)
...actually, he's got enough clout that I don't think I need to list anyone else. srsly... MLKj... Those bastards. phucking irony.

Not really there are a few private clubs/bars I doubt they would close them down due to some being more picky unlike golf clubs and other sports clubs bars and such are for socializing,drinking and sex I don't think either side wants to "mingle" so badly.
Many and many lawsuits and sit-ins tell me different.
Also, "that gay-bar looks pretty posh. I'd like to drink there some time. oh wait--I can't."

I can't make heads or tails out of the rest of your post post. It's on page 3. Work on your Grammar.

So the many can happliy walk on the few? the point of the anti-discrimination laws are to let the few have some power to fight back against the odds of numbers. :P

Jabrwock
The privileged class always has fewer members than the lower class. In this case, they are privilege because they get exemptions from the law.
So, what's your point?

1. Being denied the ability to harass someone is hardly being "disadvantaged".
2. Yes, said group is mainly responsible for all the harassment and threats towards other patrons, and keeping them out would provide a safe haven for patrons.
3. Heterosexual women can hardly be considered a minority in comparison to gay men...
1. Being disallowed to drink peacefully in a bar is "disadvantaged".
2. Going to be addressed in the other thread I'm making.
3. Really?! Minority groups are allowed to victimize other, slightly-larger minority groups?! Then I'm going to go mess with some Protestants tomorrow! Woo![/sarcasm]


I was thinking about this while I was working. How exactly do they expect to police something like this?
"Excuse me, sir. You don't look gay enough to be here. Please put more gel in your hair, or I'll have to ask you to leave." :D

[Pelor]

Being denied the ability to enter a bar because of what someone else did of the same gender/sexual orientation. Is discrimination. Its doesn't matter if it is done by a majority or minority it is still discrimination.

Another good point! Especially so, when you consider that you have no personal control over your sexual orientation.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Another good point! Especially so, when you consider that you have no personal control over your sexual orientation.

Then bars should be able to freely ban any person or groups of persons they dislike without the "race card" being burnt for all to see...

[Thefremen]

Another good point! Especially so, when you consider that you have no personal control over your sexual orientation.

Where are you in the threads where people argue that being gay is a sin and people choose to be gay?

[ZippyDSMlee]

China's top drug regulator given death penalty (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/05/28/china-drug.html):eek:

Now if only corruption in the US warranted the death penalty. I imagine half of Cheney's staff would be lined up against the wall... ;)

its sad that people are limited in their monetary suits agisnt the legal drug mafiaa and yet the FDA can never be touched "its not our problem they lied bout their drug".

blah!

[Jabrwock]

touche, but hardly an important distinction.Ah, but it is. He can kick them out for bad behavior, but to deny them entry in the first place, is discrimination. One gets you (the bar) a visit from the cops who ask what happened, shrug, and walk away, possibly arresting the troublemakers. The other gets you a visit from the cops who hand you a court summons for violating the equality laws...

Minority groups are allowed to victimize other, slightly-larger minority groups?! Then I'm going to go mess with some Protestants tomorrow! Woo![/sarcasm]If it can be shown that Protestants make up the clear majority of people oppressing you, then you can ask for extra "protection" from Protties not usually afforded to anyone else. But just because they outnumber you does not automatically grant you any rights. That's why the 3-prong test works well. You need to show that you are not causing too much inconvenience, that you are profiling in response to reasoning and not just trying to invoke some petty excuse to be a jerk, and that you are not just doing it because you can through force of numbers.

I was thinking about this while I was working. How exactly do they expect to police something like this? "Excuse me, sir. You don't look gay enough to be here. Please put more gel in your hair, or I'll have to ask you to leave." :DI'm assuming this would only be used to deny entry to large groups, like stagettes and "girls' night out". It sounds like in a couple of girls show up just to drink, they'll probably get in. The claim can be made of discrimination against women though, as they probably let in large groups of gay men... (duh)

[weatherlight]

Especially so, when you consider that you have no personal control over your sexual orientation.
Saying as a person you have no control over you sexual orientation is Joke. You can have tendencies one way or the other, most I feel is learned, and another part is just hardwired into your brain, but to claim they have no control is an excuse of a weak minded coward.
Then bars should be able to freely ban any person or groups of persons they dislike without the "race card" being burnt for all to see...
As long as it is a privet establishment, you should be allowed to deny entry to anyone you want. But we seem to think that we must only protect those people rights who are in the minority and not those in the majority.

[Demontestament]

Ok on the whole gay bar thing let me say a few things. Straight men do not go there to have a few drinks and listen to the music. The only reason a straight man goes to a gay bar is because

1) He isn't really Straight
2) He is going with a few of his moronic closed minded friends to cause some trouble and bash 'em some gays.

This has nothing to do with bigotry or anything of that matter. Well it does, but not in the way I have seen a few people complaing about on here. If a bunch of morns are starting **** with your customers yeah I can see banning them, once again straight men only go to gay bars to start ****, yeah there are some who go out with a few female friends but most of the time they are either in the closet or Bi. Why people are bitch about this I don't know, this can't be the only bar in town they can go to, just find another ****ing bar to go to.

[weatherlight]

Ok on the whole gay bar thing let me say a few things. Straight men do not go there to have a few drinks and listen to the music. The only reason a straight man goes to a gay bar is because

1) He isn't really Straight
2) He is going with a few of his moronic closed minded friends to cause some trouble and bash 'em some gays.
Or hes there because he went with out knowing before hand to a "gay bar" with his girlfriend and couple of his girlfriends "gay/lez" friends and didn't run out of the place in attempt to be polite.

There are possibilities that someone would go into a "gay bar" who is not "gay", without the intent to harm or disturb the patrons. Its an all or nothing deal when it come to equal rights. None of this half-assed PC bull****.

[Jabrwock]

You keep arguing this like there's a cop standing at the door with Gaydar, throwing out people who don't make it beep.

The owner is specifically looking for the ability to deny entry to known types of troublemakers, without risking beind sued or fined for discrimination. In your situation, the guy would probably have gotten in.

If however he'd shown up with a bunch of frat buddies, without the exemption, the bar wouldn't have any legal grounds to keep them out (unless they were unruly before they entered).

[ZippyDSMlee]

Saying as a person you have no control over you sexual orientation is Joke. You can have tendencies one way or the other, most I feel is learned, and another part is just hardwired into your brain, but to claim they have no control is an excuse of a weak minded coward.

As long as it is a privet establishment, you should be allowed to deny entry to anyone you want. But we seem to think that we must only protect those people rights who are in the minority and not those in the majority.

pretty much on the last part, sexual orientation however is harder you have a tendency to like a red head or full body type which is to the right of the middle with male/female being wired into the brain while things like beastailty or hardcore furry is a fetish and way out in left filed.

[weatherlight]

pretty much on the last part, sexual orientation however is harder you have a tendency to like a red head or full body type which is to the right of the middle with male/female being wired into the brain while things like beastailty or hardcore furry is a fetish and way out in left filed.
What ever turns you on, I just don't want to know about it.

[Thefremen]

Saying as a person you have no control over you sexual orientation is Joke. You can have tendencies one way or the other, most I feel is learned, and another part is just hardwired into your brain, but to claim they have no control is an excuse of a weak minded coward.

Ah see, there we go, there's the REAL "Conservative" of this board. At some point everyone wakes up and says "I want to be straight" or "I want to be gay" and then decide if they like big butts and cannot lie, or if they think that blondes have more fun.

[Demontestament]

You keep arguing this like there's a cop standing at the door with Gaydar, throwing out people who don't make it beep.

Lol this reminds me of the American Dad Episode when they are checking for Gay at the door of the republican national headquaters.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Ah see, there we go, there's the REAL "Conservative" of this board. At some point everyone wakes up and says "I want to be straight" or "I want to be gay" and then decide if they like big butts and cannot lie, or if they think that blondes have more fun.

It is hardwired and out of life or conveinance you wind up one way or the other and find out late in life that you are not that way,it happens altho we as humans fool our selfs over less so meh.

[Thefremen]

It is hardwired and out of life or conveinance you wind up one way or the other and find out late in life that you are not that way,it happens altho we as humans fool our selfs over less so meh.

Right, it's just like how people choose to be left handed because it doesn't show at an early age, or how people choose to be autistic.

[ZippyDSMlee]

Right, it's just like how people choose to be left handed because it doesn't show at an early age, or how people choose to be autistic.

with the right kind of brain washing..er training a lefty can be a righty!!
(thats so wrong on many levels LOL)

My point was you generally know what you like but life can force you for a time to a different path thus the whole closet leaving thing.

[bayushisan]

Ah see, there we go, there's the REAL "Conservative" of this board. At some point everyone wakes up and says "I want to be straight" or "I want to be gay" and then decide if they like big butts and cannot lie, or if they think that blondes have more fun.

Lets not take this too far off course ok? The debate about what is and is not a choice or a controlable behaviour is best for another thread.

The point that some of us are trying to get across is that the bar is promoting a double standard.

Their case isn't about keeping out troublemakers. Its about discrimination based on sexual orientation. The owner himself said that he needed to protect his cliental from heterosexuals. If a straight man had said that about gays he'd be called everything from a homophobe to a right wing fundie. If he had said "I just want to keep out known troublemakers" instead of what he did say then I doubt this conversation would be taking place.

[weatherlight]

Ah see, there we go, there's the REAL "Conservative" of this board. At some point everyone wakes up and says "I want to be straight" or "I want to be gay" and then decide if they like big butts and cannot lie, or if they think that blondes have more fun.

Do not trivialize the issue with your hate towards people who don't agree with your idea that people have so little control over their life.
I said that a part of it is genetic (mostly of the underlining tendencies), but MOST is learned. People can like men, fine, maybe their genetics's lean towards that, but to claim they have absolutely no control over it is a fallacy, created by people who cannot own up to their personal traits and choices.

I have meet a person who chose to be left handed, and I also have meet a women you decided to be retarded. You give the human brain so little credit.

[Hannah]

Ok on the whole gay bar thing let me say a few things. Straight men do not go there to have a few drinks and listen to the music. The only reason a straight man goes to a gay bar is because

1) He isn't really Straight
2) He is going with a few of his moronic closed minded friends to cause some trouble and bash 'em some gays.

This has nothing to do with bigotry or anything of that matter. Well it does, but not in the way I have seen a few people complaing about on here. If a bunch of morns are starting **** with your customers yeah I can see banning them, once again straight men only go to gay bars to start ****, yeah there are some who go out with a few female friends but most of the time they are either in the closet or Bi. Why people are bitch about this I don't know, this can't be the only bar in town they can go to, just find another ****ing bar to go to.

Actually, I can think of a few gay bars that gradually became considerably less gay due to all the straight people (both male and female) that started going. If the gay bar has the best music/drinks/atmosphere, then yeah, straight people will go. Of course, I do live in Canada, so homosexuality is a bit more openly accepted -- we have gay marriage, after all.

[Demontestament]

CNN) -- Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who became an anti-war leader after her son was killed in Iraq, declared Monday she was walking away from the peace movement.

She said her son died "for nothing."

Sheehan achieved national attention when she camped outside President Bush's home in Crawford, Texas, throughout August 2005 to demand a meeting with the president over her son's death.

While Bush ignored her, the vigil made her one of the most prominent figures among opponents of the war.

But in a Web diary posted to the liberal online community Daily Kos on Monday, Sheehan said she was exhausted by the personal, financial and emotional toll of the past two years.

She wrote that she is disillusioned by the failure of Democratic politicians to bring the unpopular war to an end and tired of a peace movement she said "often puts personal egos above peace and human life."

Casey Sheehan, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in an April 2004 battle in Baghdad. His death prompted his mother to found Gold Star Families for Peace.

But in Monday's 1,200-word letter, titled, "Good Riddance Attention Whore," Sheehan announced that her son "did indeed die for nothing."

"I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful," she wrote. "Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

"It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years, and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most."

Cindy Sheehan's sister, DeDe Miller, told CNN that the group would continue working for humanitarian causes, but drop its involvement in the anti-war movement. As for her sister's letter, Miller said, "She cried for quite a bit after writing it."

Sheehan warned that the United States was becoming "a fascist corporate wasteland," and that onetime allies among Bush's Democratic opposition turned on her when she began trying to hold them accountable for bringing the 4-year-old war to a close.

In the meantime, she said her antiwar activism had cost her her marriage, that she had put the survivor's benefits paid for her son's death and all her speaking and book fees into the cause and that she now owed extensive medical bills.

"I am going to take whatever I have left and go home," she wrote. "I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost.

"I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble."


All I can say is......it is about ****ing time! Thank god no more of her wacked out protests over speed bumps infront of the Crawford ranch.

[Hannah]

Do not trivialize the issue with your hate towards people who don't agree with your idea that people have so little control over their life.
I said that a part of it is genetic (mostly of the underlining tendencies), but MOST is learned. People can like men, fine, maybe their genetics's lean towards that, but to claim they have absolutely no control over it is a fallacy, created by people who cannot own up to their personal traits and choices.

I have meet a person who chose to be left handed, and I also have meet a women you decided to be retarded. You give the human brain so little credit.

You can probably lie to yourself fairly effectively, but from what I've read, gay people actually are wired differently. We're talking a physical/chemical difference here, not merely a different/learned way of thinking. There are enough gay people out there who desperately want to be straight that I suspect most of homosexuality is genetic -- if there is a learned component, it occurs so early that the person is pretty much incapable of reversing the process.

[Jabrwock]

Their case isn't about keeping out troublemakers. Its about discrimination based on sexual orientation. The owner himself said that he needed to protect his cliental from heterosexuals. If a straight man had said that about gays he'd be called everything from a homophobe to a right wing fundie. If he had said "I just want to keep out known troublemakers" instead of what he did say then I doubt this conversation would be taking place.And the court would ask "well, who are these known troublemakers?", his reply would be "mostly heterosexual women in large groups", and then we'd be back at square one.

This isn't some case of a single group of women who keep coming back. It's a consistent pattern of groups of hetero women in general who come to the bar to harass it's patrons. So it's not like he can stick up pictures of "keep these people out", because for every group of women who show up, another replaces them. It's likely never even the same group, because honestly how often do you throw stagettes?

It's a clear pattern of one group of society being troublemakers in his particular bar, and without an exemption to the law he can't legally turn them away without being under threat of lawsuit or fines.

[bayushisan]

And the court would ask "well, who are these known troublemakers?", his reply would be "mostly heterosexual women in large groups", and then we'd be back at square one.

This isn't some case of a single group of women who keep coming back. It's a consistent pattern of groups of hetero women in general who come to the bar to harass it's patrons. So it's not like he can stick up pictures of "keep these people out", because for every group of women who show up, another replaces them. It's likely never even the same group, because honestly how often do you throw stagettes?

It's a clear pattern of one group of society being troublemakers in his particular bar, and without an exemption to the law he can't legally turn them away without being under threat of lawsuit or fines.

In that case get rid of the law entirely; but to demand special treatment is wrong, and it sets a doublestandard of behaviour.

[Demontestament]

Saying as a person you have no control over you sexual orientation is Joke. You can have tendencies one way or the other, most I feel is learned, and another part is just hardwired into your brain, but to claim they have no control is an excuse of a weak minded coward.

And the award for most moronic statement so far goes to......

It is learned? Tell me how is being gay in a family that is straight learned? This kind of small minded thinking is what leads to so many problems, you are not taught to be gay or straight you either are or you are not. Calling people weak minded cowards is a little uncalled for, why exactly are they cowards if they think they cannot help who they are attracted to?

[Hannah]

And the court would ask "well, who are these known troublemakers?", his reply would be "mostly heterosexual women in large groups", and then we'd be back at square one.

This isn't some case of a single group of women who keep coming back. It's a consistent pattern of groups of hetero women in general who come to the bar to harass it's patrons. So it's not like he can stick up pictures of "keep these people out", because for every group of women who show up, another replaces them. It's likely never even the same group, because honestly how often do you throw stagettes?

It's a clear pattern of one group of society being troublemakers in his particular bar, and without an exemption to the law he can't legally turn them away without being under threat of lawsuit or fines.

You... are aware that similar logic has been used to discriminate against blacks on many occasions, right? You know... "Most of the criminals around here are black, so let's ban all black people." It might even be true that most criminals in any given US city are black, but that doesn't matter. An entire race/class/etc. should not be banned from an establishment purely because some members of their group have been acting up.

It would be better to post a code of conduct -- eg. no sexual harassment, since that seems to be the root of the problem -- and ban anyone who breaks it.

[bayushisan]

You... are aware that similar logic has been used to discriminate against blacks on many occasions, right? You know... "Most of the criminals around here are black, so let's ban all black people." It might even be true that most criminals in any given US city are black, but that doesn't matter. An entire race/class/etc. should not be banned from an establishment purely because some members of their group have been acting up.

It would be better to post a code of conduct -- eg. no sexual harassment, since that seems to be the root of the problem -- and ban anyone who breaks it.

That actually would have been the right way to handle it in my opinion. A lawsuit to demand special treatment was not.

[nightwng2000]

You... are aware that similar logic has been used to discriminate against blacks on many occasions, right? You know... "Most of the criminals around here are black, so let's ban all black people." It might even be true that most criminals in any given US city are black, but that doesn't matter. An entire race/class/etc. should not be banned from an establishment purely because some members of their group have been acting up.

It would be better to post a code of conduct -- eg. no sexual harassment, since that seems to be the root of the problem -- and ban anyone who breaks it.

Unlike the race issue, however, is this:
How many homosexual individuals will go to a "gay bar" and harass the homosexual patrons about being homosexual?

Take the voluntarily segregated bars I mentioned elsewhere. A bar that appears to mostly cater to African-Americans. If groups of European-Americans go to this bar and start harassing patrons with verbal racial abusive comments, one might say that a prohibition against European-Americans in voluntarily segregated African-American bars might be requested. After all, how many African-Americans will go to such a bar and make verbal racial abusive comments against other African-Americans?

Many businesses seek to segregate themselves one way or another from other groups, claiming that those other groups are abusive to their group in one fashion or another. Some have even sought legal recourse to justify such segregation. As pointed out previously, one of the most notable types of businesses that has gone through legal segregation has been the commercial gym. The basic premise of a women's only gym has been that all men are verbally abusive and sexist and women should be protected from them by being allowed to have their own segregated gym.

I guess we're lucky that churches that allow homosexuals and recognize homosexual marriages don't follow in the mirrored footsteps of their heterosexual-only churches and refuse to do marriage cerimonies for heterosexual couples. One would think that would be a "turnabout is fair play" situation, yet such churches seem to cater to ANYONE, irregardless of their sexual orientation.

[nightwng2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18921040/

""We're still in the process of notifying the next of kin and trying to sort this out and see just exactly what did happen," the sheriff said. He said it appeared to be a murder-suicide but the investigation was continuing. NBC affiliate KXAS reported that no suicide note was found at the scene. "

"The woman was believed to be separated from her husband, who has been notified of the deaths, Fowler said. "

Pardon me, I'm going to be ill now.

[nightwng2000]

You don't impress women by robbing them then asking for their phone numbers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18914479/

[Demontestament]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18921040/

""We're still in the process of notifying the next of kin and trying to sort this out and see just exactly what did happen," the sheriff said. He said it appeared to be a murder-suicide but the investigation was continuing. NBC affiliate KXAS reported that no suicide note was found at the scene. "

"The woman was believed to be separated from her husband, who has been notified of the deaths, Fowler said. "

Pardon me, I'm going to be ill now.

Ahh the classic, if I can't have my kids nobody will. Suicide plot, ten to one we will find out that the husband was to recieve full custody of the children so mom snapped and decided to slap one to him and kill herself and the kids.

[nightwng2000]

Ahh the classic, if I can't have my kids nobody will. Suicide plot, ten to one we will find out that the husband was to recieve full custody of the children so mom snapped and decided to slap one to him and kill herself and the kids.

Maybe, but no note. We'll see.

[Jabrwock]

You... are aware that similar logic has been used to discriminate against blacks on many occasions, right? You know... "Most of the criminals around here are black, so let's ban all black people." It might even be true that most criminals in any given US city are black, but that doesn't matter. An entire race/class/etc. should not be banned from an establishment purely because some members of their group have been acting up.Hence the 3 prong test mentioned earlier to determine if it's a justifiable restriction. If it's just a generalization, then it wouldn't stand up. But since it's a demonstrable scenario that nearly all hetero women who attend that specific bar cause trouble, then it's a reasonable request for that particular bar.

A bar that wanted to ban "blacks" because "most blacks are criminals" would have to first prove that blacks were responsible on a regular basis for most of the problems affecting the bar. IE they'd have to demonstrate that allowing the bar to keep blacks out would significantly eliminate whatever specific problems the bar was suffering from, that these problems were affecting business in a serious way, and that the problems could be attributed to the blacks specifically (ie if it was just whites starting fights with the blacks, then it's hardly the black's fault)

It would be better to post a code of conduct -- eg. no sexual harassment, since that seems to be the root of the problem -- and ban anyone who breaks it.Presumably this was tried, but it wouldn't work, as I mentioned before, how often do you expect to attend a bachelorette party in a lifetime? Probably not often. So simply kicking the offenders out and banning them for life doesn't address the problem, because it's a brand new group each time. And it happens frequently and consistently enough that it's a major problem.

[Demontestament]

Maybe, but no note. We'll see.

Psh, honestly who leaves a note now? That just takes away from the fun of trying to find out why Wackjob McGee decided to do the drop and stop to her children and herself. But I offically toss my theory into the motive pool, anyone else have a guess as to why she did this?

[Ohma]

Where are you in the threads where people argue that being gay is a sin and people choose to be gay?

Yeh, what the frak?

This thread has been a shining example of why I don't come here often anymore.
(just too bad stardestroyer.net requires a commercial email service to sign up)

[Pelor]

Ah, but it is. He can kick them out for bad behavior, but to deny them entry in the first place, is discrimination. One gets you (the bar) a visit from the cops who ask what happened, shrug, and walk away, possibly arresting the troublemakers. The other gets you a visit from the cops who hand you a court summons for violating the equality laws...
Are you talking out your butt? People get thrown out of establishments all the time. The police show up and say "the owner wants you to leave, so do it or we'll arrest you." I've seen it happen personally in movie theaters.

If it can be shown that Protestants make up the clear majority of people oppressing you, Implication fallacy!
Yes, protestants will make up the majority of oppressers by virtue that they make up a majority of the population in interact with :D

In fact, I thought about it, and I would say that all but one of the people who harrassed or pick on me were Protestant. They all were also white, and most were heterosexual males. Can you guess why?

I've also heard people (on the interweb) justify their racism by saying, "most people who mess with me are black." It's racism based on bad statistics. But you're claiming that the hate is completely justified.

I was thinking about this while I was working. How exactly do they expect to police something like this? "Excuse me, sir. You don't look gay enough to be here. Please put more gel in your hair, or I'll have to ask you to leave." I'm assuming this would only be used to deny entry to large groups, like stagettes and "girls' night out". It sounds like in a couple of girls show up just to drink, they'll probably get in. The claim can be made of discrimination against women though, as they probably let in large groups of gay men... (duh)Now, if they say they're gay, who can claim otherwise? This part isn't really important, but I still wanted to make a smartass remark to it :D

Also, you're three-pronged test has failed for the reasons that weatherlight and I pointed out. In fact, you've all but admitted in the Profiling thread that the second prong is based on the implication fallacy, which I keep trying to drive into you.

Saying as a person you have no control over you sexual orientation is Joke. You can have tendencies one way or the other, most I feel is learned, and another part is just hardwired into your brain, but to claim they have no control is an excuse of a weak minded coward.
Naw, being strong-minded is just a matter of suppressing your urges. Even if you suppress your gay-urges, you're still gay.

I think sexuality is a psychological, like the handedness that Zippy is talking about. I also heard about a hormone pill that could turn gay sheep straight, so hormone probably have something to do with it too.

[Tollwutig]

Ah a day away and look at the News I miss

Ok on the whole gay bar thing let me say a few things. Straight men do not go there to have a few drinks and listen to the music. The only reason a straight man goes to a gay bar is because

1) He isn't really Straight
2) He is going with a few of his moronic closed minded friends to cause some trouble and bash 'em some gays.


3) His GF dragged him there to see the Drag Show on her b-day.
4) He came with his gay son
5) Gay clubs are really much more fun than the straigh clubs.

These are all actual reasons I have seen straight men in gay clubs.

As to this whole debate I love it how people want to take United States Law and apply to foreign countries and vice versa. Australia has it's laws on discrimination and allows for this. What you're missing is the point that in Australia they have tougher Laws that would make it very difficult to discriminate in the first place. Remember this is AUSTRALIA we were talking about not AMERICA. Get this through your head before you post again. Also become a expert in Australian Law before you criticize them.

As far as I am concerned NC has the best method of dealing with this. IF more than 50% of your revenue comes from Alcohol sales you are considered a Club and not a restaurant, and thus are required to have a membership.

You may only allow non-members in as guests of a Member, and guests must always pay an admission to enter the bar. Of course the Doorman is always a member and can let any number of guests into the bar.

This applies to ALL Bars & Clubs in NC and stops most pesky harassment issues.



All I can say is......it is about ****ing time! Thank god no more of her wacked out protests over speed bumps infront of the Crawford ranch.

Yeah I saw that, about damn time.

[Jabrwock]

Are you talking out your butt? People get thrown out of establishments all the time. The police show up and say "the owner wants you to leave, so do it or we'll arrest you." I've seen it happen personally in movie theaters.Re-read what I said. The "owner wants you to leave" part is valid, because he'd likely have cause (they were causing trouble), the "owner doesn't want you to enter in the first place" isn't, because it's discrimination based on an assumption of trouble. Hence why the cops are laying the fine on the owner under the equality laws...

In fact, I thought about it, and I would say that all but one of the people who harrassed or pick on me were Protestant. They all were also white, and most were heterosexual males. Can you guess why?You're Irish? :p

I've also heard people (on the interweb) justify their racism by saying, "most people who mess with me are black." It's racism based on bad statistics. But you're claiming that the hate is completely justified.There's a difference between claiming and proving. That's why there's a commission to examine the evidence and decide if the proof is enough to back up the claim.

Now, if they say they're gay, who can claim otherwise? This part isn't really important, but I still wanted to make a smartass remark to it :DI would guess that's up to the Commission to determine how broad his exemption is. I'm guessing this is to target the obvious hetero parties, as I doubt bi- or lesbian groups come to harass the patrons...

Besides, he's not asking for them to be banned, he's asking for the option to do so. So if a hetero (or lesbian) party approached him and asked permission, he could decide to allow or deny them, and not be afraid that denying them would result in a lawsuit.

Also, you're three-pronged test has failed for the reasons that weatherlight and I pointed out. In fact, you've all but admitted in the Profiling thread that the second prong is based on the implication fallacy, which I keep trying to drive into you.That's why it's a 3-prong test. You are working under the assumption that any of the 3 can be used individually to justify, when in fact all 3 must be used in combination. Plus each prong must be reasonably justified. So a bad assumption under the implication fallacy would in fact weaken the whole argument.

[Jabrwock]

As to this whole debate I love it how people want to take United States Law and apply to foreign countries and vice versa. Australia has it's laws on discrimination and allows for this. What you're missing is the point that in Australia they have tougher Laws that would make it very difficult to discriminate in the first place. Remember this is AUSTRALIA we were talking about not AMERICA. Get this through your head before you post again. Also become a expert in Australian Law before you criticize them.What I don't get is why people keep assuming the bar is suing someone. They're not. They're applying (IE filling out a form, making a declaration, etc) to the Commission, for an exemption, which the Commission has the power to grant.

What the exemption is in fact doing is *shielding* the business FROM lawsuit (and fines), that could result from the owner denying ANYONE right of entry based on pretty much any reasoning other than them being intoxicated or threatening someone outside the bar before they enter.

What I also find amusing is that the US has actually RESISTED a federal statute against discriminating by sexual orientation. Only a few individual states seem to have enshrined protections in law, and most only apply to housing and employment, not services.

[Demontestament]

As to this whole debate I love it how people want to take United States Law and apply to foreign countries and vice versa. Australia has it's laws on discrimination and allows for this. What you're missing is the point that in Australia they have tougher Laws that would make it very difficult to discriminate in the first place. Remember this is AUSTRALIA we were talking about not AMERICA. Get this through your head before you post again. Also become a expert in Australian Law before you criticize them.

But America rulez teh world! If they do not think like us and have the same laws, freedom and democracy then you are a terrorist or you hate freedom and love to hold people down.

[Pelor]

Implication fallacy!
Yes, protestants will make up the majority of oppressers by virtue that they make up a majority of the population in interact with

In fact, I thought about it, and I would say that all but one of the people who harrassed or pick on me were Protestant. They all were also white, and most were heterosexual males. Can you guess why?
You're Irish? :p
Most of the people I know are white protestant and heterosexual.
The percentage of bullying which are committed by this group is very high.
The percentage of this group which have bullied me is very low.

I've also heard people (on the interweb) justify their racism by saying, "most people who mess with me are black." It's racism based on bad statistics. But you're claiming that the hate is completely justified.
There's a difference between claiming and proving. That's why there's a commission to examine the evidence and decide if the proof is enough to back up the claim.
Are you really going to nitpick about this? Fine, we use a mind-reading device and discover that the racist is telling the truth.

So, do you think his racism is justified, or is it based on a fallacy?

Also, don't try to shake this issue off on another party. I'm arguing with you. I'm not arguing with the Commission. You can tell me what you think.

That's why it's a 3-prong test. You are working under the assumption that any of the 3 can be used individually to justify, when in fact all 3 must be used in combination. Plus each prong must be reasonably justified. So a bad assumption under the implication fallacy would in fact weaken the whole argument.
No, I'm working under the assumption that if one prong fails then the test fails.

We just wanted to be thorough, so we disproved all three.

[Jabrwock]

Most of the people I know are white protestant and heterosexual.
The percentage of bullying which are committed by this group is very high.
The percentage of this group which have bullied me is very low.Toll explained the difference better than I have...

Stagettes Cause 90% of all problems in this bar. 95% of all Heterosexual women who come to this bar are Stagettes. Permission is granted to block 100% of Heterosexual women who the owner believes are Stagettes from entering the bar without fear of legal repercussions based on discrimination laws.

Are you really going to nitpick about this? Fine, we use a mind-reading device and discover that the racist is telling the truth. So, do you think his racism is justified, or is it based on a fallacy?Fine, I'll put it more clearly. "I think blacks cause more trouble." != "I have police reports, security footage, and bank records that show that for every 3 black men who walk into that store, 2 try to pass bad cheques." See?

Now let's apply that to the bar:

"I think hetero women are jerks to gays." != "nearly every stagette party that has shown up have caused trouble."

Also, don't try to shake this issue off on another party. I'm arguing with you. I'm not arguing with the Commission. You can tell me what you think.I'm not trying to pass it off to them. What I'm saying is that just claiming that a group is harassing you isn't enough. You need to demonstrate to a committee that an exemption is justified. You need to show that an exemption will resolve the situation at hand. And you need to show that you're doing it for a clear need and not just a personal preference.

No, I'm working under the assumption that if one prong fails then the test fails.

We just wanted to be thorough, so we disproved all three.Not really. In #1 you are correct that the stagettes are being disadvantaged. But how disadvantaged in relation to the patrons who get harassed? You took issue with prong #2, and then just made sarcastic remarks about #3...

Also, you're assuming that prong #2 fails. You don't have any stats (either) to back up your claim that it's an implication fallacy. You're just guessing that most hetero women in large groups who attend this bar are perfectly well behaved...

[nightwng2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924027/

Who needs Satan when you can blame Spock?

"O’Neill told jurors they would hear seemingly far-fetched testimony that Norman stuck his head in a toilet, drank his own urine and ate his own feces after being arrested.

He was trying to “prove his worthiness” to get his family back, O’Neill said."

Now that you've imagined it, you can't unimagine it.

[Tollwutig]

Man Boarded Airplane for Wedding, Honeymoon Despite TB Diagnosis
ATLANTA — A man with a form of tuberculosis so dangerous he is under the first U.S. government-ordered quarantine since 1963 told a newspaper he took one trans-Atlantic flight for his wedding and honeymoon and another because he feared for his life.

Health officials have questioned his decision to fly from Atlanta to Paris, and later from Prague to Montreal, citing the possibility that he could expose other passengers. The man told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that while doctors told him they preferred that he put off his long-planned wedding in Greece, they didn't order him not to fly.

He knew that he had tuberculosis, but didn't think he was a danger, he said.

"We headed off to Greece thinking everything's fine," said the man, who declined to be identified in the newspaper because of the stigma attached to his diagnosis.

Dr. Steven Katkowsky, director of the Fulton County Department of Health & Wellness, said the man was told traveling was not advised.

The man flew from Atlanta to