Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Latest "Separate But Equal."

This insanity comes from our Aussie cousins, but I can easily see such shenanigans happening here:

(All bold type mine.)

MELBOURNE (Reuters) - An Australian hotel catering for homosexuals has won the right to ban heterosexuals from its bars so as to provide a safe and comfortable venue for gay men.

In what is believed to be a first for Australia, the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled last week that the Peel Hotel in the southern city of Melbourne could exclude patrons based on their sexuality.

Isn't this reverse discrimination?

Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent people being discriminated against based on race, religion or sexuality.

But aren't they banning folks on the basis of their 'straight' sexuality? How is that NOT discriminatory?

But Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely said th
e ruling was necessary to provide gay men with a non-threatening atmosphere to freely express their sexuality.

"If I can limit the number of heterosexuals enteri
ng the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," Peel told Australian radio on Monday.

McFeely said that, while the hotel welcomed everyone, its gay clientele had expressed discomfort over the number of heterosexuals and lesbians coming to the venue in the past year.

So lesbians aren't the right sort, either? Will they be suing? They are just as homosexual as the men, right?

He said there were more than 2,000 venues in Melbourne that catered to heterosexuals, but his hotel was the only one marketing itself predominantly to gay men.

I find this very difficult to believe.

Victoria's state human rights commission backed the ruling, saying it was in line with equal opportunity guidelines defending the rights of groups subject to discrimination.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. It's illegal to discriminate unless the court says you can? They are excluding everyone but gay men here!

Commission chief Helen Szoke said the hotel's gay clientele had experienced harassment and violence.

"(They) also have felt as though they've been like a zoo exhibit with big groups of women on hens' parties coming to the club," Szoke told reporters.

What's with that little bit of slander? These guys would FREAK if you called them a bunch of 'faggots,' but it's alright for them to call a bunch of women 'hens?'

McFeely told the radio that the hotel had received homophobic telephone calls since news of the ruling was made public.

Uh-huh. What's more likely is that everyone who isn't a gay man is pissed, and not afraid to say so. Of course, that makes you 'homophobic.'

Can you even imagine if the court had ruled that, in order to create a 'safe environment' for straights, that no gays would be allowed in Bar X?

Suffice it to say that the fecal matter would be hitting the fan...

Oh, by the way, 'gay community' in Australia... If you want to talk about homosexuals truly feeling uncomfortable, perhaps you should ask people like Amir, who was lashed 100 times (and lucky not to be hanged) for daring to be gay in a Mulsim country.

I'm just sayin'.

No comments: