As always, there's a lot beneath the surface of issues like this.

I could be wrong, but as I understand it the VCAT ruling was more about letting them advertise and target gay men, rather than not granting entry to straight people. But I could be wrong.

And yes, I think the decision was a bad one. And I say that as a bi man. About a year ago, a cafe owner I think kicked two women or two men (can't remember which) for kissing constantly for a long time. The LGBT community kicked up a huge fuss over that - rightly so, I believe. So why should a pub owner be allowed to do the same thing, but for straight couples?

I can understand that being hit on by someone who's not of your gender can be really awkward - but that happens in ALL pubs, regardless of it's 'gay' or 'straight' label.

And if security is a problem and you have groups causing trouble, then you get more bouncers. More security, rather than less heteros.

To be honest, I think this was more a matter for them legally covering their backsides (so to speak!). Simply because from a certain viewpoint, bouncers regularly turn people away that don't meet the dress code, that look drunk, that don't fit the profile of the customer they want. This ruling was all about not getting sued because they turned away a straight guy - which they do anyway.

CasperTG

__________________
You know, Blackadder, for me socks are like sex. Tons of it about and I never seem to get any.

My Photos:
https://imgur.com/a/80hiRdm