Heh. His name is "McFeely". :-P

I never understood why gay men are often lumped in with lesbians but that's about as close as I get to siding with this guy here. I certainly understand his point - that heterosexuals (and lesbians? Okay, I don't understand that part!) can be threatening towards gay men, but I believe there is a better way to address that than an outright, legal ban. After all, what is stopping someone from banning gay people from a particular venue because heteros are not comfortable with their lifestyle and may become the subject of taunts and insults? We'd be really pissed off if that happened.

Of course, this is where someone stands up and says that minorities have a right to exclude majorities because of their need for protection and safety, but not the other way around.

This reminds me of the recent equality laws that have come into force in the UK over the past several years. In disallowing venue-based discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it was emphasised that gay clubs also had to open their doors to everyone. I may not be up with the times but I was always under the impression that gay clubs already welcomed (but didn't encourage, natch) heterosexuals. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Surely this is a better solution - be so darned gay already that it won't be worth it for heteros to come to your venue and harass your patrons (but kick 'em out if they do).

True happiness, we are told, consists in getting out of one's self, but the point is not only to get out, you must stay out; and to stay out you must have some absorbing errand. -Henry James

Frankly, I see it as a cop out. Banning people from a venue, based on their sexual orientation, is not cool. It doesn't make it any less terrible because straighties are bearing the brunt of the discrimination, in this case.

If it's a security measure then that should be dealt with by the security personel. It is their job to monitor behaviour and ensure the a safety of the patrons. If it's about being uncomfortable with straight people, then that's a grey area, I guess... it's such a personal thing. I really feel that it's down to individuals and it's not an issue that can be solved with an outright ban on women, and people who don't like the c*ck.

This Pub is in my home city Melbourne and I've been there once or twice (I'm a lesbian). It is predominantly guys, with a fews girls wandering up from the predominatly lesbian pub just around the corner.   The issue they have been experiencing is Hen's nights dropping in wanting to dance with the gay boys, and then (straight) guys following. The whole idea is to have a legal ban in place so the Security Staff don't have to deal with it all themselves, and have groups of alcohol influenced people at the front door insiting on coming in - or (worse) trying to get a group of intoxicated guys and gals to leave when the pub gets crowded and its target clientele can't get in.  The practical application will be that the same one or two non gay men will be allowed in, but the groups of girls/stright guys won't, and the bouncers (security staff) won't have to put up with the aggro. 

The opinion pages of the newspapers here in Melbourne have been merciless and our talkback radio full of right wing dogmatic rhetoric basically calling the Melbourne gay community everything from Heterophobic to the usual accusations of gays demanding special rights, - I mean gay only pubs, gay marriage - where will it all end ?  What everyone sems to be forgetting is that there are an existing number of patron exclusions in Melbourne on things like Women only gyms, Moslem women only pools etc. etc.  Unfortunately the straight community have seized on this as an example of double standards, while conveniently forgetting Melbourne's gay community has and does labour under inequality in marriage, next of kin rights, inheritance etc. etc. "Special"rights for gays indeed ! 

I agree lesbians are no threat to the guys, I beleive we should try and keep Melbourne's gay community as inclusive as possible (and this may set that back) BUT I also agree that the owners and patrons of a venue should have the legal protection required to exclude whomever they want from that venue.  We call all go and buy overpriced waterered down drinks and dance elsewhere surely ?

All in all Melbourne's gay community in general and the Sir Robert Peel Hotel in particular are in for a high profice week.

My friends and I were talking about a bar, somewhere in Australia we think, that is for GAY PEOPLE only. No straight people allowed.

I'm still wondering how you can actual tell if someone is gay. Seriously, don't come at me with the whole gaydar thing because not everyone has it. If you're a lesbian, does this mean you need a partner to get into these places? Does this mean we're all going to be card-carrying dykes within the next few years? Please. It's utter bullshit that we need to draw the line between sexuality and gender in order to have a good time. What happened to the days when you could simply decline someone's advances?

I'll read that article again tomorrow and come back with some more thoughts. Segregation of any kind gets me antsy!

Just a thought...if people are in there dancing and drinking, isn't that the "target clientele" of a pub?  People who are there to buy drinks and have a good time, no matter who they go home with at the end of the night?

 Thanks for your thoughts, wiketcat; it is usually only the one side that gets reported in the press. 

I think you could probably make some comparisons to the women-only spaces (i.e. Michigan Womyn's festival)...I also think a SF bar tried to ban hetero-kissing a few years ago...

Either way, good points all around. :)

I think they desserve it. Homosexuals should have places where they can be guranteed to not by bugged by naive assholes.

Turn off the lights and turn off the shyness
'Cause all of our moves make up for the silence

The logical corollary would be that if the owner of an establishment didn't want to serve gays they would have the legal right to exclude them, and  I can't help but wonder if that isn't too steep a price to pay.

The suggestion has been made that perhaps the two cases aren't exactly equivalent -basically that because gays are a minority we have the right to claim special privileges for our own protection from the majority. From a practical standpoint I don't think the majority is ever going to be brought around to accept the validity of that argument however, and even from a logical one it seems to me to be an obvious case of special pleading. I don't believe that as a community we can say that on the one hand all we want is the same rights already enjoyed by straight people -in regard to marriage for example- but oh, by the way, on the other hand there are some extra rights we want to claim for ourselves but which we won't extent to straights. If we do that we become complicit in exactly the hypocrisy we claim to be opposing.

When all is said and done it seems to me that the problem for the Peel is that they feel women and straight men are “stealing” places in the bar from their “target clientele” and that in itself is sufficient reason to deny them service. That seems to me like a very trivial reason to allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and, as PosterOfAGirl said above, the fact that it happens to be straights who are discriminated against in this case doesn’t make it any less terrible.

If the choice is between not allowing private establishments to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation on the hand, or allowing such discrimination against both gays and straights, how would you choose?