Woman suing gay bar in Montreal

[BC_chick]

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/219412

Same thing happened to a girlfriend of mine and I when we visited Montreal a few years ago - we were also asked to leave because the bar doesn't serve women. Vancouver's gay bars are a lot friendlier to women, we were at a loss for words.

How can a group of people who have historically experienced so much discrimination discriminate on the basis of gender? Imagine if a group of gay men were asked to leave a bar because it's a "straight" bar. After all, the insinuation is that men frequent the place to see and meet other men, no?

Incroyable.

[White Doors]

and the owner couldn't see the delicious irony at all.

[cybercoma]

I've got an idea. Boycott the club...

[scribblet]

Very strange, women generally feel more secure at a gay bar - another example of reverse discrimination.

[cybercoma]

Please... I have friends (who ironically enough were white) that were bouncers at a bar known to be a place where black people got together. They wouldn't let white people in through the door and no one bitched. Clubs are clubs... if they want to restrict their business, that's their prerogative. If they can keep making money while pissing off people and kicking them out, good for them.

The joy of a free market is that you're allowed to hurt them by not spending your money there and getting everyone you know to stop spending money there. But to sue a club and make try to dictate to the owner how it should be run is idiotic.

[Riverwind]

They wouldn't let white people in through the door and no one bitched.

The problem is the double standard. A bar owner can be sued if they tried to run a bar that did not allow blacks or gays. Either get rid of the laws that allow owners to be sued for discriminating against certain types of clients or apply those laws equally to all. No double standards.

[scribblet]

Exactly, but then a gay bar in Australia got the go ahead to ban heterosexuals and lesbians - go figure.

[BC_chick]

The joy of a free market is that you're allowed to hurt them by not spending your money there and getting everyone you know to stop spending money there. But to sue a club and make try to dictate to the owner how it should be run is idiotic.

So you'd also have no problem with a bar that, as open policy , doesn't allow gays?

[cybercoma]

So you'd also have no problem with a bar that, as open policy , doesn't allow gays?

No, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If people are offended by that, then they can boycott the bar. When the bar has no clientele because no one wants to be caught dead in a place that shows bigotry towards that group, they'll change their rules or go bankrupt.

It's up to the owner to decide how best to run his business.

Here's the best part. If gay people are pissed because they don't have a club, since all the bigoted breeders banned them from their clubs, the homosexuals can make their own clubs and ban straight people.

Once again... capitalism should teach owners that opening your establishment to as many people as possible is more profitable than running a business that is considered racist or bigoted. But, if an owner wants to shoot themselves in the foot, that's their prerogative.

[betsy]

I guess the gay patrons didn't want any female competition. It would be interesting to see how this lawsuit will turn out. It is descrimination.

I'd bet the gay bar will win.

[BC_chick]

It is descrimination. I'd bet the gay bar will win.

Not sure, depends on the judge I suppose and the how good the woman's lawyer is. Last thing we need is precedence for an open policy of discrimination. I bet the same bar-owners would scream foul if bars in Montreal started springing up everywhere which banned gays. Total double-standard.

BTW, who'd have ever thought you and I would agree on something eh?

[betsy]

I'd bet the gay bar will win.

Not sure, depends on the judge I suppose and the how good the woman's lawyer is. Last thing we need is precedence for an open policy of discrimination. I bet the same bar-owners would scream foul if bars in Montreal started springing up everywhere which banned gays. Total double-standard.

BTW, who'd have ever thought you and I would agree on something eh?

We've agreed on two issues now, BC Chick. We've agreed on the issue Kirpan dagger being allowed in school. I'm glad about that....

[M.Dancer]

If I had a bar I would ban non drinkers......

[August1991]

I guess the gay patrons didn't want any female competition.

In the specific bar in question, female competition is no competition at all.

Incidentally, this woman is not suing the bar. She lodged a complaint with the Quebec Human rights panel. This is not a civil case.

I am more surprised at the speed at which the panel is dealing with this case. Usually, cases are backlogged for several years.

Montreal lawyer Julius Grey, a Charter expert and veteran on discrimination and civil rights cases, says that while the Le Stud incident clearly violates Sections 10 and 12 of the Quebec Charter, he considers the case "borderline."

"The bar's refusal in no way affected the girl's dignity or devalues her as a person. It doesn't seriously affect her status in society, whereas gays face constant discrimination," he said.

"Equality is a guiding principle and not a straightjacket."

Just last week, an Australian tribunal allowed a gay bar in Melbourne the right to ban heterosexual males and women under the country's equal opportunity act.

Michel Gadoury, owner of Le Stud, told Radio-Canada he's not discriminating against women because they're allowed into his establishment sometimes, and he's merely catering to his clientele's wishes.

The Quebec Human Rights Commission said it has received Ms. Vachon's complaint and will study its admissibility.

G & M

It's hard to get more CBC/progressive than Julius Grey so I think he knows what the Commission will do.

As to my own opinion, I agree with Cybercoma above. The best protection against discrimination is to be able to cross the street and have a beer elsewhere.

We need protection against the government since it's a monopoly. That's why we have the Charter of Rights.

PS. Are G & M journalists now illiterate? Maybe they should be straitened out.

[geoffrey]

As to my own opinion, I agree with Cybercoma above. The best protection against discrimination is to be able to cross the street and have a beer elsewhere.

I agree.

Fundamentally, a private business should have every right to refuse to service to anyone they don't want to do business with. Let the market decide if that's good or not. Some people perfer certain crowds, I have little issue with a bar offering that.

This is Montreal we are talking about. It's not hard to find somewhere else to go. If this was Iqaluit and there is only one bar in town, I'd be interested in hearing about the discrimination. But not in a big city with tons of choices in venues.

[GostHacked]

If I was the bar owner, I would do the same thing. For one, it is MY bar. I paid for it, and want to serve a certain client base. Can't go to the swank golf and country club for you are poor. I do not think it is discrimination as more of a wanting to create a niche market for his establishment. It may be his downfall, but again, he is the owner and can decide the policy of the bar.

You don't walk into a country bar expecting to be blasted with the latest trance and house hits now do you?

This woman should shut her vagina up and just go to another bar.

[Renegade]

Last thing we need is precedence for an open policy of discrimination.

We already have many such precedences. "Curves" gym prohibits men. Many bars on "ladies night" charge men an entrance fee but not women. Is that not also precedence-setting disrimmination?

They wouldn't let white people in through the door and no one bitched.

The problem is the double standard. A bar owner can be sued if they tried to run a bar that did not allow blacks or gays. Either get rid of the laws that allow owners to be sued for discriminating against certain types of clients or apply those laws equally to all. No double standards.

Exactly right RW. It seems that society has selective vision in what kind of discrimmination is tolerated.

[Renegade]

If I was the bar owner, I would do the same thing. For one, it is MY bar. I paid for it, and want to serve a certain client base. Can't go to the swank golf and country club for you are poor. I do not think it is discrimination as more of a wanting to create a niche market for his establishment. It may be his downfall, but again, he is the owner and can decide the policy of the bar.

The question is should we allow private establishments to discriminate or not. If we do as you suggest then it should be allowed across the board. Bars can ban patrons on the basis of colour, race, or gender. What about employers, as private enterprises, are they also accorded the privilige of dicrimminating on the basis of race or sexual orientation?

[jefferiah]

So you'd also have no problem with a bar that, as open policy , doesn't allow gays?

No, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If people are offended by that, then they can boycott the bar. When the bar has no clientele because no one wants to be caught dead in a place that shows bigotry towards that group, they'll change their rules or go bankrupt.

It's up to the owner to decide how best to run his business.

Here's the best part. If gay people are pissed because they don't have a club, since all the bigoted breeders banned them from their clubs, the homosexuals can make their own clubs and ban straight people.

Once again... capitalism should teach owners that opening your establishment to as many people as possible is more profitable than running a business that is considered racist or bigoted. But, if an owner wants to shoot themselves in the foot, that's their prerogative.

I quite agree with you here. I dont think a lawsuit is necessary. I would just go someplace else and say "their loss". But this is funny considering your outrage over the church's position about not choosing homosexuals to be leaders.

I also think the lady suing eharmony over its lack of a women seeking women section should buzz off.

[betsy]

So you'd also have no problem with a bar that, as open policy , doesn't allow gays?

No, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If people are offended by that, then they can boycott the bar. When the bar has no clientele because no one wants to be caught dead in a place that shows bigotry towards that group, they'll change their rules or go bankrupt.

It's up to the owner to decide how best to run his business.

Here's the best part. If gay people are pissed because they don't have a club, since all the bigoted breeders banned them from their clubs, the homosexuals can make their own clubs and ban straight people.

Once again... capitalism should teach owners that opening your establishment to as many people as possible is more profitable than running a business that is considered racist or bigoted. But, if an owner wants to shoot themselves in the foot, that's their prerogative.

I quite agree with you here. I dont think a lawsuit is necessary. I would just go someplace else and say "their loss". But this is funny considering your outrage over the church's position about not choosing homosexuals to be leaders.

I also think the lady suing eharmony over its lack of a women seeking women section should buzz off.

I agree. The woman should just take her business elsewhere!

[Renegade]

I agree. The woman should just take her business elsewhere!

Would your answer be the same if the woman applied for employment at the bar and was discrimminated on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or race?

[cybercoma]

Would your answer be the same if the woman applied for employment at the bar and was discrimminated on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or race?

Or if she was employed by them, then told she wasn't allowed to attend any of their staff meetings and that the company would no longer allow women to be employed...

[Leafless]

I guess the gay patrons didn't want any female competition. It would be interesting to see how this lawsuit will turn out. It is descrimination.

I'd bet the gay bar will win.

Why is that?

In Ottawa we have a public 'no smoking by-law' that is vigorously enforced, forcing many small businesses to close their doors after being fined repeatedly, for turning a blind eye or still providing ash trays for smokers.

Why shouldn't 'discrimination laws' force public establishments who discriminate to honour the rules of the land and continually fine them with larger fines until they are forced to close their doors?

If this does not happen, then we do have a double standard and the 'law is an ass'.

[cybercoma]

Why is that?

In Ottawa we have a public 'no smoking by-law' that is vigorously enforced, forcing many small businesses to close their doors after being fined repeatedly, for turning a blind eye or still providing ash trays for smokers.

Why shouldn't 'discrimination laws' force public establishments who discriminate to honour the rules of the land and continually fine them with larger fines until they are forced to close their doors?

If this does not happen, then we do have a double standard and the 'law is an ass'.

There shouldn't be a double standard. Bars should be allowed to decide whether or not they want people smoking in there. People should also decide whether or not they want to go there or work there if they find it offensive or feel it damages their health. If one is so opposed to it, they should open a bar that does not allow smoking whatsoever and see if they can survive.

[Riverwind]

If one is so opposed to it, they should open a bar that does not allow smoking whatsoever and see if they can survive.

The dynamics of the market place made it impossible to have a non-smoking bar without regulation because no bar owner was willing to take the risk.