Gay Bar

[clontaago]

To be fair they make a spectacle of themselves imo!!!!

Mardi Gras, prime example.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]

It is impossible to reverse the situaiton, you need to get around the fact that \"if they were kept out\" the point is they arent and they are a minority. whether you like it or not there is a different consideration that is taken for minority groups. The same as you couldn't have a place that has \"No Asians\" because they are a minority. However on the reverse there is also no way they could have a \"no caucasions\" rule either.

Hang on a second. Caucasions arent a minority. Please explain the difference between having a "No caucasion rule", and a "No hetero's rule"

Isnt this the pure speculation you have been arguing?

[/quote]

What the differnce is?

Easy. You are discriminating based purely on race, there is no reason protective or marketing wise to have a "no caucasions" rule.

The difference is in this case the law is protecting and recognising a minority. Simple!

 

[clontaago]

[quote author=clontaago]
[quote author=Daniel]

It is impossible to reverse the situaiton, you need to get around the fact that \"if they were kept out\" the point is they arent and they are a minority. whether you like it or not there is a different consideration that is taken for minority groups. The same as you couldn't have a place that has \"No Asians\" because they are a minority. However on the reverse there is also no way they could have a \"no caucasions\" rule either.

Hang on a second. Caucasions arent a minority. Please explain the difference between having a "No caucasion rule", and a "No hetero's rule"

Isnt this the pure speculation you have been arguing?

[/quote]

What the differnce is?

Easy. You are discriminating based purely on race, there is no reason protective or marketing wise to have a "no caucasions" rule.

The difference is in this case the law is protecting and recognising a minority. Simple!

[/quote]

Thats a load of rubbish and you know it. You are saying a bar in Chinatown (specifically targeting Chinese patrons, a minority in this country) cannot put a ban on Caucasions who make a spectacle of their asian patrons.

Its exactly the same.

 

[Dan]

It is not the same.

if for instance those patrons were being harassed and their rights abused by Caucasions then they could apply under the same law for an excemption

 

[clontaago]

[quote author=Nutzcraw]
I also get the feeling you think your superior to all others here, dan.

I refer to this thread and the God thread.

When I debate I debate with an arrogant tone. It is a technique that is fairly common to most orators and debaters. The way you put things and present information is essential to getting that information across without being misquoted and without having your comments "Cherry picked' and taken out of context.

matas i am sure will understand
[/quote]

Just like most lawyers use any dirty information they can to discredit people (which you took offence to when I did it earlier in this thread). Doesnt mean it is the right thing to do Dan.

 

[clontaago]

It is not the same.

if for instance those patrons were being harassed and their rights abused by Caucasions then they could apply under the same law for an excemption

And it would be labelled racism.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]
It is not the same.

if for instance those patrons were being harassed and their rights abused by Caucasions then they could apply under the same law for an excemption

And it would be labelled racism.

[/quote]

By whom?
Those who don't know the facts, or those who have an indoctrinated response?

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]
[quote author=Nutzcraw]
I also get the feeling you think your superior to all others here, dan.

I refer to this thread and the God thread.

When I debate I debate with an arrogant tone. It is a technique that is fairly common to most orators and debaters. The way you put things and present information is essential to getting that information across without being misquoted and without having your comments "Cherry picked' and taken out of context.

matas i am sure will understand
[/quote]

Just like most lawyers use any dirty information they can to discredit people (which you took offence to when I did it earlier in this thread). Doesnt mean it is the right thing to do Dan.

[/quote]

I dont see the point in your using such a tactic in this forum or this topic. It was a low act Doug and I am sure you more than know that

 

[clontaago]

Was what you said to Fluffy a low act?

 

[fLIP]

Completely different point.

Apples and oranges.

The gay marriage is a failure to recognise that
a) these relationships are legitimate, caring and loving relationships
b) The failure to recognise gay marriages is treating them like LESSER citizens

Saying they only want gay MEN in this bar is not recognising anyone as a lower person or citizen.

Do you understand the fundamental difference or would you like me to elaborate further?

How is this completely different?

In both situations people are being discriminated against because they are 'DIFFERENT'. And if a person goes to this bar with honorable intentions and is still refused entry than that is discrimination. Despite whether the law now says its ok. Because that is the basis on which the law was passed.

You have clearly stated that the reason they should be allowed exemption for the law is because of the past history of abuse at the club. Its no different to fighting. You have fights in clubs everywhere and its not wanted. There are ways to deal with it.

I still maintain that you cannot have equality while you throw around blanket beliefs such as 'because one person is abusive another will also cause a problem'.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]

Completely different point.

Apples and oranges.

The gay marriage is a failure to recognise that
a) these relationships are legitimate, caring and loving relationships
b) The failure to recognise gay marriages is treating them like LESSER citizens

Saying they only want gay MEN in this bar is not recognising anyone as a lower person or citizen.

Do you understand the fundamental difference or would you like me to elaborate further?

How is this completely different?

In both situations people are being discriminated against because they are 'DIFFERENT'. And if a person goes to this bar with honorable intentions and is still refused entry than that is discrimination. Despite whether the law now says its ok. Because that is the basis on which the law was passed.

You have clearly stated that the reason they should be allowed exemption for the law is because of the past history of abuse at the club. Its no different to fighting. You have fights in clubs everywhere and its not wanted. There are ways to deal with it.

I still maintain that you cannot have equality while you throw around blanket beliefs such as 'because one person is abusive another will also cause a problem'.
[/quote]
I understand what you are saying and you point of view but you have completely missed the entire point. Your statements show that you have confused the point completely!

 

[Dan]

Was what you said to Fluffy a low act?

Absolutely and how that relates to you i do not know nor see it as justification for you doing similar.
Two wrongs do not make a right. I had already apologised to Fluffy when the incident occurred both publicly and privately, it should be dead and buried then and a matter between only fluffy and myself.

Why are you trying to distract the point?

 

[fLIP]

I understand what you are saying and you point of view but you have completely missed the entire point. Your statements show that you have confused the point completely!

The point I raised for the topic was 'I know most wouldn't want to go to one to begin with, but can anyone imagine the equal rights rubbish that would be thrown around if gay's were banded from bars because they aren't heterosexual?"

I haven't sways from it and you haven't answered it.

 

[Dan]

and like I have stated time and time again. They would be right to complain as well. Legally and morally!

 

[fLIP]

But I am not right to complain about the current situation?

 

[Dan]

But I am not right to complain about the current situation?

Aren't you getting dizzy

No you are not right to complain about the current situation that is both bigotry and discriminatory under the eyes of the law!
:wall: :wall: :wall:

 

[fLIP]

and like I have stated time and time again. They would be right to complain as well. Legally and morally!

I just don't get it.

They are fine to complain about being told they can't go to a bar because they are gay, but heterosexuals have to cop it because they are straight.

Your not making any sense.

You are persisting with the same excuse and reason, that they are abused everywhere they go. But you will not answer why a person with honorable intentions should not be allowed entry.

The only possible reason that person could be denied entry is on sexual basis and that is where the law fails. That IS discrimination.

 

[Dan]

**** fLIP you really aren't getting it at all are you?

This is no discrimination it is legal exception to a law, no excuses. The law isnt there to say "hey if they can do it why cant we" this isn't a playground and the authorities that be aren't your mum or teacher.

This is a matter of freedom and protection for a MINORITY group.

I really hope that by some amazing, i can only say miracle you understand what that means.

You need to remove your agenda and "assumed" liberty here and understand that you are speculating on a situation that is completely different.

You can not treat a majority group as a minority. Discrimination is not about protecting the majority it is about protecting the minority.

Do you understand what that means?

 

[fLIP]

My above argument is that the law is wrong and no matter how much you say I am wrong, I will not think differently.

So tell me what you problem would be with having a gay free bar if one were to be opened?

 

[Dan]

Because that would be discriminatory to a minority!

Simple!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

The law is not wrong the law is there to protect people especially people who are less able to protect themselves as they are a <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group>MINORITY</a>

There is a massive difference. You saying the law is wrong and that you are right because you dont think Homosexuals should be able to do this, simply places you as a Bigot!

You are getting up in arms about it. But they have simply made an exception to the law to be able to apply it to its intention, to protect and help the minority.