Woman suing gay bar in Montreal

[betsy]

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?

Yeah you're right. But I still think she should take her business elsewhere. Why would she want to be bothered going in there, unless just to make a point.

On principle, she is right. She should make a fuss. If the stilleto was on the other foot, a gay would quickly sashay up to courthouse if he was refused admittance to a straight bar.

The gay community is in a dreamworld where they think they should have complete control and make all the rules. BUt when they imagine that their rights being denied, they'd be running to the nearest human rights commissioner.

Concerning employment, only the dumbest employer would not hire on the basis of whatever. They'd easily find another excuse not to hire her.

[guyser]

The gay community is in a dreamworld where they think they should have complete control and make all the rules.

Yup, thats what their doing wonderful summation.

[Renegade]

But I still think she should take her business elsewhere.

So do I, but only after she has made her point by legally establishing that she has the right to enter the establishment if she so chose.

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

[geoffrey]

So do I, but only after she has made her point by legally establishing that she has the right to enter the establishment if she so chose.

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

Bad example. There are many bars, only one public transit system.

Rosa Parks was a victim of government policy, this woman wasn't invited into a private establishment. Do you have a right to enter my house and have a beer with me and my friends if we're having a poker night?

[Renegade]

Bad example. There are many bars, only one public transit system.

Rosa Parks was a victim of government policy, this woman wasn't invited into a private establishment. Do you have a right to enter my house and have a beer with me and my friends if we're having a poker night?

I did not mean that the Rosa Parks situation was analogous to this one. What I meant was that Rosa Parks resisted to make a point. Betsy's response seem to indicate that she agreed with the woman in principle, but still thought the woman should go to another bar.

You on the other hand, don't seem to agree with the prinicple at hand. My question to you is where do we draw the line in where discrimmination is permissable? Your position seems to be that private establishments should be allowed to discrimminate. Do you think they should be allowed to refuse service and discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, gender? What about discrimmination for employment?

If we allow private establishments to discrimminate, as RW said, it shouldn't be enforced with a double standard.

[cybercoma]

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.

So, what you're saying is that not enough people wanted it; therefore, it shouldn't be made a law.

[cybercoma]

But I still think she should take her business elsewhere.

So do I, but only after she has made her point by legally establishing that she has the right to enter the establishment if she so chose.

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

How can you, with a straight face, compare systemic discrimination within the government of the United States (through public transportation in this case) to a private business which is regulated by the market? This post is completely asinine and an insult to the memory of Rosa Parks.

[cybercoma]

I did not mean that the Rosa Parks situation was analogous to this one. What I meant was that Rosa Parks resisted to make a point. Betsy's response seem to indicate that she agreed with the woman in principle, but still thought the woman should go to another bar.

You on the other hand, don't seem to agree with the prinicple at hand. My question to you is where do we draw the line in where discrimmination is permissable? Your position seems to be that private establishments should be allowed to discrimminate. Do you think they should be allowed to refuse service and discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, gender? What about discrimmination for employment?

If we allow private establishments to discrimminate, as RW said, it shouldn't be enforced with a double standard.

We discriminate in all situations. Businesses are not allowed to employ 7 year olds for pennies a day, in that sense we discriminate based on age. Pilots (among a few other professions) require mandatory retirement, once again discrimination based on age. High school and college sports are segregated based on sex, more discrimination.

It's not an all or nothing issue.

[Renegade]

We discriminate in all situations. Businesses are not allowed to employ 7 year olds for pennies a day, in that sense we discriminate based on age. Pilots (among a few other professions) require mandatory retirement, once again discrimination based on age. High school and college sports are segregated based on sex, more discrimination.

It's not an all or nothing issue.

Agreed we do disrimminate in many situations, but some forms of discrimminaton are deemed permissable and some arent.

WRT this specific situation are you saying that it is permissable for homosexuals to discrimminate against hetrosexuals, but not visa versa?

[Renegade]

How can you, with a straight face, compare systemic discrimination within the government of the United States (through public transportation in this case) to a private business which is regulated by the market? This post is completely asinine and an insult to the memory of Rosa Parks.

Cybercoma, apparently you either aren't reading all of my posts or are misundersanding what I am saying.

I am NOT saying that the Rosa Parks situation is comparable to this one. What I AM saying is that Rosa Parks was a woman who chose to make an issue of an injustice, based upon the principle alone. This is in response to betsy who said that the only reason in this situation for the woman to make a fuss was to make a point.

What I am saying is that Rosa Parks too was trying to make a point. There, is that clear enough now?

IMV, what is "completely asinine and an insult" is the behaviour by some posters to hurl denegrations based upon an incomplete understanding of other posters comments.

[cybercoma]

Agreed we do disrimminate in many situations, but some forms of discrimminaton are deemed permissable and some arent.

WRT this specific situation are you saying that it is permissable for homosexuals to discrimminate against hetrosexuals, but not visa versa?

Not at all. I'm saying homosexuals and heterosexuals should be able to discriminate freely against one another with regards to nightclubs.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, apparently you either aren't reading all of my posts or are misundersanding what I am saying.

I am NOT saying that the Rosa Parks situation is comparable to this one. What I AM saying is that Rosa Parks was a woman who chose to make an issue of an injustice, based upon the principle alone. This is in response to betsy who said that the only reason in this situation for the woman to make a fuss was to make a point.

What I am saying is that Rosa Parks too was trying to make a point. There, is that clear enough now?

IMV, what is "completely asinine and an insult" is the behaviour by some posters to hurl denegrations based upon an incomplete understanding of other posters comments.

And Rosa Parks's point was valid, whereas this heterosexual woman's point is spurious, at best. Once again, comparing the two is an insult to the civil rights movement and all of those who've fought to fight government oppression.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, but I feel your comparison is in bad taste.

[geoffrey]

You on the other hand, don't seem to agree with the prinicple at hand. My question to you is where do we draw the line in where discrimmination is permissable? Your position seems to be that private establishments should be allowed to discrimminate. Do you think they should be allowed to refuse service and discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, gender? What about discrimmination for employment?

Yes to all of the above. Private business dealings are no business of the state (other than taxation unfortunately).

The government should never tell me who, or who not to, do business with. That's up to me to decide.

[Renegade]

Not at all. I'm saying homosexuals and heterosexuals should be able to discriminate freely against one another with regards to nightclubs.

Why do you limit it to nightclubs?

And Rosa Parks's point was valid, whereas this heterosexual woman's point is spurious, at best. Once again, comparing the two is an insult to the civil rights movement and all of those who've fought to fight government oppression.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, but I feel your comparison is in bad taste.

It is your OPINION that this woman's point is spurious. It is not MINE. I feel she has a valid point as clearly she is being discrimminated against and is taking a stand. I stand by my comparison to Rosa Parks.

[Renegade]

Yes to all of the above. Private business dealings are no business of the state (other than taxation unfortunately).

The government should never tell me who, or who not to, do business with. That's up to me to decide.

Well, at least your position is consistent. I would suspect that most of Canadian society would disagree with your position however.

[cybercoma]

Not at all. I'm saying homosexuals and heterosexuals should be able to discriminate freely against one another with regards to nightclubs.

Why do you limit it to nightclubs?

And Rosa Parks's point was valid, whereas this heterosexual woman's point is spurious, at best. Once again, comparing the two is an insult to the civil rights movement and all of those who've fought to fight government oppression.

I'm not trying to be belligerent, but I feel your comparison is in bad taste.

It is your OPINION that this woman's point is spurious. It is not MINE. I feel she has a valid point as clearly she is being discrimminated against and is taking a stand. I stand by my comparison to Rosa Parks.

I don't limit it to nightclubs. All private businesses should be afforded the same liberty.

And I understand you feel she's making a valid point; however, comparing her plight against being kicked out of a gay bar, to the fight for equality before government for african americans is disgraceful.

[Renegade]

And I understand you feel she's making a valid point; however, comparing her plight against being kicked out of a gay bar, to the fight for equality before government for african americans is disgraceful.

So if she was kicked out of the library she has a valid point but if she is kicked out of a nightclub, she doesn't, is that right?

[cybercoma]

So if she was kicked out of the library she has a valid point but if she is kicked out of a nightclub, she doesn't, is that right?

She may very well have a valid point now, but it is not at all of the caliber of Rosa Parks. I think systemic government discrimination is a hell of a lot different from trying to tell a private business how to run their nightclub.

[Renegade]

She may very well have a valid point now, but it is not at all of the caliber of Rosa Parks. I think systemic government discrimination is a hell of a lot different from trying to tell a private business how to run their nightclub.

Well in my view, discrimmination is discrimmination, and people who stand up against discrimmination should be commended. If two people who took a stand against discrimmination are compared, and that offends your sensibilities, you will need to deal with it. I see nothing wrong.

[Drea]

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?

[Renegade]

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?

Well with a name like "Le Stud", it would seem logical to assume it is a gay men's bar. Even if she was gay, she wasn't a man, so she was excluded.

As to why, who knows? There doesn't seem to be much logic to the situaiton.

[geoffrey]

Well, at least your position is consistent. I would suspect that most of Canadian society would disagree with your position however.

That's ok. My position is morally defensible. The rest of Canada's is not.

Why can you tell me who to do business with? Specific performance is generally no longer viewed as a valid remedy to a breach of contract because it is in essence a form of slavery. Your taking specific performance a step further.

Your saying that I should be forced into the same contract I have with you, with anyone that wants the same deal. That is, if I agree to sell you a couch for $50, everyone should have that equal right to a couch from me for $50.

I disagree. If I want to charge you $50 for the couch, $75 to the next guy and then close my doors as the third guy is walking up, I should be able to. If I decide that based on the time of day, the clothing of the purchaser, his skin colour or the way he smells is really of no business to anyone but me.

No one should force me to do business with anyone, especially not upon arbitrary grounds. It has nothing to do with society or the government, so why let either get involved.

Like I said, I could see the concern if it was the only bar in town, but this is Montreal.

[Renegade]

That's ok. My position is morally defensible. The rest of Canada's is not.

geoffrey, I agree with your position, however let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

Why can you tell me who to do business with? Specific performance is generally no longer viewed as a valid remedy to a breach of contract because it is in essence a form of slavery. Your taking specific performance a step further.

Your saying that I should be forced into the same contract I have with you, with anyone that wants the same deal. That is, if I agree to sell you a couch for $50, everyone should have that equal right to a couch from me for $50.

I disagree. If I want to charge you $50 for the couch, $75 to the next guy and then close my doors as the third guy is walking up, I should be able to. If I decide that based on the time of day, the clothing of the purchaser, his skin colour or the way he smells is really of no business to anyone but me.

No one should force me to do business with anyone, especially not upon arbitrary grounds. It has nothing to do with society or the government, so why let either get involved.

Your position would indicate that there are society should have no mandate to regulate any contract between private parties. Can I rightly infer this is an extension of your positon?

Do you think that in return for being able to operate within a society, a private business implicitly agrees to conform to the norms of that society?

Like I said, I could see the concern if it was the only bar in town, but this is Montreal.

Why change your position if it is the only bar in town? Afterall it is not the owner's fault that no other bar owner has catered to that segment. I fail to understand why you would restrict the owners behaviour based upon the existance of other similar establishments. To use your analogy, if you are the only one in town holding a poker game, does that mean you need to open it up to whoever wants to play, or is it still your discresion?

[geoffrey]

Do you think that in return for being able to operate within a society, a private business implicitly agrees to conform to the norms of that society?

It implicitly agrees to the laws of society. I'm saying society should have no law. The majority also isn't always right, so the 'norm' isn't fair.

The gay bar wouldn't even be there if everyone was conforming to the 'norm.'

Why change your position if it is the only bar in town? Afterall it is not the owner's fault that no other bar owner has catered to that segment. I fail to understand why you would restrict the owners behaviour based upon the existance of other similar establishments. To use your analogy, if you are the only one in town holding a poker game, does that mean you need to open it up to whoever wants to play, or is it still your discresion?

To some extent. With a bar, I'd say that concept doesn't need to apply.

With the only food store in a town though, I think we start to see an area where state intervention might be reasonable. Essiential services primarily is where I'm concerned.

[Renegade]

It implicitly agrees to the laws of society. I'm saying society should have no law. The majority also isn't always right, so the 'norm' isn't fair.

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