Original story

In Australia, the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled the Peel Hotel in the city of Melbourne could ban patrons based on their sexual orientation.

A gay pub has won the right to ban heterosexuals - the first time such legislation has been passed in Australia. The pub's management said the move would stop groups of heterosexual men and women abusing gay people.

The tribunal's president said groups of straight women found homosexual men entertaining but that such attention was dehumanising. Managers complained raucous hen nights and stag parties created a poisonous atmosphere for its gay clientele, our correspondent says.

"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," the hotel's manager told Australian radio. He said while Melbourne had 2,000 venues catering for heterosexuals, his was the only bar aimed exclusively at gay men.

Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent discrimination based on race, religion or sexuality.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Yet we now have a chain of gyms strictly for women.

If the bar was a private club, the publican may have had an argument, but as a public house (aka pub), I believe the decision was just plain wrong.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

I think it's about a bar owner's right to escort anyone out who doesn't obey the rules of polite society

__________________
Life is too short not to love and be loved....preferably multiple times in one night.

I think men talk to women so they can sleep with them and women sleep with men so they can talk to them. ~ Jay McInerney

Banning someone based on sexual orientation is just plain stupid.

Banning someone because he or she can't stop harassing people, OTOH, is something that's probably done not nearly often enough.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

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

When I grew up, there was a gay club that became popular for the high school girls and boys to go to. I went once, and never went again - I had lots of gay friends, and the high school kids were treating the gay dancing/kissing/etc like an exhibit in a zoo. It made me feel sick, because they weren't respecting the people.

I don't know if that's what's happening here, but if it is....I'd vote to kick some of the straight people out if they can't be polite and mind their own business.

__________________
Life is too short not to love and be loved....preferably multiple times in one night.

I think men talk to women so they can sleep with them and women sleep with men so they can talk to them. ~ Jay McInerney

kick anyone out for disrupting the peace, yes. ban an entire group of people based on sexual preference, no.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

Misguided social engineers.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

Is there another kind?

__________________

PantyFanatic,

Yes, I believe there are.

In the 17th & 18th centuries, Democracy began to supplant previous social systems of governance. The engineers of this transformation, which remains a work in progress, are often referred to as democrats.

In the 19th century, abolitionists advocated the emancipation of slaves. I have learned that some campaigned for this goal very forcefully.

In the first half of the 20th century, suffragists changed society by enfranchising women.

Beginning a the end of the 20th century, and continuing into this century, Western Civ (if you will excuse the term) is being transformed again to enable a greater, if not full, participation by people with handicaps.

There are others, depending upon how one defines social experiments, and their engineer advocates.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Social engineers are judged on the results of their engineering.

Hitler or Schweitzer?

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating