Gay Bar

[fLIP]

I completely understand that the law is there to protect them.

That is where I feel the law is wrong.

If a person is going to the club with honest intentions not to cause trouble but to have a quiet drink because they love the live music or entertainment then I would not consider them a threat.

Thus the people in the club are being not needing protection from this person.

However, they are still being denied entry. Not because they are a threat. Not because they are going to be a problem or the people inside need protection from them but because they are not gay.

That is where I feel the law has failed. It uses discrimination to get around the fact that not everyone is a trouble maker.

 

[fLIP]

BTW, I can't believe you gave me a link to a wikipedia page as evidence. 😉 :lol:

 

[Dan]

BTW, I can't believe you gave me a link to a wikipedia page as evidence. 😉 :lol:

Not as evidence fLIP but as a definition of "Minority" since you were having so much trouble grasping the concept and still are I see

 

[Utility Player]

A Melbourne gay bar has been granted an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act in a landmark ruling which will allow security to refuse entry to heterosexuals.

I may be wrong here but I took this as meaning security could refuse entry leagally rather than a blanket ban on hetrosexuals.

This would prevent groups of known trouble makers taking legal action if refused entry while still letting "Bruce" enter with a couple of his straight mates.

 

[fLIP]

No, you will not answer my question dan.

I keep asking it but you keep repeating yourself as though you words will eventually have magical powers and I'll suddenly believe.

 

[Dan]

I completely understand that the law is there to protect them.

That is where I feel the law is wrong.

If a person is going to the club with honest intentions not to cause trouble but to have a quiet drink because they love the live music or entertainment then I would not consider them a threat.

Thus the people in the club are being not needing protection from this person.

However, they are still being denied entry. Not because they are a threat. Not because they are going to be a problem or the people inside need protection from them but because they are not gay.

That is where I feel the law has failed. It uses discrimination to get around the fact that not everyone is a trouble maker.

But that isnt the point to this exception. **** man how many times do you have to be told?

This is a club marketed towards homosexual males!
The club is marketed at homosexual males being able to meet other homosexual males, there is no entertainment, there is no cabaret or anything exceptional, but it is targeted and marketed towards homosexual males being able to meet with other homosexual males in a safe environment.

If you have people who are heterosexual going there, you have to question why they are going there?

Are they there to meet homosexual males, or are they there to cause problems or ogle at the "spectacle"?

The law is not wrong at all the law is there for the protection of a minority, homosexuals are a minority group in our society, and therefore are offered protection under the "equal rights" legislation. You are misinterpereting what this means. This "equal rights" isn't there so that they wont as you put it "discriminate" against the majority, it is there to give them basic human rights and protection.

The law is not wrong. What you are essentially arguing is an "us and them" argument.

Who created the fences first?

 

[Dan]

[quote author=fLIP]
A Melbourne gay bar has been granted an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act in a landmark ruling which will allow security to refuse entry to heterosexuals.

I may be wrong here but I took this as meaning security could refuse entry leagally rather than a blanket ban on hetrosexuals.

This would prevent groups of known trouble makers taking legal action if refused entry while still letting "Bruce" enter with a couple of his straight mates.
[/quote]

hammer.......meet nail head......bang!

probably a simpler way to put it, rather than the way I have

 

[Dan]

No, you will not answer my question dan.

I keep asking it but you keep repeating yourself as though you words will eventually have magical powers and I'll suddenly believe.

But I have answered your question you have either lacked the ability to comprehend it or have skim read each of my posts, I hope its the latter but the light is fading in that room!

 

[fLIP]

hammer.......meet nail head......bang!

probably a simpler way to put it, rather than the way I have

You can't just jump on someone elses argument as though thats what you've been arguing all along? :naughty:

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]

hammer.......meet nail head......bang!

probably a simpler way to put it, rather than the way I have

You can't just jump on someone elses argument as though thats what you've been arguing all along? :naughty:
[/quote]

What you fail to understand that this has actually been part of my argument however not the point you were arguing or seeing.

if that is your rule, then allow me to throw some out.

You cant just throw in speculation and unlikely situation without understanding the law, definitions under it and what you are talking about!

 

[Dan]

What gripes me most about this entire debate is your nonacceptance of this community.

You state that you do accept it and that you have friends from this community yet you argue that it is discrimination against you and unfair.

That my friend is why we have these laws in place!

 

[fLIP]

This is a club marketed towards homosexual males!
The club is marketed at homosexual males being able to meet other homosexual males, there is no entertainment, there is no cabaret or anything exceptional, but it is targeted and marketed towards homosexual males being able to meet with other homosexual males in a safe environment.

If you have people who are heterosexual going there, you have to question why they are going there?

Are they there to meet homosexual males, or are they there to cause problems or ogle at the \"spectacle\"?

You are speculating. Keep it to facts.

The law is not wrong at all the law is there for the protection of a minority, homosexuals are a minority group in our society, and therefore are offered protection under the \"equal rights\" legislation. You are misinterpereting what this means. This \"equal rights\" isn't there so that they wont as you put it \"discriminate\" against the majority, it is there to give them basic human rights and protection.

There is no doubt that this law will have the desired effect. It will prevent the trouble makers from causing a problem. It will also stop honest people from entering. That is wrong.

The law is not wrong. What you are essentially arguing is an \"us and them\" argument.

Its not an us and them. I can't believe you of all people cannot at least admit that this law uses sexual orientation as a ground for preventing patrons from attending a bar. The law doesn't say if a person is being abused the patron will be removed. That is protection. But until an offense has occurred a person cannot be protected.

The law makes an assumption that sexual preference is a sole indicator of whether or not you will cause trouble.

As for UP's point that you so readily agreed with, how the hell is that any different to what happens now? If you cause trouble you are out? And in that case, why is there any need to ascertain whether or not the person is gay or not?

[/quote]

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]
This is a club marketed towards homosexual males!
The club is marketed at homosexual males being able to meet other homosexual males, there is no entertainment, there is no cabaret or anything exceptional, but it is targeted and marketed towards homosexual males being able to meet with other homosexual males in a safe environment.

If you have people who are heterosexual going there, you have to question why they are going there?

Are they there to meet homosexual males, or are they there to cause problems or ogle at the \"spectacle\"?

You are speculating. Keep it to facts.


[/quote]

No fLIP these are the facts both presented on teh news last night by the owner of the club and also in 98% of the articles on it. This is not speculation this is FACT!

And as for the further hogwash in your latter text.

one word

Prevention!

 

[fLIP]

What gripes me most about this entire debate is your nonacceptance of this community.

I object to that statement dan.

I have no problem with homosexual people or their community.

 

[fLIP]

Sorry I should have narrowed it down for you. Considering how good you are at selecting the bits you want to reply to:

"If you have people who are heterosexual going there, you have to question why they are going there?

Are they there to meet homosexual males, or are they there to cause problems or ogle at the "spectacle"?"

That is speculation.

 

[Dan]

[quote author=Daniel]
What gripes me most about this entire debate is your nonacceptance of this community.

I object to that statement dan.

I have no problem with homosexual people or their community.
[/quote]

Then why argue that both the law and this ruling is incorrect and discriminatory. it is fair and just, exactly as the law should be

 

[Dan]

Sorry I should have narrowed it down for you. Considering how good you are at selecting the bits you want to reply to:

\"If you have people who are heterosexual going there, you have to question why they are going there?

Are they there to meet homosexual males, or are they there to cause problems or ogle at the \"spectacle\"?\"

That is speculation.

How can a question be speculation in particular a question based on the facts and information as presented by the owner of the club.

fLIP a question is not speculation!

 

[fLIP]

You are asking people to speculate on an answer.

I guess you won't know until you rock up at a club one night and you are denied entry because you are not gay. Or they are having a 'gay night'.

I just don't see the problem with everyone getting on and being allowed to go to the same places.

If there are trouble makers, remove them. But don't prevent everyone from going because they might cause trouble.

Everyone just needs more tolerance. Thats the underlying issue of it all.

 

[Dan]

You are asking people to speculate on an answer.

I guess you won't know until you rock up at a club one night and you are denied entry because you are not gay. Or they are having a 'gay night'.

I just don't see the problem with everyone getting on and being allowed to go to the same places.

If there are trouble makers, remove them. But don't prevent everyone from going because they might cause trouble.

Everyone just needs more tolerance. Thats the underlying issue of it all.

In a perfect Utopian World yeah that would be great.

However this is not a perfect world fLIP and this is why we have these laws and we have to sometimes stretch and change these laws to fit the people who need them.

I wouldn't in the slightest be interested or upset if I was turned away because they were having a gay night or was a gay club only. No worries, I will go to anyone of the thousands of other choices out there.

It's simple as that. I don't go to Ark because it is a gay club, not what i want to go out for.

 

[fLIP]

I still think its not right to ban anyone from anywhere because of who you stick your dickie in.