Originally posted by Ushgarak
If we work on the idea that it was a large group of homosexuals seeking to deliberately upset the point of the club AND we assume that the locations available for heterosexuals to go are limited in the same way then we would have an equitable situation. Seeing as there is no such thing- or any need for- a heterosexual club, that seems unlikely.Fact of the matter is, there is absolutely no problem at all for heterosexuals in this social sense. There ARE problems for homosexuals.
People would scream "discrimination," "hatred," and "superintelligent monkeys poisoning our damn toothpaste."
It is still retarded. For the sole purpose that a ''private clubs'' for hetrosexuals would NEVER win the right to addmit only hetrosexuals - or they'll have every single gay rights group on ther backs, and there would be sheer media panic about intolerance.
Besides, how are lesbians stopping gay men from expressing their sexuality?
Heterosexual males, if they identify themselves as that at the door, or indeed we question their behaviour in the venue and if they come across as being heterosexual, then we will simply ask them to leave if the behaviour is unappropriate."
Originally posted by FeceMan
It would be equitable.
That is an exceptionally ignorant comment that borders on the homophobic, to try and even vaguely pretend there is quity in social situation between heteosexuals and homosexuals.
How absurd.
Again, Lil- you are not comparing equal situations. These comparisons are not fair.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is an exceptionally ignorant comment that borders on the homophobic, to try and even vaguely pretend there is quity in social situation between heteosexuals and homosexuals.How absurd.
Again, Lil- you are not comparing equal situations. These comparisons are not fair.
Heterosexuals should have the right to be among themselves as well. Assuming it is a private club. Regardless of whether it is an equal situation or not, which it is indeed not really.
Again, it is irrelvant to talk about an issue that absolutely does not arise. There is absolutely no need for straight only clubs, or any demand for them.
Theoretically, if the situation was absolutely reversed- which would mean quite a shift in culture- then yes, the same would apply.
But that's simply not going to happen.
It's like all those feeble arguments about there being minority programming but not majority programming being prejudiced against the majority- which is crap because nearly all the television is majority television.
People who have trouble with this simply haven't thought properly about the subject of equality. It's more complex than many people- especially from the majority- understand.
Things like Equality Commissions have to look at these things in a broad sense. And they have to take into account the idea that wihtout this happening, you end up with a situation where homosexuals have no clubs to go to without being victimised, whilst heterosexuals have plenty.
That is social discrimination on the highest level. All this whining about "oh, the gays would moan if it was reversed" is irrelevant. The only relevant factr is whether homosexuals are being given the same social opportunities as other people, in private clubs designed for just that. Remove for them the ability to get that access and you are part of the problem.
I will remind people that this is a discretionary, not absolute, power. He's not going to do a 'gay check' of people at the doors. He wants to expel groups of people that have come there just to hassle the regulars. No problem there.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, it is irrelvant to talk about an issue that absolutely does not arise. There is absolutely no need for straight only clubs, or any demand for them.Theoretically, if the situation was absolutely reversed- which would mean quite a shift in culture- then yes, the same would apply.
But that's simply not going to happen.
It's like all those feeble arguments about there being minority programming but not majority programming being prejudiced against the majority- which is crap because nearly all the television is majority television.
People who have trouble with this simply haven't thought properly about the subject of equality. It's more complex than many people- especially from the majority- understand.
Things like Equality Commissions have to look at these things in a broad sense. And they have to take into account the idea that wihtout this happening, you end up with a situation where homosexuals have no clubs to go to without being victimised, whilst heterosexuals have plenty.
That is social discrimination on the highest level. All this whining about "oh, the gays would moan if it was reversed" is irrelevant. The only relevant factr is whether homosexuals are being given the same social opportunities as other people, in private clubs designed for just that. Remove for them the ability to get that access and you are part of the problem.
I will remind people that this is a discretionary, not absolute, power. He's not going to do a 'gay check' of people at the doors. He wants to expel groups of people that have come there just to hassle the regulars. No problem there.
But there might be a demand. It might be a very rewarding business venture. If it's not then of course the issue does not arise, but in case someone was going for that, they should have the right, don't you think?
Basically I mean, that the certain social structures we have don't even need to be considered. The owner of the "hotel" should be allowed to make it "gay only" for the sole reason that it is his private business.
So, basically, I agree with your point, I just think it is irrelevant.
On the added part: For one it seems like they wont accept women at the doors and it seems obsolete in that case as every bar has the right to ban trouble makers....dont really need regulations in that case, eh?
Well, basically, I think the world itself shows there is no such demand. Nor will there ever be large groups of gays going out to laugh at the heteros- culturally speaking that would be laughable; it is minorities that get singled out.
Also because this had to go past an Equality Commission, they would certainly be correct to come to the conclusion that passing laws allowing people to throw gays out of clubs in general is not an advancement to the equality cause whilst in this case the reverse is such an advancment.
The privacy of the club is simply an extra detail that people should not ignore.
Originally posted by Bardock42
On the added part: For one it seems like they wont accept women at the doors and it seems obsolete in that case as every bar has the right to ban trouble makers....dont really need regulations in that case, eh?
Well apparently exisiting laws have proven insufficient in that respect.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well apparently exisiting laws have proven insufficient in that respect.
Then I wonder what additional rights they have.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, basically, I think the world itself shows there is no such demand. Nor will there ever be large groups of gays going out to laugh at the heteros- culturally speaking that would be laughable; it is minorities that get singled out.Also because this had to go past an Equality Commission, they would certainly be correct to come to the conclusion that passing laws allowing people to throw gays out of clubs in general is not an advancement to the equality cause whilst in this case the reverse is such an advancment.
The privacy of the club is simply an extra detail that people should not ignore.
Well, I don't think there is demand for it because of that reason...but homophobes might feel the need to get their own straight only clubs....and homophobes have money....I like money. I am thinking of opening a straight only club.
Yeah, it certainly wouldn't be an advancement of equality, but there are other reasons to be considered, I think. I feel the equality issue should be seen as a minor issue, though the thread starter seems to make it to be the major issue also spinning it around.
Well, we approach the issue differently I guess.