It's always wrong
Pub owner defends 'gays only' entry
May 28, 2007 - 12:40PM
A Melbourne pub owner who won the right to refuse entry to heterosexuals says the move was necessary to provide gay men a safe and comfortable venue.
The management of Collingwood's Peel Hotel in inner Melbourne won the right to refuse entry to heterosexuals in a landmark ruling at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last week.
Pub owner-manager Tom McFeely said the move was necessary to provide gay men a non-threatening atmosphere to freely express their sexuality.
"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance effectively," Mr McFeely told Southern Cross Broadcasting.
Mr McFeely said that while the pub welcomed everyone, its gay clientele had expressed discomfort over the number of heterosexuals and lesbians coming to the venue over the past year.
"We've had instances in the past where, for example, a buck's night has come up to the Peel or a hen's night - our whole atmosphere changes immensely," he said.
"Atmosphere" is worth creating a legal precedent that legitimises countless years of discrimination against the very people who go to the bar in the first place. What's going to stop another pub owner from barring black people from his premises because they "change the atmosphere"? What's to stop a restaurant owner from stopping a gay man from entering the premises with his hetero friend? Suppose a council doesn't want gay people to move into a certain neighbourhood? How stupidly short sighted. People who are regularly discriminated against should know better than to turn around and do it to another group of people. Congratulations, patrons of the Peel Hotel. You've delivered your enemies an excellent weapon to use on you.
16 comments:
That's so fucked. I love gay nightclubs (having only been to three). Why? Because I know that some hairy knuckled hetro fuckwit isn't going to pick a fight with me. And even if I did get approached for some MOM action, I'd be flattered (but no). But it's unlikely since, no offence to my gay brothers, in my experience gay guys put the most store in looks and as a fatty that's a neddy no.
I've been to The Peel, and it isn't worth going there, even if you're gay. It's featured in that Jimoen film The Extra, of which I was the only person in Australia to see.
Why aren't lesbians allowed? What about bisexual people?
It's just bizarre.
I’m not entirely sure I agree. I know it sets a bad precedent, I know its discrimination, but I don’t think our society is accepting enough of gays to justify the outrage over this sort of exclusivity.
In a mixed bar, they DO risk harm in attempting to do the-sorts-of-things-they’d-do-in-a-gay-bar. They’re discriminated from the public to the government, to the sermon.
While making it official and binding was probably not necessary, and possibly not the best way to deal with the problem, it is we, the straight folk, who have lost a freedom because of our bigotry. We deserved it, and the only way to fight back is for our society to accept homosexuality, and earn our freedom back. The finding should be repealed and such discrimination outlawed when the need for such a refuge becomes unnecessary.
And unless lesbians are causing serious trouble, I don’t see why they should not be allowed entrance.
Lesbians aren't allowed because this isn't about gay guys risking harm by being gay in a gay bar. It's just another kind of bigotry.
larry, you don't seem to understand my point. i'm pissed off because the bunch of tools at the peel don't seem to realise they've given every intolerant fuckwad a giant hammer of legitimacy to go around discriminating against people.
it's already ridiculously easy to discriminate against people. i've been denied rentals for being the wrong colour. it's outrageous because the next time someone gets dragged to court for not letting a gay/black/whatever person in their club or for firing someone because they found out they were gay, their lawyer will drag this judgement up.
it's totally fucked to deny what meager protection the law provides to minorities so that one tiny subsection of one minority can have a bit of atmosphere. note, there was no mention of threats, of people not feeling safe. they just want a gays only bar. for that they're willing to sacrifice their legal protections and everyone else's, for what little it was ever worth.
if it's legal to deny entry to straights because they make you feel uncomfortable, it will be ok to deny gays rights for exactly the same reason. it's pathetic and stupid and it will bite them in the ass.
I liked The Extra...
I do agree with your point, to an extent.
They seem to have tip-toed around advertising the place as having high incidents of violence. (It's not good for the business nor the patrons to announce the place is a gay-basher's paradise.)
They don't specifically mention threats in the article, apart from "non-threatening atmosphere", and a "safe" environment.
That's the newspaper being respectful. The actual VCAT decision is here, and the finding seems to have been considered carefully and appropriately.
VCAT agreed it was discrimination, but argued: "however, the application is in the spirit of those express exception provisions which seek to allow special measures to be taken to redress disadvantage suffered by those with a particular attribute."
It's a great read - and a required read to determine whether it sets a precedent.
If a whites-only bar were to open, it would need to prove:
* its to redress a disadvantage of equal calibre
* it will serve to prevent 'whites' from being a target of derision, hostility or criticism
* that there are similar alternative venues available
* that the proprietor does NOT seek to have a white's-only bar, that the sole purpose is to prevent hostility, derision or criticism.
I also note that in the decision, the increasing acceptance of gays was considered, but "instances of sexuality-related violence, insult, ostracism , derision, harassment and hostility" still occur. If those instances did not apply, this finding as precedent would not apply.
What about lesbians? Sure, they're not subject to violence (at least nowhere near the same level), but where are their alternative venues? Why were they specifically mentioned alongside straight men by the proprietor as making for an 'uncomfortable' atmosphere? Is there a problem with hostility, derision and criticism towards gay men by lesbians?
In the same spirit, I imagine we might see special bars open up in places like Kempsey for white people who are uncomfortable in the presence of aboriginal people and might well argue that they are subject to a particular disadvantage in the form of high rates of violence. Or bars for aboriginal people who are uncomfortable around whites because of the constant discrimination they suffer. This is a fucked up decision.
My take on this is that if they want to discriminate then they should close the pub down and form a special gays-only club... as far as I'm aware it's still legal to do it and it doesn't set any kind of precedent that way (men-only clubs still exist in QLD, at least).
14 If heterosexual men and women and lesbians come to the venue in large groups, then their numbers may be enough to “swamp” the numbers of gay male patrons. This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create. Sometimes, heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons. In doing these things, they use sexually-based insults. Sometimes, groups seek to use the venue for parties and it is clear from Mr McFeely’s affidavit that these groups wish to look at the behaviour of the gay male patrons as a kind of spectacle or entertainment for the group’s enjoyment. Entry of these groups would undermine or destroy the unique atmosphere which aims to foster and not frighten or discomfit its gay male patrons.
That right there is a decision that will allow any country pub to argue that it be allowed to "limit" the numbers of aboriginal people entering its premises.
15 I accept Mr McFeely’s evidence that there are a large number of alternative venues which provide similar kinds of services to that provided at the Peel Hotel. These venues can be attended by people of any sex, any sexual orientation or any gender identity. I also accept his evidence that there are a very significant number of venues which market their services to lesbians. The Glasshouse, which is a venue close to the Peel Hotel, is one of these.
right here is a decision that makes me think, it's perfectly legal to restrict entry to rowdy groups of single men, for the reason that they are being rowdy. what it is not legal to do is bar lesbians for being lesbians. i submit to you that the whole point of this legal argument is to be given permission to create a gay men only pub.
Exactly Gam. If someone comes to the pub, and acts like a fuckwit, management can always reserve the right, blah blah.
Besides, it begs the whole point, how do they know who's gay and who's straight? It's not like straight people have big S's branded into their foreheads.
Presumably the only way management can tell is when straight people start acting like homophobic dickheads, in which case they can be kicked out anyway. I don't really understand the reasoning behind the decision.
It's reverse-discrimination.
Can you imagine if a gay person was barred from a normal pub!! It would be all over the news about discriminating against gay people.
it's not "reverse-discrimination", racism and discrimination are defined in terms of the action, not the actors...
I suppose only time will tell if the finding can be used as a basis to discriminate further, but I hope I'm right, and it won't be.
IANAL, but I assume that using it as a precedent requires that the decision in it's entirety needs to be considered. And I believe that replicating the scenario for other groups (aside from possibly aboriginies) would not be possible.
I agree that the goal was to create a gay men only pub. I can see the need for it, so I'm inclined to support it.
The exemption to the act is, and can be, only active for 3 years, and can be revoked if an application is made by persons whose "interests are affected".
We may have to agree to disagree, but I see it as discrimination to prevent more dire discrimination. With all due respect, and without wishing to further irritate you, Gam, can I ask for your opinion of female gyms? (I suspect that's a given.)
I also meant to add - if you feel strongly enough about it, with the equal opportunity exemption laws, it should be possible to have the ruling overturned. However, it's a Victorian tribunal, and a Victorian act, so you probably don't have any direct power over this.
female only gyms? verboten. classes/sessions for women? well and good. a women only club where membership is only open to women? as distasteful to me as men only clubs but that's ok. you'll note that all of these are options that are and were open to the pub owner.
i don't get why you're not with me on this larry. i've copped a fair bit of crap in pubs and i'd be the first person yelling and screaming outside a blacks only pub in brisbane. it is wrong to discriminate like that. it doesn't make for safety, just the illusion of safety. after all the reason gays are discriminated against is to 'protect' the community, in the twisted minds of bigots.
i'm irritated at the mindset and principle behind this, though i'm glad, and hopeful that this won't turn into a massive fuck up down the road.
it's the nelson mandela/martin luther king vs malcolm x argument. human rights can never be gained or maintained by denying another human his or her rights.
i dunno, maybe i'm overreacting but don't take my opposition to mean i don't care/understand about the endless crap gay people go through just for being gay.
Post a Comment