A San Francisco gay bar has banned bachelorette parties, saying “any celebration of straight marriage” is banned, according to LA Weekly.
Now, you might remember the story about The Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast which is being raked over the coals for refusing to host a civil union in Illinois. A state board is after them for “discrimination.”
So how is what this gay bar is doing any different from what the bed and breakfast is doing?
As far as I can see, I have no problem with these folks doing this but I also have no problem with the bar declaring “No straights allowed.”
But something tells that that the state of California won’t be going after this gay bar for discrimination.
May 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Oh you can bet your last dollar, California won't go after them. Moreover, you can double down on that bet that if the bar next door were to ban gays, they'd be shut down within minutes. Nothing spells hypocrisy like a liberal.
May 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Oh you can bet your last dollar, California won't go after them. Moreover, you can double down on that bet that if the bar next door were to ban gays, they'd be shut down within minutes. Nothing spells hypocrisy like a liberal.
May 28, 2012 at 4:24 pm
This club or whatever it is ought to be able to refuse whomever it wants. Why would anyone want to attend such a morally-dubious place anyway? So-called "equality" legislation in the EU has gone to extremes in forcing business people to provide services for immoral activities, etc., infringing on basic and crucial human rights and freedoms. Of course, the discrimination involved in the "gay bar" case is not reasonable. The only issue is the bar licence, which if it is something that as a matter of constitutionally-valid public policy has strict criteria attached, then such unreasonable discrimination in provision may disqualify from licence to sell alcholic beverages.
May 28, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Easy: this bar isn't doing any wedding services at all, legally speaking. The B&B wanted to operate a public business for civil weddings but violate non-discrimination laws. Those are completely different legal situations.
May 28, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Anonymous, they both base their acceptance of customers on sexual orientation. Same problem and the different results only prove all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
May 28, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Until society returns to the correct stance that homosexuality is a disorder and same-sex unions/marriage are an absurdity, this sort of insanity in the law and in society will continue to increase. Once you attempt to make a disorder or an absurdity appear normal or acceptable under force of an irrational law, adjustments in other areas of rational law will have to be made in order to accommodate the disorder/absurdity introduced by the irrational law. It's like having a walkway paved with square tiles — everything is ordered. If you attempt to replace one of the square tiles with a circular tile, you find that you cannot simply put the circle in there without disturbing or marring the walkway, or without having gaps in the pavement. The result is that the walkway becomes a disordered, ineffective mess. That's similar to what irrational laws normalizing homosexuality and homosexual relationships are wreaking on society.
May 28, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Stupid women go to gay bars becuase they can flirt all night and know that nothing will come of it. And then they moan and complain that they can't meet any straight men….big sigh.
May 28, 2012 at 9:06 pm
You have to understand that it is San Francisco, and this bar is probably very strict 'gay orthodox' and so they couldn't be expected to bend the rules just to be inclusive. Gay rights trump all, you know.
Now a more relaxed place such as Holy Redeemer in the Castro is much more welcoming.
May 28, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Actually, I support their right to serve or refuse whom they want: with the understanding that that sword cuts both ways.
May 29, 2012 at 12:18 am
Two words: Civil suit.
May 29, 2012 at 2:18 am
This is a lie. A blatant lie.
That bar is refusing to host bachelorette parties until the bar's patrons can legally marry, as well.
May 29, 2012 at 2:47 am
Hey, Thom "OFS", the bar's patrons already may legally marry. They have to conform to the natural definition of marriage by marrying someone of the opposite sex, but they are not prohibited by any law from getting married. There is marriage equality, truly understood, in California and in America already.
May 29, 2012 at 3:06 am
Hi Sawyer, I'm simply pointing out that the headline, and commentary, is false.
May 29, 2012 at 5:45 am
The bar in question is in West Hollywood, not San Francisco. There is so much that the commentary gets wrong; it should just be deleted because it's rather embarrassingly inaccurate.
May 29, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Groups against which discrimination won't be challenged:
– whites
– straights
– Catholics
– Christians
– Democrats
– Progressives of any stripe
All other groups will be vigorously protected.
May 29, 2012 at 10:22 pm
So, the bar is not in San Francisco, after all. Yet, one might wonder why editors, like Pavlov's hungry dogs in the fabled experiment, have developed the conditioned reflex of writing "in San Francisco" whenever they hear the words "gay bar."
Let's all chip in and buy them an atlas or a GPS. Perhaps those who love the English language will also buy them a dictionary, and try to reclaim the proper use of the word "gay." (Sigh).