E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Abbey nightclub in West Hollywood, Calif., regularly welcomes customers who are not gay, but operators say they will ban straight bachelorette parties until same-sex marriage is legal across the land. KNBC-TV's Angie Crouch reports.
The Abbey nightclub in West Hollywood, Calif., regularly welcomes customers who are not gay. But operators say there will be an exception to that policy until same-sex marriage is legal across the land.
“We love our straight girlfriends coming in to celebrate one of the happiest days of their life," says Abbey owner David Cooley. "But it’s also a slap in the face to my customers and my life that we can’t have that same celebration.”
Male go-go dancers are just one reason why one of America's most popular gay bars has become a big draw for straight women's bachelorette parties.
Each weekend, The Abbey hosts several dozen ladies night parties. But Cooley says, no more. Until marriage is legal for everyone, straight women can no longer celebrate their pending nuptials at his club.
His position is getting mixed reviews from both gay and straight customers.
“Everyone should be able to get married," says Roshanna Sabaratnam. "We shouldn’t, as straight people, be flaunting it in front of people who can’t.”
But, there are also some gay customers who disagree.
“I think the ban is an interesting approach to the debate about gay marriage," says Alexander Villalobos. "But I think you shouldn’t limit other people’s rights in order to get yours.”
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Underground gay group makes waves at Christian college
- Marine Werewolves transform into Crusaders, and back again
- Video: Unabomber's' Harvard alumni profile riles some
- Texas whiz kid beats teens in 2012 National Geographic Bee
- NJ man detained in 1979 disappearance of Etan Patz
- NBC poll: Obama edges Romney in three key battleground states
Leave a Comment:
Bachelorette Parties are not a 'right'. Marrying the person you love is a 'right'
Gay bar how original, so that's how they get started.
is that in the bill of rights?
No sonny, it's not.
That came along in the 14th Amendment.
But I supposed a decent argument could be made for the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment ... so maybe "yes" is your answer.
Seems fair to me.
for millions of years marrying someone you loved was between a man and a woman up until now
You have no grasp of history whatsoever.
I think same sex arrangements under a contract should be provided equal taxation as do male/female marriage. I am against same sex religious marriage. I don't have any back-up for my reasoning, just my opinion. Don't cal it a marriage, call it Common Law Commitment. I'd be satisfied with that.
Once again we have a group wanting special privileges so they can be equal.
Beth has a huge set of brains and she loves to flaunt them. I love how people on here thinly guise discussion on topics they read about and try to look smart to others just to show off.
dewey - agreed if straight people getting that paper from the govt are called the same thing.
Leave "marriage" to the churches...and some straights arent allowed to marry in their churches if a catholic marries a non-catholic. Let them suffer with us...
maybe then EQUALITY will mean something.
So "separate but equal"? Like having the white water fountain and the colored water fountain? Ask the African-American community how well that worked out.
The bar owner doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, IF somebody sued (but no one will). Recall that eHarmony was sucessfully sued by gays for not providing gay dating, even though there are other gay dating sites. The same precedent applies here: the gay bar owner is obligated to provide service for straights, even though there are other places to have a bachelorette party.
Marrying the person you love is a "right"? Sorry, we have laws. The 14th amendment you spoke of says "equal protection of the laws". So the LAWS written are what protects you. Yes, a law might be found to be "unconstitutional" (like ObamaCare will be) and in THOSE cases the laws are "thrown out" but if the law is constitutional then THAT is what the 14th amendment protects you from as long as ALL people are treated equally and fairly under the laws written. What the 14th amendment basically says is that all people will be treated equally in regards to laws and they don't apply to some and apply to others.
So you believe if YOU feel you should be allowed then THAT is a "right"? What if a man wanted to marry his sister? Is THAT his right? No, it is a matter of whether the law allows and it doesn't. What if he wanted to marry a 13 year old girl? Is that his right? No, there is a law against that. What if he wanted to marry 2 women? Is that his right? No, there is a law against that. What if he wanted to marry the family dog? Is that his right? No, there is a law against that.
The above examples are not "discrimination". They are adhering to laws written and, at least to that point, found constitutional. So if a law states marriage is between a man and a woman and there are criteria that must be met (equally!!) then ANY other "marriage" is not recognized. That is not a "right" and you are using the 14th amendment as justification otherwise is both incorrect and illogical. Equal protection under the law is what is relevant and all parties are treated fairly "under the law". Try to stay focused and educated before you try to use an illogical and irresponsible argument to try and justify something that, at least to this point, is still not recognized as "marriage".
Your comparisons are like comparing apples and oranges. No, it's like comparing apples and socks.
no it would be equal but different. no one is trying to separate homosexuals from the general population. you are entitled to all the benefits if there are any from marriage but in a civil partnership. people are tired of minority groups especially one based upon a behavior asking for special rights and changes to historical and religious practices just because you guys dont like it.
You are correct to an extent. However, how can You or anyone else define love with two consenting adults. If it were up to me, Gays should not have to pay taxes since they are not treated the same as every other person out there. They are discriminated against for who they are and love. If we went solely by OLD LAWS, Divorse would not exist, and women could not speak in public. The laws are a convience for someone with power and laws change with the times.
Sorry folks, the definitions should be:
Common Law - when two people in a relationship share the same domicile for a specified period of time. No legal or tax benefits should be extended.
Civil Ceremony - when two people are legally wed in any non-religious facility by a non-religious officiant
Religious Ceremony - when two people are legally wed religious facility by a religious officiant
Marriage - a committed legally binding relationship between two adults.
Whom decides to marry who only impacts you on an emotional level. My advice, get a therapist.
Typical liberal reply. Don't debate the facts. Don't debate the truth. Simply call it "wrong" because you THINK it is wrong but cannot explain why. Just deflect to another topic. Typical...............
I'd sue the gay bar for everything they have and then shut them down. How dare they deny a straight person something that they allow for a gay person?
The bar owner is a very simple minded man, or stupid.
I love Henry, my pet turtle. Can I marry him? He's over eighteen.
so pro,
what are the facts?
Marriages between one man and one women who are in love is fairly recent in history. Bibically one man could marry several women, and could sleep with the servants and slaves. Historically (and still in many countries) marriages occurred for political or financial reasons often decided by one's parents.
today the divorce rate is at about 50%. The "till death do you part" vow appears to be irrelevant.
There should be no legal construct known as marriage. That should be something you call it in the privacy of your own home. If people want marriage to be a religious term, then it should remain a religious one and our gov't should not recognize it. People should have to have a civil ceremony regardless of whether they have "religious" one, and the gov't will only recognize the civil union.
I am sure many conservatives wonder why what appears to be a logical compromise of giving gays and lesbians a "civil union" which allows all the benefits of "marriage" but not called "marriage" is despised so much by the gay and lesbian community? One would think this is such an easy and acceptable solution that it would be a "no-brainer" and both sides quickly accept. But you have to understand the agenda of the gay and lesbian community to understand why they won't accept a LEGAL acceptance of a civil union.
It is because they want to call it "marriage" to legitimize a union between a gay and a lesbian so they can say it is not only legal but acceptable. That is not the case. It is not an acceptable form of a union and is unnatural. How can I say that? Because NO society could survive if homosexuality was the only relationship within a society. Procreation could not occur thus homosexuality is unnatural. Now that doesn't mean we still don't accept homosexuals as friends and neighbors and still love them and help them as we would help others. I have several friends that are in gay and lesbian relationships and they are very dear friends: I may not find their relationship "normal" or "acceptable" but I still support them, love them, and help them when I can.
But don't compare your gay or lesbian relationship to a marriage accepted by my church and my god for thousands of years. It is not the same. But that is their goal to be called a "marriage" so they can say "SEE, SEE!! We are just like you!!". Sorry, that is NOT the case. You want a legal civil union I will support you 100%. You want to have your relationship labeled as a "marriage" I am 100% against that. You can have your civil union and that will give you ALL the benefits you describe and desire but that is not good enough. You want to go against the moral and christian definition of what has been historically known as "marriage" and make that historically labeled term insignificant.
Good for them! I think it is an insult to those that can't get married legally to have a bachelorette party there.
Bravo!
Probusiness, you are incorrect in this statement:
That was the rational used by defendants in the Loving v Virginia case. The law was that you had to marry in your same race (applied equally to white people and black people) yet was overturned based upon equal protection arguments by basically stating that it applied differently for mixed race couples as opposed to same race couples.
Pro,
do you really think everyone will stop having kids, if they make gay marriages legal? Really?
Sure if your Turtle can give consent. That is the point your silly argument misses. Marriage should be allowed between two consenting adults. I sure you don't want to be confused by the facts. P.S. I laso feel sorry for your turtle, that he has such a narrowed minded companion.
Gay relationships are routinely found in nature, ergo it is "natural".
Over 50% of the US approves of gay marriage, ergo it is "acceptable".
It may not be common, but it is normal to have some portion of the population gay. And lastly, your stupid hypothetical if gay relationships were the only ones in society makes zero sense. That isn't the case, and never will be. And secondly, then any infirtile couple should be denied the ability to marry. Logical failure on your part.
Pro,
so marriages have to be accepted by YOUR church? So Jews can't get married, Budists?
If the government didn't make marriage out to be big tax money, this wouldn't be an issue. Simply put, I don't see either side of the arguement.
Exactly. What kind of crap is the church teaching now? They believe that the earth has only been around for 6,000 years to begin with and dinosaurs were still eating you 5,000 years ago. Oh, no, I bet they were all living together in God's love until the gays showed up and ruined it all for them and the dinosaurs.
Jessica-1170252
Totally off topic, but I, as a Catholic, married a Muslim in the Catholic Church. Someone who has never even been baptized Christian. You do have to get "special permission" from the bishop called a Dispensation for a Disparity of Cult. It's really nothing more than a rubber stamp process, though. The big difference is that it's not a sacrament, but a rite.
That's one of those Catholic myths along the lines of "Catholics think they're the only ones who can go to heaven."
God told me he was cool with same sex marriage but can't get the various religious sects to believe him. Therefore, I'm forming my own religious sect that acknowledges and embraces same sex marriage. You can't stop me under the 1st amendment. Problem solved on the religious front. Now let's make things equal from the legal contract standpoint.
Sorry, but pretending that marriage is only a religious concept is ludicrous. Over a thousand rights and responsibilities from state and federal government come with the name tag 'marriage' Since that is true, then you don't get exclusive use of the word just because you believe it is within the confines of your religion. That fact of the matter is that a legal marriage requires a license from the government, not from your church. So your church shouldn't be allowed to define or control it for everyone. By all means, your church can refuse to provide the ceremony, but you don't get to have the final say in who can marry.
I'm not a legal person, but this doesn't make any sense to me. They aren't denying services to straight people that they are providing to homosexuals. Heterosexuals can still go to the bar, get drinks, etc., etc. The bar simply isn't going to host bachelorette parties for heterosexuals until they can host bachelorette/bachelor parties for homosexuals. In reality, by hosting the bachelorette parties they were providing a service to heterosexuals that they weren't providing to homosexuals.
In reality, the bar is doing just as you suggest - make their services for all customers, regardless of sexuality, the same.
Jessica and bonos rama: I agree with you. The problem is so many who think the morality of the masses should be legislated by the government. It should be that everyone who wishes to can have the benefits of a civil union through the state. If someone wishes to sanctify it as marriage, they can do so through their church as a separate act, a religious or spiritual one. The two things should be separate, as church and state should be separate, and that is constitutional. Some churches will not sanctify same-sex marriage and some will, but that is their constitutional right. All adults, heterosexual and homosexual, would have the same thing available to them: a civil union. Then anyone who belonged to a "church" that would sanctify it as a marriage could do that if they wished to. Many would not regardless of their orientation. I think this solution is most in keeping with the founding fathers' original intentions of keeping church and state separate.
I guess its his club and he can make any rules he wants, but he is going to have to accept the legal consequences of those rules too.
ProBusiness says...
Well, if the "ability to procreate" is the sole reason behind the religious acceptance of a man/woman union being called a "marriage", then what do you think about a man with a vasectomy marrying a woman? Acceptable? How about a man marrying a woman who, for whatever reason, had to have a hysterectomy? Acceptable?
And yet, by the laws in most states (well, maybe not some in the southern ones....lol), you cannot marry a girl under a certain age, even though the prospective couple could pop out babies at biblical levels!
It's funny....the ones who cite the Bible as the reason why marriage is strictly between a male and a female will fight to the death to say it is so, yet the Bible also preaches that slavery is acceptable, that women should be subservient to their husbands, no matter what, that a man can marry as many wives as he sees fit, that marriages to pubescent girls are acceptable, as long as they are capable of bearing children.
You can't pick and choose how society should feel about these ancient practices, based on biblical history and scripture. It's just like the interpretation of the Constitution....what may have been "right" 250 years ago, is not necessarily the way it should remain. Times change, interpretation of the Constitution should change with the times. Same with the ancient practices of the Israelites way back when. Some practices are just archaic to think about now. Times change!
Besides, ProBusiness.....it's not your concern to judge what God's plan is for anyone else but yourself. When Judgment Day gets here, we'll all have to answer for our transgressions, and He will judge us accordingly. I'll go out on a limb here, and say if a man shows compassion and love towards another man, that man will be judged more deserving of God's mercy than the man who kills innocent men in other countries, because he didn't agree with their religion or their way of government.
Live by the Golden Rule, ProBusiness!! You'll feel better, believe me!
Hi Pro, Because you put such an emphasis on getting facts straight, I'd like to site for you the Merriam Webster definition of "marriage":
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status iseffected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
I just wanted to point out that the lexicographic definition of marriage nowhere states that it is a religious ceremony, or even that it even has to hold its rites within religious affiliation. In fact, any reference to religion appears to be completely absent from the definition. Now there is a reference to "institution" but that could imply both religious and political/governmental institutions and our constitution states very clearly that church and government are separate and one should not have a greater influence over the other. I challenge you with your own argument: "Simply call it "wrong" because you THINK it is wrong but cannot explain why." You are calling something wrong (marriage between two people of the same sex) because you BELIEVE (which is basically another way of saying you think very passionately) it is wrong but can't explain why. Now, you say you can explain why because the you can cite Bible and it tells you that marriage between two people of the same sex is wrong, but what about all of the atheists out there? To them the Bible is nothing more than a fictive narrative that someone wrote to scare the masses into thoughtless compliance. Who's to say that you're right and they're wrong (other than your belief)?
So your argument is that marriage is intended for procreation because without procreation there would be no society, which is how you choose to validate your belief that marriage between same sex couples is wrong. Well, a dear friend of mine found out at age 18 that she is barren and will never be able to produce children. Based on your argument that marriage is solely meant for procreation, she no longer has any right to be married and should just accept that she has to live out the rest of her days as a spinster because any marriage between her and a man would be "unnatural" because they can't produce children.
I don't want to insult you or give you a hard time, but you made such a stink about the "liberals" of the thread being unwilling to debate the "facts" and the "truth", I feel like it's worth mentioning that maybe you could afford to do a little more homework before you post to make sure that YOUR facts are straight and before you start accusing someone else of making up arguments that are not based in fact because simply they're convenient to their side of the argument. Or at least admit that forums are meant for the exchange of opinion and, while it's much better all around to see those opinions based in fact, the truth is they are still opinions and subjective to the writer and we need to accept that from time to time we'll meet individuals whose opinions differ from ours and they have a right to be ignorant (as do we). We can either point fingers and scream "YOU"RE WRONG!!!!" until we're blue in the face, or we can try to exchange those opinions civilly and maybe learn something from each other in the process.
Has anyone really pointed out the discrimination inherent in this decision by this bar. . . .
Reverse it - and it becomes apparent. Bar A decides to ban homosexual males from its bar. The uproar would be tremendous.
California law REQUIRES that places which receive a state license for ANYTHING not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. This bar receives a liquor license to operate and serve liquor. It has a policy of banning heterosexual females from being able to enter its establishment to take advantage of the liquor license that has been issued by the state.
Thus - clearly illegal. It is not a private club. The morality of gay marriage is not at issue here. It is clear legal issue. And the bar will lose. As it should.
Not so sure marriages have been going on for millions of years. In any case... slavery was acceptable less than 150 years ago and interracial marriages were taboo until just a few decades ago. Sometimes change is good.
Is that a joke? I mean, seriously, at first I thought it was a joke and then it dawned on me that people in general are capable of saying ridiculous things based on a vacuum of information and a surplus of ignorance... this possibly being one of those things.
Do some reading on the Theodosian Code and how it pertained to homosexual marriage.
Emperor Nero is known to have married two different men; do an internet search for the name Elagabalus and Hierocles, Pythagoras and Sporas sometime in relation to gay marriage.
If it wasn't for Constantius and Constans running amuck under the banner of Christianity and executing all the participants in same sex marriages, it might still be a common practice today.
In China, same sex marriages were very common during the Song Dynasty ( if I recall correctly) as was polygamy wherein women where allowed to marry multiple MEN.
You want to know why the west HISTORICALLY has mostly NOT had same sex unions after about 300 AD??? BECAUSE CHRISTIANS MURDERED THEM ALL.
probus,
I say live and let live as well.
I have no issue with gay folk as long as they are not offensive; just as i have no issue with anyone unless they are offensive to me in some way.
You are 110% correct the liberal political gays have a HUGE AGENDA!
They want to INDOCTRINATE KIDS in public schools. To TEACH pre-puberty kids that two men married is equal to a man and woman marriage; that there is no difference in the two entities.
To use our public schools and LEGALLY be able to teach kids being gay is the same as being straight, to have no shame and be gay, you can marry a man, man and it is equal---pre puberty kids- our public schools!
Yet you cant pray. Or accordingly to a self serving liberal govt union public school teacher employee in NC telling her students that you cant criticize the president b/c it is illegal. Clearly liberals have an agenda and the in the bag for kickbacks and govt handouts crowd as saul alinski stated the ends justify the means no matter what the means are.
Liberal's have been using indoctrination techniques in public schools and colleges that are supported by unions and gov. employees for SELF SERVING reasons that are BLATANTLY obvious to anyone with an iq above 110. I recall having teachers use grading as a weapon if you dared to cross their biased political opinions.
King Solomon had 900 wives. Try again.
You don't seem to recognize that humans have not even existed for 1 million years. Homosexual or bisexual behavior is found in approximately1500 species on this planet. Homophobia is found in one. Who is unnatural now?
Single folks should have the same rights as married folks anyway.
Why should singles have to pay more taxes than married folks when they use LESS govt services?
Everyone single or married should be treated equally by govt.
And this interracial marriage argument is a LOSER!!!!!!
Race(the color of your skin) is not the same as SEX(your private fun place- ie they are definitely different).
Now, imagine an "openly" straight establishment publicly banning gay-friendly get togethers. You'd have people charging discrimination, cries for boycots, a lot of politicians and celebs pandering and posturing. The best way to persuade people to change their views is show kindness, not to be nasty.
Too many of you are confusing "natural" with "normal". They are not the same. Cancer can occur naturally but isn't normal. Down Syndrome occurs naturally. It isn't normal. Being deathly allergic to peanuts is natural, but again, not normal. Homosexuality occurs naturally. It definitely is NOT normal. It is not something to celebrate or be proud of. It's not a gift. It's an aberration. It just happens, that's all.
ComancheDriver,
Did you even read the article or just fail to grasp it. They still allow anyone in the bar, they are merely no longer hosting bachelorette parties.
Morality is a funny thing. A double edged sword is you will. I always thought marriage was about 2 people who love each other committing themselves to each other. But, to a lot of people hate seems to be a more powerful attribute than love. One would think that with all the troubles the world is facing that allowing two people who love each other to marry would be the least of their worries. But, since they seem to think that they speak for their god, I just wonder how many of them have had sex outside of marriage. I'd be willing to bet that it is between 95-99.99% of them. So much for following the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" theory. It's more like "do as I say, not as I do." I think that is somewhere in the good book.
Morality is a funny thing. A double edged sword is you will. I always thought marriage was about 2 people who love each other committing themselves to each other. But, to a lot of people hate seems to be a more powerful attribute than love. One would think that with all the troubles the world is facing that allowing two people who love each other to marry would be the least of their worries. But, since they seem to think that they speak for their god, I just wonder how many of them have had sex outside of marriage. I'd be willing to bet that it is between 95-99.99% of them. So much for following the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" theory. It's more like "do as I say, not as I do." I think that is somewhere in the good book.
first, I've been to the Abbey many times and let me tell you, they DO NOT need revenue from ladies and their pre-wedding boozefests. the Abbey is LOADED with patrons because it's in the heart of West Hollywood which is primarily a gay community, it sports several long bars, sexy waiters and waitresses, half naked men dancing on tables and loud music bumping.
second, i think it's hypocritical for them to discriminate while asking others not to discriminate. it's like my mom always said "two wrongs don't make a right".
LOL, what a mess. Guys want to be girls, girls want to be guys, and girls that want guys are shunned. I won't be a patron wherever those kinds of things are happening, anyways. It is laughable though...can't we just all get along? LOL.
On the contrary Hambone... did you read the article.... The bar is no longer holding these party's for heterosexual females... and thus blatantly discriminating against them based solely on their sexual preference. I'm afraid Commanche is correct....The bar will have to lay claim to the legal repercussions of their decision!
So no one will have an issue when another business refuses to allow their facilities to be used for a gay persons birthday party? Right!
To say that something is natural because it is found in nature is incorrect...there are mutations in every species - some live some don't...comparing humans to animals is also a silly argument...that is like saying a chimp has the ability to drive so we should give them a license...think before you type.
No, they can't host these parties for homosexuals because gay marriage is illegal in California currently, so there is no equivalent party for homosexuals at this time (hopefully that will change in the future). So, they are ensuring that the services they offer are the same for all their clientele. Offering different services to different clientele is discrimination - they are opting to NOT discriminate by offering the same services for all of their clientele. According to the article, when gay marriage is legal in California, they will begin offering hosting these parties again - because at that point, they will be able to offer the same hosting services to all of their clientele.
As long as they don't allow their facilities to be used for any birthday parties, I would have no problem with this.
Actually... that's discrimination by the bar's owner based on sexual orientation, and makes them liable to legal action. No different than if any bar said it won't allow homosexuals or Asians or Blacks or whatever.
Don't you know disssscrimination is againssst the law, ssssilly? :D
Khalid: How is making their services the same for all clientele discrimination? That is what this ban accomplishes - making the services the same for all clientele. If they were making services available for homosexuals that they were banning for heterosexuals, that would be discrimination. But, they aren't doing that. They are making their services be the same for all clientele.
It's very simple, clear as crystal. Can gays have bachelorette parties at this bar? No, they can not. Can straights have bachelorette parties at this bar? No, they can not. Ergo it's not discrimination. To argue otherwise is silly.
The difference is in the wording of how he established his "ban". The same effect could have been achieved in a very different and legal way, however as stated above when he singles out "straight females" in the wording, he crossed a line that is protect by law. It's a bad choice of words based on his hurt feelings as a gay man. And should anyone bring this up under the law... he will in fact be found guilty of discrimination and he will have to change the wording of his decision as it is clearly discrimination based on sexual orientation!
Pro! this is the same god who said murder was not to be tolorated but then if he told someone to kill someone it was automatically alright because "it was the will of god". There is a contridiction everywhere in the bible.
From the new book in the bible that appears just before the Book of Revelations entitled BOOK OF TESTING: "The Lord our GOD appeared at once before all the churches of the world and declared to the masses 'My children, I had previously declared that you should be fruitful and multiply. This you have done, beyond my expectations. By now I had expected you to use the knowledge that you gained through from the Tree of Knowledge to expend your colonies to other planets. Instead, you have spent much effort developing weapons of war. The Earth is now at a critical point. To give you the opportunity correct this sinful obsession and survive well into the future, the population of Earth needs to be reduced naturally. Therefore, my children, hear my command, for the next 40 years abide my new commandment: THOU SHALT NOT LIE WITH A WOMAN AS A MAN! IT IS AN ABOMINATION!"
Having heard the world of the Lord, I'm quite sure that all we immediately leave their spouse and find a person of the same sex to love and marry.
I'm not sure wether to laugh or to insult you with one of my clever anti religious puns. So I think I'll laugh and save myself from the endless amount of pain a women can put a guy through.
Actually, you have hit upon the solution. It requires (gasp) a bit of compromise on both sides. (I do realize that compromise is a dirty word these days.)
In many European countries, it already IS this way. The LEGAL "marriage" is performed as a civil ceremony. THEN, if the couple wants to get married in the church too, that's fine and up to them. But the church service alone is not a legal marriage.
Making it the same way here would solve the problem. The civil ceremony confers the benefits -- and no church or other religious institution would be required to sanctify a marriage if it conflicts with their beliefs.
I just don't understand how this is still an issue. From the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." This very line seems clear that the brave men and women that threw off British tyranny of the time for freedom. Freedom, have we already forgotten what it means? What a short memory we have as a country.
Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail, freedom to love and unfortunately, freedom to hate. Ultimately, your freedoms should not be infringed upon because "I don't like what you do"... That is the very reason to guarantee freedom. If a government or its constituents can limit the freedom of others because, "we don't like what you do" then where does it end?
Put another way, protecting the freedom of the minority even if you disagree is still to protect your own freedom. One day, you as a group may find yourself in the minority on some issue only to have your freedom taken from you. I submit to you that both liberals and conservatives can agree that freedom is what our country stands for.
So, gay marriage might not be for you, but really, really, does it impact your ability to lead a "free" happy, rewarding life. If so, you simply worry too much about what others are doing and enough about what you can do in your own life. Live your life, let gays and lesbians live theirs and in 50 years, let the comedians have fun with how backwards we were.
Why thank you Steve ... but you do sound just the teeniest bit jealous!
Steve, we don't have to LOOK smart, we really are. At least those of us who comment on the topic and don't merely attack other posters.
I hope a bunch of straight women sue them for discrimination!!!
That is exactly what will happen, then this jack ass will change his mind......especially when his insurance company tells him thay won't defend the suit as it is an intentional act.
Discrimination!!! ??? God forbid, you might be getting the message he's trying to convey!
The women aren't the reason gay marriage is illegal. That's the problem with America... people keep aiming for the wrong target. But, hey, go ahead... Keep voting in dumb and dumber and hope that someday that whole Republican/Democrat thing works out for you.
No chance of that happening. Gay bars always post that are alternative lifestyle businesses and that they reserve the right to disallow entrance to non members of that community. I've heard LGBTQ friends say that nowadays gays can't get into their bars sometimes because of the large numbers of straights who take them over on the weekends.
Yea, because denying homosexuals the right to marry isn't discrimination either. *eyeroll*
I support gay marriage, I always have, but this is clearly discrimination against straight people.
wait until he faces eviction for no income, they will change their minds in two weeks
OH YEAH...I can just see the commericals for this now...LOL...:-}
Clubs and bars can let in who they please. You act like this is something new. It's not.
@ Ruken...so a bar can say 'you can't come in b/c you are black? or white? or Muslim? or Christian? or gay? They can't. It's discrimination.
Ashley, They are not keeping these ladies from coming in or being served, they just cannot celebrate their nuptials there.
I personally think it's a bad idea. These ladies are not the ones denying you rights. If your other customers are upset by these parties (which many may very well be, and justifiably) then maybe limit bachelorette parties to one or two nights a week. That way people who don't want to feel crappy about the discrimination they face can avoid these events.
Unless its a membership required, private club, they cannot discriminate against any customer. They can refuse service based on a number of situations but you might have trouble convincing a court that sexual orientation is a legal reason to refuse service, regardless of the what the sign at the door says. With this particular club, I'm guessing they can stop making special accommodations for bachelorette parties but they would have a hard time refusing service to half a dozen women just showing up at the door.
It might be good for straight people to be on the other end of the discrimination.
Might wake them up.
@EngEsq...I had not thought of it that way. They are not denying service, just the party. Good point.
IT would be discrimination if a Gay person could hold a bachelor party there... but they can't because they can't getting married. They're just not hosting those sorts of parties anymore because it isn't fair to ALL of their customers. They aren't denying entrance, they're just not hosting.
It'd be like suing a vegetarian restaurant because you want to eat meat there.
"Yea, because denying homosexuals the right to marry isn't discrimination either. *eyeroll*"
Why eyeroll? Are the women who come to the bar causing the discrimination? Most likely they are not, an assumption based on the fact they are going to a gay bar to have a good time. Your logic is based on collective punishment. It's been used to justify a lot of bad decisions over the years.
If you want to change closed mindedness and discrimination, perhaps the way to do it is not with closed mindedness and discrimination. All heterosexuals are not trying to discriminate against gays. Many have a live and let live attitude. The way to further this cause is to get more to share that POV not by discriminating against people who support you.
John - I doubt you are gay, but I am...and not all straight people (especially men) who go to gay bars are cool with gay people. Lots of time women go to gay bars because they dont like being harrassed at the straight bars...lots of time straight men go to gay bars because they know straight women are there.
When they start to exceed the # of gay people at the bar, it really really sucks.
But, thats life...and as a lesbian who has seen gay men invade and take over lesbian bars (and girls nights) it's really no different, that feeling of "I dont get anything to myself, gay men and hetero's get everything".
again, thats life.
As for denying people entrance - you might not be able to outright deny someone based on gender, but you can based on "appearance". Lots of clubs have expectations of how you should look. If i show up at a really nice club in jeans and a tshirt, im not getting in.
This bar owner could easily make up any reason he wants "they dont look slutty enough"...I dont know, it really doesnt matter.
As for gays not being able to have Bach partys. BS - marriage might not be legal, but we are still having weddings and still having parties...you cant stop the hearts of people. Though no doubt, angry evil christians try relentless every single day to pass laws that limit OUR FREEDOM while crying about their's being trampled all over.
it's gross and embarrassing on their part. not shocking though, hypocrisy is their finest virtue.
Booking a party in a bar or establishment is NOT a right. No one is denying them access into the bar.
Finding love, no matter with who (in some cases what :P) it's with, is a treasured thing.
First, the bar isn't denying services to anyone based on their sexuality. They're just no longer going to venture into the business of bachelorette parties.
If any other bar you know, said, "Well, we're not gonna do ladies night, anymore" would anyone consider it discrimination? No, because they're not saying we're not going to SERVE ladies.
They'd be discriminating if they said, "We won't serve straight people". But that's not what's happening. They're not denying service, they're stopping one area of their business plan. Which, BY THE WAY, was only applicable to ONE portion of their clientele.
Nothing like cutting off one's nose to spite their face. One of the more laughable business decisions I've heard of.
Ruken said....
"Yea, because denying homosexuals the right to marry isn't discrimination either. *eyeroll*"
No Ruken it isn't...until such time that Gay marriage is defined and adhered to by LAW...which will guarantee your rights under the 14th amendment to equal treatment under the LAW.... it most definately is not discrimination as defined by the LAW.
Who did you hear this from?
I see many opinions expressed all accusing each other of discriminations, or impeding on their liberties.
Even within the gay community you have some that feel they should have their own clubs, and that is great have your own PRIVATE clubb, members only type. Quit pissing on everyone else for your issues.
If every business start using this type of logic, it would be a giant step back for America and all Americans.
think about it.
If every business took a stand for equality...that would be a step back?
This club doesn't want to discriminate against gays by offering services to straights that gays can't have. Of course their goal is to add pressure to get the repressive, discriminatory, religiously bigoted laws changed....but that only validates their point....this country currently tolerates legalized discrimination.
Any business, or individual that stands up against this blatant inequality...is moving our country forward. We are already far behind almost every other industrialized nation in this and many other areas. It's embarrassing being the most backward nation in the group, still struggling with legacies of superstitions and dogma that other countries overcame long ago.
One way to resolve this would be to make all "unions" legal for all "partners" and leave the title of "married" up to your church or religious organization. The government should only have a role in extending rights in a "union" in order for true separation of church and state. This issue has become way too political.
My marriage was licensed by the state, performed by a state authorized representative who said "...by the power vested in me by the State of ____— I now pronounce you man and wife" and was then registered with the state.
Religion would like to claim they "own" marriage...but they have nothing to do with it. They are an optional accessory...nothing more.
If religion can't stop being bigots, then they can find a new word to describe their special bigoted unions....but I'm married, without any religion involved, and more than happy to share that word and all of it's meanings with any consenting adult couple who wants it.
ok, kids...here it is again...this is from a Merriam Webster on-line dictionary, but I am sure no matter where you look it up it says pretty much the same thing....
So ya see, it is only religious if you make it that way...
Panther be right. (for once)
I smell hypocrisy.
White Judge...you hurt me...:(
I am in full support of the ban, this is not descrimination so stop crying because these clubs take away the nice gesture they offered prior to people not standing up for them in enough numbers. I love how when straight people get denied one little thing they scream to high heaven, yet fail to realize we have never had the same treatment and we were much more calm and rational and only asked to be recognized by the state.
Seems fair enough to me.
agreed. don't most bars have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?
Sure they do, but this is just one more example of how the gays don't want to practice what they preach when it comes to "rights".
I agree that they can do whatever they want, but if a straight bar even spoke about banning anything with the word "gay" in it, they'd be protesting outside every vendor that supplies the said bar.
This is exactly why so many people are tired of listening to these people whine in front of Target or Walmart or wherever they want to protest. Poor me, poor poor me.
Kayner,
They're not "banning" anything. They are no longer hosting bachelorette parties.
Let me make this simple for you Hambone... Since you obviously are making the article out to suit your opinion... THIS IS WHAT IT SAYS WORD FOR WORD!
and i quote directly from the above article..
"Until marriage is legal for everyone, straight women can no longer celebrate their pending nuptials at his club."
Now to make it easy for you I have made bold the pertinent part that you need to pay special attention to. If you can say that it is not blatant discrimination based on sexual preference then you must be..
1) Illiterate
or
2) Ignorant
JustanotherVeteran:
You need to consider what discrimination actually means. Discrimination is treating a person or group of persons unjustly or with preferential behavior based on a real or perceived difference.
With that out of the way, now you need to consider what this bar owners new policy actually does. What it does is ensure that all of his clientele are offered the same services. In other words, his new policy is to treat ALL clientele equally. Treating people equally does NOT qualify as discrimination.
FFS... it's not the idea he has that I disagree with.... it's the way in which he words the implimentation of his policy. The way it is stated is clearly discrimination as defined by the law. Unfortunately this is a legalistic society we live in... and any back alley lawyer can and will have a field day with this. It is not the idea that will open him up for legal action to be taken against his establishment... it is the way in which it is worded. He needs to fast and in a hurry...change the wording of his policy or he will be open for reprisal and under the way the laws are written... HE WILL LOOSE!
No...the way it is stated is that they will no longer be giving preferential treatment to one group just because of their sexual orientation. If they provided that service for gays, but refused it to straights, then it would be discrimination. He is correcting the discrimination that they've practiced up til now.
It means they will no longer allow straight women to have bachelorette parties, NOT that they cannot come in and drink and/or party with everyone else.
The homophbes don't want gays to do ANYTHING anywhere...there's a difference..
I agree with Alexander Villalobos.
Except that a bachelorette party isn't a right. In essence, the club is saying that they will ensure that the services they provide are the same for all their clientele. Until gay marriage is legal in California, there really can't be bachelor or bachelorette parties for homosexuals. So, they are opting out of providing that service until they can provide the service to all of their clientele.
but they are going to lose business..
their BUSINESS MOTTO should be - I don't care if you are gay or straight, I will be GAY (happy) as long as I can make STRAIGHT money out of ALL of you.
Capitalism is inclusive.
Less to do with capitalism and more about a 'mob' monopoly on inequality.
It's not a very smart approach. My guess is the straight folks going to a gay bar aren't the ones you need to convince. In fact, the religious folks who so up in arms about gay marriage are probably tickled pink by his decision. It hurts his business and furthers their goals.
capitalism can be a cure - capitalism only focuses on profits, not gay or straight divide - this aspect of capitalism can heal this divide. The gay bar should take advantage of this and open to all and make a statement, instead of shutting straight customers out.
They're not saying they can't come in. They're just saying they wont host parties.
After reading the article what I got is that there is no problem with letting straights into the bar. The problem is having straight women take over the place to have bachelorette parties celebrating an event that neither the bar owner nor his gay patrons can legally enjoy.Stick to the facts and stop inventing ones that have no anchor in the truth.
'My guess is the straight folks going to a gay bar aren't the ones you need to convince.'
@SKUP
good point. sooo true! i guarantee the people against gay anything ARE NOT at this bar!! they are punishing the wrong people
Treat others the way you want to be treated -
Forgetting the golden rule?
christians certainly are...gays are heathens, they have no golden rule to follow. DUH.
Whoever has the gold makes the rules? Am I right? Maybe the bar owner is already wealthy enough, he's prepared to start making a few pointed rules.
If this were a "straight" bar and a group of gay people wanted to celebrate an event at the establishment and were denied based on their sexual orientation it would be considered discrimination and there would be a major outcry by the gay and lesbian community and a lawsuit filed by the ACLU!! This is just another case of bias by the media and the organizations who are supposedly standing up for ALL people's rights!
Char - what rights are straight people denied based on their sexual orientation? I can't think of an example where your outrage would be justified...that's the point.
headstrong1975 - Some folks just can't stand having their own discrimination thrown back in their face. It hits to close to home...
Well, the one thing I can think of right of the top of my head is straight people are denied celebrations at this gay bar due to their sexual orientation......lol
headstrong1975,
First off, I don't see outrage in Char's comment & secondly, you apparently can't see the forest for the trees if you don't see this as discrimination against heterosexuals. Another example might be the gay softball league that had problems with players on one of the teams being bi-sexual rather than full up gay. Frankly, I don't see why women would want to have their bachlorette parties at a gay joint, unless they just want to see naked men dancing around without the chance of sex.
Why do you think that gay people started gay bars? Because straights wouldn't let them come into their establishments and be themselves. It seems that the gay bars are at least open to letting straights into their establishments and be themselves.
I think we are all missing the point here. A lot of the customers of this bar are probably very upset by bachlorette parties because it is a stark reminder of the rights they are denied. This ban is not that women cannot come to the bar, just they cannot celebrate their upcoming weddings.
It is like whenever you have disruptive customers who deeply offend your other customers. You ask them to cut it out, or leave the establishment. I suggest they set up designated days for these parties, so that people who are upset by it can avoid those nights.
Funny, lisa, but that is not a right! :) FXSTC, if I cannot "see the forest for the trees...", how can you not see the homosexual couple's pain each time a screeching bachelorette party comes in celebrating their upcoming marriage when the gay couples are denied this exact same cause for celebration? How many other bars are available for the bachelorette party to get drunk? Do they need to do it somewhere it causes actual pain? I guess if it was me, I'd have considered that and not partied there in the first place. And what does it say about straight marriage that our goal for a bachelorette party is to go watch male (probably gay) go go dancers anyways? That seems ironic...
Of course it's discimination against hetero's - THATS THE POINT.
I honestly dont think this bar WANTS to do this, but they feel compelled to make a point politically about the unfairness.
and naturally, the dense hetero's cant see the forest for the tree's.
"its wrong that gays discriminate against hetero's...but when we do it, well, it's just how we feel - sorry, our god says your wrong, so naturally we legislate how we feel - suck it gays".
yep, that DOES some up reality.
ROTFLMAO!!!
I don't see it as discrimination against heterosexuals at all. Think about it like this - until gay marriage is legal, there is really no such thing as bachelorette or bachelor parties for homosexuals. This club is simply ensuring that the services are the same for all of their clientele.
A small business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. So, too bad 'straight girls' it's back to Chip n Dale's for you Bear Party hookers.
Green is green no matter whose pocket it comes from! I hope he looses business. If his other customers don't like it - they can always leave.
I agree. I think it's a bad business move and of course his decision was not based on the almight dollar.
His 'other customers' (i.e. the homosexual ones) are the reason the bar is there. It would only make sense for him to cater to his primary clientele.
I thought you all were so incredibly open-minded!
What happened to the no bullying rule and so forth!
Wow - really stepped up to the plate and you all end up doing the very same thing you complained against society about.
Listen - real, natural breasts are something you'll never have had at birth.
Accept it.
You are not "flaunting" anything - but committing discrimination which is a hate crime.
I guess you all forgot what hate crimes are.
No they are not flaunting, pay attention. The owner of the bar feels like it is insulting to his customers to have people in the bar (the batchelorette party people) FLAUNTING the bride's upcoming nuptials in front of his customers who are denied the same celebrations so UNTIL there is marriage equality, he is no longer going to host these batchelorette parties in his establishment. Do you understand now? Was it really so difficult?
Mackie: How is ensuring that they are providing the same services for all of their clientele discrimination?
This is the definition of discrimination: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
So, again, how is providing the same services for ALL their clientele unjust or prejudicial? Remember, they aren't banning heterosexuals from their bar, they simply ensuring that the services available to their homosexual clientele is the same as the services available to their heterosexual clientele.
America may no longer be #1 in economics or education, but it is definitely #1 in thinking that the crotch is the center of the universe.
So two things here. A: Most straight guys don't like to rub up against other guys, so good chance the ones at that club are GAY. B: Will the girls be as interested knowing they're fantasy is a complete SHAM since they now KNOW for certain the dancer wouldn't be interested in them anyway? In the article it he states basically that they can't have "gay bachlorette" parties, and he's turning away potential customers and souring them on his club in more ways than one. So both ways he's losing money. Pretty dumb!
Hope that gay pride is paying the bills dude!
Uhm. Women don't think that the men in strip clubs are interested in them. I would think that women that choose to go to a gay male strip bar are even more cognizant of that fact. I am amused though, thinking about the bridegroom being thrilled that the batchelorette party was in a gay bar because then he wouldn't have to worry about her hooking up with anyone there (like he probably did at his batchelor party (although if he thought the stripper was 'interested' in anything other than his money, he's a fool)). I think that the women that would be likely to have their party there will support his position on the subject. I don't think they will be offended by it at all but will see the logic behind his decision and agree that marriage inequality is what is unfair, not the fact that they can't have their party where they wanted to initially.
- two wrongs don't come to a right
It's wrong not to legalize gay marriages, but is this the right move?
How is this different from an act of civil disobedience on any other issue? The guy is just speaking as a business instead of an individual. Besides, businesses are people too, right SCOTUS? Or is that only when they're
contributing to the campaigns ofbuying government officials, not when they're protesting against them?Straight folk need to get over it. If they want to have parties here again, start lobbying to let the gays get married so they can have the same parties. He's already said he'll host them again when everyone can have them. What's the problem?
Straight folk dont need to get over sh*t!!! A small business owner can make decisions for his business the way he feels. This decision just so happened to affect heterosexual women...so who cares. I do have a question, if it has already be pitched sorry, what if it were 'straight' men who wanted to go to the same bar to do the bachelor party thing....hmmmm, maybe things would have been different.
Typical one-way liberal intolerant "tolerance." If it was the other way around, they would be crying foul to the ACLU. Hypocrits read Levitius 20:13 and Romans 1:24-27
Problem is there is no "other way around". So you really have no idea what you are talking about.
The other way around. You mean a hetero strip club refusing to host lesbian batchelorette parties? Why don't we cross that bridge when we get there (although I admit the mental picture is amusing as all get out, can you just see the men's faces?).
To put an even finer point on it, the other way around would be if a state law bans straight men from having bachelor parties at strip clubs (but not lesbians) and thus the strip club owner bans all wedding parties (including those for lesbians) until everyone can have one.
Enough-2715007, I don't think we should hold our breath for that one :)
Oh I know. The ban would have to be on all pre-wedding parties for the situation to be the same. And no, won't be holding my breath for that one...
i see lawsuit! i can't tell them not to have any parties at my resteraunt or bar,but it is ok for this place to discriminate against STRAIGHT parties. how do we draw these lines? -----____------////\\\\\\\? for real you can't be serious and try to get everyone on your side and then make a discriminating fight against the other side. you want to be an equal then treat ALL as equal.
Joel Vandevoorde: Why would there be a lawsuit over a bar that ensuring that their services are the same to all of their clientele? They can't host bachelorette or bachelor parties for homosexuals because, until gay marriage is legal, there is no such thing as a bachelorette or bachelor party for homosexuals. So, by no longer hosting these parties for heterosexuals, they are ensuring their services are the same for all clientele.
Hate to yell for a lawyer, but in this case "Suyo asoph"! Let's reverse the situation - a normal bar bans gay parties - how long would it take for the ACLU, Gay Pride and every other such organization to be out front picketing, filing suits and generally messing their diapers? Equal rights, baby! If bosom buddies can do it, so can good guys!
That's why gays have their own establishments idiot so they don't need to go and take over straight bars. Straights should show the same courtesy. I'm sure that they guy isn't against the straights coming but why let them celebrate an occasion that the bar owner and his regular customers themselves can't legally celebrate? That's like building a house and not being allowed to live in it.
WychDoctor, if the bar allows straight parties, but bans gay parties you bet they would sue.
If the establishment bans all parties (gay or straight) there is no discrimination and no lawsuit. See the difference?
Here the ban is essentially for all wedding parties. Once gay people can marry the ban lifts for everyone.
There is no way anyone would be able to win a lawsuit over this - the owner could simply say that bachelorette parties get too wild and interfere with his regular business customers, and his insurance rates would/will go up. End of story.
I think this guy has made his point and gotten the media coverage he wanted. He will be back to business as usual, and bachelorette parties will think twice about going to his bar. Win win.
Controversial, however, no court in the land would side with the owner. It's considered a ban based on sex ... a form of discrimination.
Thonkin, the owner has a very reasonable argument that it is a ban on any wedding party, gay straight, female or male. No discrimination.
It's your business. If you think you can still make enough money, then no one else should be able to tell you otherwise. If anybody sues over this, they are pathetic.
I have found that most gay men hate (misgynist) women, are jealous of women, yet often act like women. I do my best to avoid them. They obviously have a problem. I have heard comments like, "I'm better than a woman, or I'm more of a woman than a real woman." Who wants to be around that?
Ah yes, let's just label them all.
They? I would beg to differ.
With ignorance and just plain stupidity like yours it's probably best that you do avoid them to keep from getting your feelings hurt.
claire,
balony.
Goodness gracious...you must live in Kansas or some other "middle" state to say something so outrageously ignorant.
Claire you are dead a$$ed wrong and quite hateful in your comments. I have RARELY heard any of the attitude you described in my 53 years being a gay man. My dearest and most trusted friends, Mary, Barbara and Carrie are all straight women. I was a Bridesman in Carrie's wedding.
My bet is the attitude you've experienced is due to the attitude you are putting out there.
Betty, May I be your friend? I think I love you! HUGS!
Yeah, I've never met a gay man like Claire Simard is describing.
"Hey guys we can get married but you can't nya nya now serve us a beer".
Exactly. If nothing else, perhaps this article will make people think a little bit about what they are doing. It probably wouldn't have crossed my mind how insensitive it would be to have a bachelorette party in a gay bar, just "Hey the guys are hot, we won't get hit on and there will be Dancing! Whoo Hoo, I'm in!" I'm horrified that I would never have given a thought to the effect it would have on the other clientele, and I'm ashamed of that.
Enough, thank you. I never made an issue when batchlorette parties came in but it does hurt knowing that straight people can openly build a life with the partner they love without fear of screwing up that person's life should something happen and the "in-laws" including second cousins have the RIGHT to come in and demand you pay half the current value of the house you bought together or that you can easily lose your home in old age because there are no survivor benefits for gay couples. I generally just quietly finished my drink, gathered my friends and left.
Most straight women who frequent a gay bar regularly to avoid being mauled by bone head straight guys who don't take NO for and answer or because the music is great will understand and not be offended at all. The "outrage" on these posts are from people who wouldn't go within 100 yards of a gay bar but believe, "How dare those Gays stand up to our superior, healthy, divine standing!" We truely value our straight supporters, again, thank you for your support!
For all of you saying discrimination. The owner is NOT prohibiting straight folks from coming to his bar. JUST having a particular type of party.
Any business owner is should be entitled to say what goes on, or does not go on, in his business ... as long as all are treated equally. I'm SURE I've heard the extreme right push for this over and over. The business should be able to do what it wants.
Now, since there is NO gay marriage, then it's impossible for his gay clients to have a bachelor (or bachelorette party). He's just making things EVEN.
Unfortunately, in making his point, he'll probably lose some money.
Finally someone else who gets it. Well stated.
Good post, but I don't think that he'll lose any money over this. It just means that there'll be more room in his club for his gay patrons. Also I don't think that the bachelorettes will have a problem with it. They can still come in and party but just not make it an official bachelorette party.
There is a defined difference between state legislation not allowing gay marriage, and a business who has a full or partial ban based on sex. Both instances can be interpreted as discrimination, however legally, I would not want to be the business owner imposing this ban. Regardless of the reason by the owner, the end result is clearly discrimination.
He doesn't not have a ban based on sex. He has a ban based on the type of party. Wedding parties. It is not discrimination at all. It's the same as saying 'we don't allow children's birthday parties', I doubt anyone would call that discrimination.
Bigots!
Which ones, the ones denying gays the right to marry or the ones posting here?
And who is denying gay males the right to marry? They have the right to marry any eligible woman they choose--and who chooses them--just like every other adult male American.
What they are seeking is some special privilege not enjoyed by other Americans. They can't have it. Boo hoo.
Nungman: A homosexual is not free to marry the consenting adult of their choosing - but, we heterosexuals are free to marry the consenting adult of our choosing. They aren't asking for a special privilege, they are asking to have the same privilege we have.
The emperor Claudius, full of years and lechery, first married his seductive niece Agrippina then proposed to the Senate that all uncles should henceforth be free to marry their nieces though this had been forbidden as incest.
Societies always have placed strictures on who may marry who. You can't marry someone who is your sibling, your parent, your aunt or uncle, your niece or nephew no matter how much you love each other. You can't marry someone who is already married, who is insane or mentally incompetent--their "consent" is not effective.
It has been found that incestuous relationships are often rooted in abuse. Abuse negates consent also.
There are lots of mature men all over the Midwest who would love to meet you, Summer. Hope you find someone nice.
Nungman, I guess when you can't debate, you opt to make meaningless remarks in an attempt to be insulting.
Much ado about nothing. Leagilize everything! Be fully pro-choice.
I love banging chicks so this doesn't bother me at all
Whoa!! If the roles were reversed .. a 'straight' bar refusing to serve gays, wouldn't that be illegal? Once again there is a bias.
They're not refusing to serve straights, they're refusing to host a type of party for ANY sexual orientation. Once gay marriage is legalized, the ban will be lifted FOR EVERYONE. It's completely fair.
Allielcea has it exactly right. The bar owner can refuse to allow all pre-nuptual parties at his/her establishment. And can decide to allow them whenever he/she feels appropriate.
I totally agree with this guy. I don't think the Government, the church or any other organization should have any say whatsoever when it comes to marriage rights. As far as suing, well every establishment has the right to refuse service to whoever they please, why would this be any different?
What a bigot, these homos complain about fairness and look at this gay jackass, go back in your closets we dont want you anyways im sure your father is very proud of you
Hypocrisy overload!
Is this projection or what?
If I were his father, I'd be extremely proud! ... and I'm as straight as they come.