Australian Pubs bans.....heterosexuals

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
No.

What is being done in Australia is to solve a problem. What was "fixed" on my post is not a problem that needs solved.

You have a lot in common with a bigot. The KKK thinks they're "fixing" a problem as well.

Lame.

Look, they were having a problem in some Bars/Pubs where Heterosexuals were causing issues with Homosexuals. The Homosexuals were only offended by the presence of the Heterosexuals due to the abusive behaviour of the Heterosexuals. They were not offended by the simple presence of Heterosexuals. This is where this situation and the KKK have a wide chasm.

Replace "heterosexuals" with "Blacks" and "homosexuals" with "Whites" in your above statement. Do you STILL agree with the statement?

I already answered that question.

You are skirting the issue because you are cornered. Apply the same qualification you made above to both statements. If you don't agree with both you are a hypocrite.

Why were there "Whites Only" Bars?

The answer is your clue.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
No.

What is being done in Australia is to solve a problem. What was "fixed" on my post is not a problem that needs solved.

You have a lot in common with a bigot. The KKK thinks they're "fixing" a problem as well.

Lame.

Look, they were having a problem in some Bars/Pubs where Heterosexuals were causing issues with Homosexuals. The Homosexuals were only offended by the presence of the Heterosexuals due to the abusive behaviour of the Heterosexuals. They were not offended by the simple presence of Heterosexuals. This is where this situation and the KKK have a wide chasm.

Replace "heterosexuals" with "Blacks" and "homosexuals" with "Whites" in your above statement. Do you STILL agree with the statement?

I already answered that question.

You are skirting the issue because you are cornered. Apply the same qualification you made above to both statements. If you don't agree with both you are a hypocrite.

Why were there "Whites Only" Bars?

The answer is your clue.

The answer is you are a bigot and a hypocrite in your own right but too blind to see it. Typical of what comes from liberals. You feel you can "qualify" away equality being applied universally.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
No.

What is being done in Australia is to solve a problem. What was "fixed" on my post is not a problem that needs solved.

You have a lot in common with a bigot. The KKK thinks they're "fixing" a problem as well.

Lame.

Look, they were having a problem in some Bars/Pubs where Heterosexuals were causing issues with Homosexuals. The Homosexuals were only offended by the presence of the Heterosexuals due to the abusive behaviour of the Heterosexuals. They were not offended by the simple presence of Heterosexuals. This is where this situation and the KKK have a wide chasm.

Replace "heterosexuals" with "Blacks" and "homosexuals" with "Whites" in your above statement. Do you STILL agree with the statement?

I already answered that question.

You are skirting the issue because you are cornered. Apply the same qualification you made above to both statements. If you don't agree with both you are a hypocrite.

Why were there "Whites Only" Bars?

The answer is your clue.

The answer is you are a bigot and a hypocrite in your own right but too blind to see it. Typical of what comes from liberals. You feel you can "qualify" away equality being applied universally.

meh, weak. You're not thinking, just looking to bash.

 

[jonjonsanfru]

Wait... no one seems to be picking up on the fact that is a bar for 'Gay Men' and that the problem comes from the dehumanizing effects from women who 'find homosexual men entertaining." So yeah, they have the ultimate gaydar for that bar... if you are a women trying to get, you can't.

 

[skwicz212]

Originally posted by: jonjonsanfru
Wait... no one seems to be picking up on the fact that is a bar for 'Gay Men' and that the problem comes from the dehumanizing effects from women who 'find homosexual men entertaining." So yeah, they have the ultimate gaydar for that bar... if you are a women trying to get, you can't.

I didnt realize gay men are afraid of women. If it suppose to be the only gay bar why dont they just pack it full of gay and nobody else would be able to enter.
:shocked:

 

[Sunner]

I don't see why they'd have to discriminate hetrosexuals.
If someone is causing trouble, throw them out, hetro or homo, problem solved.

This is discrimination just the same as a no-homos bar would be.

I visited a gay bar in Stockholm once, I was in the company of a lesbian chick(a major hottie no less, such a shame...) and a(as far as I know) straight guy.
No one there seemed to mind us straight people, in fact I'd say the people there were nicer than your average bar patrons.

 

[Vitamblu]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
No.

What is being done in Australia is to solve a problem. What was "fixed" on my post is not a problem that needs solved.

You have a lot in common with a bigot. The KKK thinks they're "fixing" a problem as well.

Lame.

Look, they were having a problem in some Bars/Pubs where Heterosexuals were causing issues with Homosexuals. The Homosexuals were only offended by the presence of the Heterosexuals due to the abusive behaviour of the Heterosexuals. They were not offended by the simple presence of Heterosexuals. This is where this situation and the KKK have a wide chasm.

Replace "heterosexuals" with "Blacks" and "homosexuals" with "Whites" in your above statement. Do you STILL agree with the statement?

I already answered that question.

You are skirting the issue because you are cornered. Apply the same qualification you made above to both statements. If you don't agree with both you are a hypocrite.

Why were there "Whites Only" Bars?

The answer is your clue.

The answer is you are a bigot and a hypocrite in your own right but too blind to see it. Typical of what comes from liberals. You feel you can "qualify" away equality being applied universally.

meh, weak. You're not thinking, just looking to bash.

Sit back and think outside the box. You have been brainwashed by liberals for too long but it's not too late to be saved.

On other note, they should have just ban the trouble-makers instead of a whole group of people. Now my friend that's bigotry.

 

[blackangst1]

Is this really a big deal to those of you in US? Why the h3ll do you care what another country does? We arent the worlds savior, right? It affects you not one iota.

/boggle

 

[spittledip]

Why exactly does a hetero want to go into a gay bar?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: spittledip
Why exactly does a hetero want to go into a gay bar?

Why did a black person want to go into a white resturaunt in the sixties?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spittledip
Why exactly does a black want to go into a white bar?

Fixed.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: spittledip
Why exactly does a hetero want to go into a gay bar?

Why did a black person want to go into a white resturaunt in the sixties?

I agree that it has the appearance of a double standard, but if there is a functional reason for the rule, such as the straights come in to fight or something, it is justifiable. Blacks did not cause trouble for the whites back in the day, so there was no real reason to keep blacks out of "white only" places. However, it appears that there is a reason to keep straight people out of gay bars if they are being bothered by straight people. The analogy does not work for this reason.
I am not a "gay rights" activist type and I still subscribe to the DSM III in the case of homosexuality. However, I also do not believe that people should be allowed to go around persecuting other groups just b/c they have a different lifestyle no matter what I or anyone else believes (unless it is a group of murdering pedophiles or something ). This rule is functional and just and protects others. That is what the law is about: protecting others.

 

[skwicz212]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: spittledip
Why exactly does a hetero want to go into a gay bar?

Why did a black person want to go into a white resturaunt in the sixties?

Because there were very few black restaurants? I think you have a twist sense of reasoning. It's like someone who can see what you do and have all the resources at their disposable and can actually claim to be more competent.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: spittledip
Why exactly does a hetero want to go into a gay bar?

Why did a black person want to go into a white resturaunt in the sixties?

I agree that it has the appearance of a double standard, but if there is a functional reason for the rule, such as the straights come in to fight or something, it is justifiable. Blacks did not cause trouble for the whites back in the day, so there was no real reason to keep blacks out of "white only" places. However, it appears that there is a reason to keep straight people out of gay bars if they are being bothered by straight people. The analogy does not work for this reason.
I am not a "gay rights" activist type and I still subscribe to the DSM III in the case of homosexuality. However, I also do not believe that people should be allowed to go around persecuting other groups just b/c they have a different lifestyle no matter what I or anyone else believes (unless it is a group of murdering pedophiles or something ). This rule is functional and just and protects others. That is what the law is about: protecting others.

exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

 

[JD50]

Maybe convenience stores in the inner city should ban black people because they are the ones that usually carry out the robberies, I'm sure you guys would be fine with that right?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

Need the whambulance?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

Need the whambulance?

I'll remember that response the next time you b1tch about someone being descriminated against, to prove that you are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

Need the whambulance?

I'll remember that response the next time you b1tch about someone being descriminated against, to prove that you are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.

Motivation is key.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

Need the whambulance?

I'll remember that response the next time you b1tch about someone being descriminated against, to prove that you are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.

Motivation is key.

As I wrote previously, I went into a gay bar a while back, and I'm straight.
And as far as I can remember, I didn't start any fights.
And yes, if they'd have had anything against me solely because I'm straight, I would have been offended.

Banning anyone because of religion, sexual orientation, skin color, or whateverthefuck, is wrong, period, end of, no excuses.

 

[Rainsford]

As much as I hate to side with the "hetero-pride" crowd, I have to say I don't see how banning heterosexuals is any different than banning homosexuals. Yes, you can come up with all the justifications in the world, but there are ALWAYS justifications (maybe gay people hitting on straight people in hetero clubs drives away business) and it always comes back to the same thing...discrimination is discrimination, end of story. If it's not OK for me to do it, it's not OK for you to do it. If it's wrong to exclude gay people from straight clubs, the reverse is just as wrong. Otherwise what we're fighting for isn't equal rights, it's special rights. And if there is anything that will kill equal rights, it's giving truth to the "special rights" bullshit people keep throwing around. Speaking as a straight guy, I can't see WHY straight people would want to go to a gay nightclub, but if they want to, I can't see how anyone can stop them without being a hypocrite.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

Need the whambulance?

I'll remember that response the next time you b1tch about someone being descriminated against, to prove that you are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.

Motivation is key.

As I wrote previously, I went into a gay bar a while back, and I'm straight.
And as far as I can remember, I didn't start any fights.
And yes, if they'd have had anything against me solely because I'm straight, I would have been offended.

Banning anyone because of religion, sexual orientation, skin color, or whateverthefuck, is wrong, period, end of, no excuses.

Good for you! Perhaps though, the Bar you went to didn't have the problems the particular bar(s) in Australia have?

Again, the Ban exists because of a problem, not because of a sense of Superiority of the Bar patrons. Motivation.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
As much as I hate to side with the "hetero-pride" crowd, I have to say I don't see how banning heterosexuals is any different than banning homosexuals. Yes, you can come up with all the justifications in the world, but there are ALWAYS justifications (maybe gay people hitting on straight people in hetero clubs drives away business) and it always comes back to the same thing...discrimination is discrimination, end of story. If it's not OK for me to do it, it's not OK for you to do it. If it's wrong to exclude gay people from straight clubs, the reverse is just as wrong. Otherwise what we're fighting for isn't equal rights, it's special rights. And if there is anything that will kill equal rights, it's giving truth to the "special rights" bullshit people keep throwing around. Speaking as a straight guy, I can't see WHY straight people would want to go to a gay nightclub, but if they want to, I can't see how anyone can stop them without being a hypocrite.

Well, as you can tell, I disagree. Perhaps the problems in these particular bars goes beyond an occasional simple "hitting on"? If it was a rare thing, I would think it would be dealt with more discretely and tolerated, but it seems the issue was widespread enough to warrant further action.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

Need the whambulance?

I'll remember that response the next time you b1tch about someone being descriminated against, to prove that you are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.

Motivation is key.

As I wrote previously, I went into a gay bar a while back, and I'm straight.
And as far as I can remember, I didn't start any fights.
And yes, if they'd have had anything against me solely because I'm straight, I would have been offended.

Banning anyone because of religion, sexual orientation, skin color, or whateverthefuck, is wrong, period, end of, no excuses.

Good for you! Perhaps though, the Bar you went to didn't have the problems the particular bar(s) in Australia have?

Again, the Ban exists because of a problem, not because of a sense of Superiority of the Bar patrons. Motivation.

Well I'll bring it up again since you didn't address my point, since robberies in inner cities are mainly committed by blacks, I guess you would be ok with business owners banning all black people from their stores right? I mean the motivation would be to stop crime and save lives, not because they feel like they are better than black people.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
exactly. Motivation is the key difference.

Whatever, bigot.

Need the whambulance?

I'll remember that response the next time you b1tch about someone being descriminated against, to prove that you are not only a bigot, but also a hypocrite.

Motivation is key.

As I wrote previously, I went into a gay bar a while back, and I'm straight.
And as far as I can remember, I didn't start any fights.
And yes, if they'd have had anything against me solely because I'm straight, I would have been offended.

Banning anyone because of religion, sexual orientation, skin color, or whateverthefuck, is wrong, period, end of, no excuses.

Good for you! Perhaps though, the Bar you went to didn't have the problems the particular bar(s) in Australia have?

Again, the Ban exists because of a problem, not because of a sense of Superiority of the Bar patrons. Motivation.

Well I'll bring it up again since you didn't address my point, since robberies in inner cities are mainly committed by blacks, I guess you would be ok with business owners banning all black people from their stores right? I mean the motivation would be to stop crime and save lives, not because they feel like they are better than black people.

Stores already ban Criminals. The Australian ban doesn't apply to criminal behaviour, but to Social behaviour.