Here is an article about a Melbourne nightclub called The Peel Hotel has been granted the right to refuse entry to heterosexuals and lesbians.
A few questions: would this be allowed in the U.S.? Is this a good idea? If so, does that mean it’s okay to ban homosexuals from other clubs? Or other businesses in general?
I think the context is significant here. From your link:
How do they tell? Is there an official ID card for gay men?
A clueless female friend took up to a new club she had heard about in Boston (it was Suzie from the drinking milk at a bar thread if you really want to know). It turned out to be a very lesbian bar although a cool one. We got there so early that we were first in line outside but a huge crowd soon built behind us in the next hour or so. When the front rope came down, I got in without a problem but they immediately started turning other males away. It was a cool place but more lesbians than I have ever seen in one place. Out of several hundred people, there was me, a male bartender, and maybe one other male patron. They had men’s and women’s bathrooms however. The first time I went into the mens bathroom, it was filled with very butch looking lesbians. One turned around and said, “Holy shit. There is a real one in here!”. It didn’t seem to bother any of us however. I am not sure if there is a difference between turning away every single male or just letting a few in to make a point.
Can’t they just kick people out for “harassment, hostility and violence”?
What do they do with trans-fill-in-the-blanks and bisexuals? Is there a sign that says “you have to be this gay” to get in?
Shagnasty, were they using the urinals?
They’ll just put a gaydar antenna by the door.
It’s down to the staff, it seems. But the way it’s put seems odd - apparently they won’t kick out straight guys or women just for being that, but that and “if their behaviour is unappropriate”. I guess it depends on what “unappropriate” refers to; is it inappropriate for them to act in a non-gay way? Or is it inappropriate only if they’re being unpleasant?
I can’t really tell from the article what is actually going on - the article itself suggests different levels of not letting straights and gay women in. Either way, though, it seems pretty clear that it’s not a ban or a bar, so the OP and title seems a bit exaggerated. I’d be interested to know magellan’s own opinion on this subject.
I’m pretty sure it would be legal in most of the US, as sexuality isn’t a protected class.
Is it a good idea? I dunno. On the one hand, I can sympathize with the club’s perdicament. It’s supposed to be a club where men can go and hook up with other men. That’s hard to do if most of the patrons are straight women. I’ve heard this can be a problem in some cities, where the gay bars become the trendy hang-out place, and so many straight people show up it ends up being indistinguishable from any other bar in the city, which means the gay crowd needs to find a new bar to gay it up in, which makes it the new trendy place in the city, which attracts lots of straight people. Lather, rinse, repeat. On the other hand, I do support making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, which cuts both ways: if a place of business can’t throw you out for being gay, they can’t do it for being straight, either.
I suspect they’re just turning away any guys who show up as part of a het couple.
The thing about bisexuality is, it’s very hard to present a “bi” identity without explicitly stating, “I’m bisexual!” If you’re holding hands with a guy, you’re assumed to be homosexual. If you’re holding hands with a girl, you’re assumed to be heterosexual. If a guy showed up at the club with his girlfriend, I doubt that any protests of, “I’m bi!” would work, as he’s there presenting as part of a straight couple, which is damaging to the ambiance the club is trying to present.
For transexuals, it would really depend on the attitude of the club’s owner. There’s a surprising amount of transphobia in the gay community, so he might forbid transexuals from the club entirely, just based on bigotry. Assuming the club owner doesn’t have a problem with transexuals, I assume the policy applies to them the same way it applies to anyone else. Female-to-male transexuals who are attracted to other men are allowed in, all other are verboten.
My guess is that the club is trying to keep a particular ratio of gay men v. everyone else in the club, and “unappropriate behaviour” is deliberatly vague, to allow them pretext to throw or keep out women if the ratio starts becoming to lopsided, or to make room for more gay guys if the club is at capacity.
The owners are able to keep people out who they believe are not gay. They have license to do this so they can impose the ban at whim—legally. That is the point, not whether or not they would choose to enforce a total ban or ban -2 heteros or -3 heteros.
My sentiments pretty much match up with Miller’s. I come down on the side of letting this club have it’s ban. Although I would feel better about it if it moved over to being a private club. I think that anyone should be able to start a club that bars anyone they want. I don’t think I should be able to impose myself into a Lesbian book club or sue for entry into a group of black businessmen.
As Miller points out, sexuality is not a protected class in the U.S., so the threshold for keeping gays out of a club or keeping a club purely gay, may be lower. But I think there’d be some major shit flying if a nightclub in the U.S. sought a legal ban agaiinst gay men.
I think this a tough one, hence the OP.
I agree that it’s the point you’re highlighting, but nevertheless there’s a difference between not letting people in sometimes and a full ban, and I think it’s an important one.
My own view is that if it’s a privately owned business, they can open to whoever they want.
Why? The issue is whether or not an establishment should be allowed to do it. *If *they chose to take advantage of their new-found power is beside the point.
You’re looking at the wrong difference. My point isn’t that there’s a difference between being able to turn away people based on sexuality and actually turning them away (although of course there is); my point is that there’s a difference between banning people based on their sexuality outright, and turning them away sometimes. The difference between “No straights” and “Sure, come in, but we’ll turn everyone else away to keep the percentage of desirable customers”.
I’m not arguing against the particular issue you’ve raised; if anything, I seem to be in agreement. All i’m saying is that the way you’ve framed the situation doesn’t fully represent what actually seems to be going on.
Wait a minute… this anti-lesbian bar doesn’t have a fire exit!
I’m looking at the wrong difference? I read an article and started a thread hoping to discuss the aspect of it that I found interesting. I strongly disagree that my OP title is misleading. It gets to the heart of the aspect of the issue I wished to debate. It’s not noteworthy to me that someone might desire to exclude a certain group or groups from their establishment, only that they have been given the ability to legally do so. They sought the ability to bar people from their club and were granted it. So, I’ll stick with the OP title I have if that’s alright with you. As far as fuller understanding of the issue, I supplied the link to the article. That’s kind of how it works, I know you know.
It’s ok, it’s fully flame-retardant.
I don’t agree with any kind of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
With that said, I can understand the sentiment of the bar owners.
I’m a straight, married guy, but the local watering hole is a gay bar - it’s less than half a block from my apartment building. Naturally, the wife and I go there to get shitfaced with the Big Gay Neighbors when we don’t feel like springing for cab fare.
It’s a pretty straightlaced place - a former Hamburger Mary’s franchise, actually, with not a single glory hole in evidence. Wife likes it because our neighbors will get really hammered and start telling her about how fabulous her outfits are, and I like it because the drinks are cheap and the jokes are funny.
Occasionally, though, it’ll get lousy with either straight couples making out or groups of drunk women pawing at the twinks. The whole vibe changes from a laid back happy place to yet another painfully awkward meat market.
Though if they entirely stopped playing that one Cher song where she sings through the AutoTune, I wouldn’t complain at all.
Well, generally you’re also expected to read the article, as well. 
I think this has got to the point of a hijack, so i’ll apologise for that. Yes, as i’ve said repeatedly, the point i’m disagreeing with is no the point you’re trying to look at, but one you’ve brushed on in giving an overview of the situation. And, once again, my point is that there’s a difference between a total ban and a situational one. They’re not banning people because of their sexuality full stop; they aren’t saying that no straights or lesbians can ever enter their club, ever. They’re saying sometimes they can’t. I think there’s a significant difference, and I think your OP doesn’t reflect it. That’s all. On your point, we agree.
That is pretty true. The spokesperson for the Victorian Gay group that I heard discussing this on the radio was in fact a lesbian and she goes to The Peel often.