Woman suing gay bar in Montreal

[Blu-Truth]

The best one is the Aussie bar banning heterosexuals and lebians... how do they prove you are or aren't gay. Maybe we should get sexual orientation ID's although I still don't know how we prove this, I mean do mere thoughts count or is experience required?

[geoffrey]

Are you saying a norm which probhits discrimmination isn't "fair"? Who defines what is "fair"?

Morality. Rationality.

Your going to have to come up with a pretty damn good reason (a major harm to someone else) in order to justify removing a huge chunk of my liberty (my liberty not to be forced into a private contract).

I say that justification doesn't exist, so it's morally incorrect to remove my liberty so that someone can enjoy a time at one of thousands of bars in Montreal.

I don't think people realise how big of a deal this is being forced to do business with people. It's a major infringement on your economic freedom.

[Mr.Canada]

Ok now many in this thread have turned a blind eye to an obvious HRTC case.

Would straight bars be able to do the same thing?

If we're all equal we should be able to right?

[M.Dancer]

Welcome to last years piffle

[WIP]

Yeah, the story is from May of last year! Unless there's an update with something like a decision from the human rights commission, what good does it do to revisit this old news story?

[August1991]

Welcome to last years piffle

In the cyberworld maybe, but in the real world, these issues take time.

Canada's Human Rights commissions are on their death legs. They've lost on freedom of speech (if only because they can't control the Internet). They'll lose elsewhere too and become possibly a bizarre legacy anachronism, like Swiss guards at the Vatican.

----

Cybercoma above got to the key point.

The best defence against idiots is the freedom to choose. If you don't like one bar, one boss or one employee because they are racist, homophobe or right wing: fire them, quit and cross the street to go elsewhere. The freedom to choose is the best defence agianst idiocy if only because it sends a message to the idiot.

In some cases, for example the State, we can't do that easily. In such cases, we need a Bill of Rights restricting what the State can do. This is a less than perfect solution compared to walking away from some jerk in a restaurant. I think we have all decided at some point or another not to return a phone call. In relations where we are free to choose, our freedom to flounce or refuse a call is a far better protection than any State tribunal.

Edited December 28, 2008 by August1991

[Rue]

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....

Easy now. Don't get too close with BC Chick. Its liable to cause some issues with certain bars although personally if I owned a Bar both of you could come in even if you were holding hands. However I have rules. If you are not a Montreal Canadiens fan you wait in line with the Leafs fans until the Habs fans are seated.

We do allow Calgary fans in to because they are after all Flamers.

[kimmy]

The best defence against idiots is the freedom to choose. If you don't like one bar, one boss or one employee because they are racist, homophobe or right wing: fire them, quit and cross the street to go elsewhere. The freedom to choose is the best defence agianst idiocy if only because it sends a message to the idiot.

In some cases, for example the State, we can't do that easily. In such cases, we need a Bill of Rights restricting what the State can do. This is a less than perfect solution compared to walking away from some jerk in a restaurant. I think we have all decided at some point or another not to return a phone call. In relations where we are free to choose, our freedom to flounce or refuse a call is a far better protection than any State tribunal.

This reminds me of the controversy a few years ago with regard to the Augusta Golf Club, in the United States. Augusta is one of the most prestigious golf clubs in the world, and one of the most exclusive. Augusta has no female members. Membership is by invitation only, and no woman has ever been invited to join. A few years ago Martha Burk, former president of NOW, called on Tiger Woods to boycott the annual Masters tournament held at Augusta until Augusta allowed female members.

Tiger Woods, as people may know, is of ethnic background that could only accurately be described as "not white" -- his background includes black, asian, native American ancestors. Burk noted that Augusta didn't have non-white members until just a few years previous, either, and felt that as golf's top draw, he should use his influence to take a stand against a club that wouldn't have him on its grass if he weren't competing in the tournament. The irony of Tiger Woods winning championships on a course that wouldn't have him as a member is noted in this viciously funny Onion satire, predating the Martha Burk controversy by several years.

Woods, being a competitor rather than a politician, chose to avoid the controversy and did what he does best, play golf.

Augusta's position all along (to this day, in fact) was simply that "it's our club, and we can invite whoever we want." There are lots of other golf clubs that women can join. There are lots of other bars that women can go to. People can vote with their feet. Personally, my view is the opposite of Groucho Marx: I would not want to belong to any club that wouldn't have me as a member. If Kimmy is not good enough for you, then you are not good enough for Kimmy, end of story.

That's easy enough to say about some gay bar, which is probably not any more edifying or enriching than bars catering to heterosexual clientele. In the case of Augusta, though, I have to pause. Augusta's members are the most influential and successful people in our society. When the Kimmy Green Energy Center for Wind Powered Scooter Innovation is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and I have the sort of life that requires me to hob-nob and rub elbows with that sort of people, won't places like Augusta be an impediment to me? Perhaps when I am at that point in my life I will be able to simply pick up the phone and call Bill Gates and say "Bill, you fat asshole, why are you a member of that redneck shithole anyway?"

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

Woods, being a competitor rather than a politician, chose to avoid the controversy and did what he does best, play golf.

Which is consistent with his own statements:

MEDIA STATEMENT:

The purpose of this statement is to explain my heritage for the benefit of members of the media who may be seeing me play for the first time. It is the final and only comment I will make regarding the issue.

My parents have taught me to always be proud of my ethnic background. Please rest assured that is, and always will be, the case - past, present, and future.

The media has portrayed me as African-America; sometimes, Asian. In fact, I am both.

Yes, I am the product of two great cultures, one African-American and the other Asian.

On my father's side, I am African-American. On my mother's side, I am Thai. Truthfully, I feel very fortunate, and EQUALLY PROUD, to be both African-American and Asian!

The critical and fundamental point is that ethnic background and/or composition should NOT make a difference. It does NOT make a difference to me. The bottom line is that I am an American...and proud of it!

That is who I am and what I am. Now, with your cooperation, I hope I can just be a golfer and a human being.

Signed,

TIGER WOODS

In the case of Augusta, though, I have to pause. Augusta's members are the most influential and successful people in our society. When the Kimmy Green Energy Center for Wind Powered Scooter Innovation is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and I have the sort of life that requires me to hob-nob and rub elbows with that sort of people, won't places like Augusta be an impediment to me? Perhaps when I am at that point in my life I will be able to simply pick up the phone and call Bill Gates and say "Bill, you fat asshole, why are you a member of that redneck shithole anyway?"

You will have a better case when Bill Gates and lesser male gods can get memberships at such modest digs as Curves for Women health parlors.

[kimmy]

Which is consistent with his own statements:

I certainly don't blame him.

I do find it amusing to note the degree of venom that some blacks reacted when he explained that he did not consider himself "black", but rather multi-racial. The term "traitor" was thrown about rather liberally.

You will have a better case when Bill Gates and lesser male gods can get memberships at such modest digs as Curves for Women health parlors.

Martha Burk referenced Curves herself in one of the articles I read the other day, oddly enough. Her comment was basically: "I won't defend Curves, because it's a slippery slope. But I don't think mergers of multinational corporations are being made on the treadmills at Curves..."

Another of the articles I read the other day pointed out that Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley paid out about $80 million in settlements for gender discrimination lawsuits filed by employees. Both settlements included provisions that the respective employers would no longer allow executives to claim any business expenses relating to Augusta or any other club that discriminates on the basis of race or gender. Companies that supposedly subscribe to the principle of equality... paying for male employees to go to male-only clubs to do business? hmmm. Think any female executives have ever attempted to file a trip to Curves under business expenses?

Anyway, legality is beside the point. Clearly, private clubs such as Augusta and others have the legal right to their own membership policies and can invite whoever they wish. The issue will not turn on law, it will turn on shame. While undoubtedly many members of Augusta and similar clubs are cro-magnons who couldn't care less what anyone thinks, it is doubtful that anyone whose public image is of any importance would wish to be associated with such an organization.

On the other hand, I doubt you'll find any women who feel guilty going to a Spa-Lady.

-k

[kimmy]

What would have happened if Rosa Parks decided rather that make a fuss, she would just board another bus?

What if Rosa Parks had owned a car?

-k

[Mr.Canada]

What if Rosa Parks had owned a car?

-k

Maybe she did own a car, who knows. If not her someone else would've done it.

[KeyStone]

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.

So all those laws that they made that made it illegal for businesses to forbid black people to come into their place of business were unnecessary?

You're forgetting about the 1% rule.

In business, it doesn't matter how many people hate you, as long as 1% of the population loves you.

[BigAl]

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

AMEN!

[BigAl]

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

I agree with you scriblett, but I can't stand the term "reverse discrimination" -- it's the same as "reverse racism" or any of those other terms that cast a pall over the so-called "majority". It's not reverse discrimination if I get banned from a bar for being straight, or if I don't get hired because I'm white -- it's just discrimination. There's nothing "reverse" about it. If my girlfriend beats the everloving shit out of me, it's not "reverse domestic abuse" is it?

Sorry for the rant, I just get really fed up with political correctness some days, especially when it doesn't make a lick of sense.

[August1991]

So all those laws that they made that made it illegal for businesses to forbid black people to come into their place of business were unnecessary?

You're forgetting about the 1% rule.

In business, it doesn't matter how many people hate you, as long as 1% of the population loves you.

Keystone, I think you are grossly ignorant of US civil rights legislation history.

The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 was specifically designed to overcome state legislation that officially sanctioned Jim Crow or other segregation regulations such as the one (in fact, a Montgomery city ordinance) that obliged Rosa Parkes to vacate her seat for a white passenger. IOW, the source of the discrimination was the (state or local) governments themselves. At the time, many southerners (particularly governors) viewed the issue as an unconstitutional infringement of the central (federal) government into their affairs.

IOW, in the US South before the 1960s, it wasn't private businesses (ie. a bar such as this case in Montreal) choosing to discriminate against black people, it was state and local governments discriminating by law.

To make a comparison, Canada's Supreme Court has determined that Quebec's Bill 101 is consistent with the federal Charter's language provisions. If the Supreme Court had determined otherwise, then we in Canada would have had a similar (if less dramatic) crisis as the US had in the 1950s and 1960s.

Edited January 15, 2009 by August1991

[BigAl]

My question is -- how did they know she wasn't gay?

I mean, it's not like you can tell a person's sexual orientation by looks alone... she could have been a lesbian and her dad could've been a closet gay for years.

But I see that the issue is not about the fact that she was hetero, but the fact that she was female. (Seems they didn't have any issue with the dad)

Its a gay men's bar -- what? Are they afraid some goodlooking woman will convert some of them to the hetero side?

Good points all 'round. Back in the days of racial segregation, it was pretty easy to figure out who was who, obviously. But these days? People regularly assume I'm a homosexual (and I can't figure out WHY) even though I'm straight -- clearly some people seem to think they can determine somebody's sexual orientation just by looking at them, but I'm walking proof that is hardly a foolproof standard.

[DFCaper]

So are men allowed to be banned from Women's only gym's still???

[BigAl]

So are men allowed to be banned from Women's only gym's still???

Yeah, on one hand that kind of bugs me, because I'm really not that big a guy and I'd love to have an exclusive, non-threatening gym atmosphere to go try and get into some kind of shape...but on the same token, I can't say I blame women for wanting their own gym, because let's face it -- how many meatheaded tools go to gyms strictly to hit on women? Kind of makes sense, right?