28 May 2007

Rights & Wrongs

A pub in Melbourne has won the right to refuse entry to heterosexuals. It claims that raucous stag nights and hen parties were making life difficult for its homosexual regulars.

Now, I don't know about you, but this seems like yet another case of double standards and special treatment for minority groups. And don't think it couldn't and won't happen here - You only need to look at how homosexual interests trumped all others in the Sexual Orientation Regulations earlier this year.

Personally, I would have no desire to visit a gay pub, though have no problem in going to a pub with gay friends. However, my fear is that decisions such as this latest in Australia will ultimately undermine the West's commitment to and defence of equality for all. Am I wrong to be concerned about the current direction of the rights movement?

4 comments:

Snuffleupagus said...

I find this extraordinary. Seems to me that they should just ban stag and hen nights. And how are they meant to enforce this? Can straight people not just pretend to be gay? It is absurd. I am not sure it is worrying though. Do you really care about whether or not you can get into this bar?

nauticaloz said...

The really frightening thing here is that there are none so intolerent as those who preach 'toleration'

The Blunderer said...

Personally I'd like to open a club for heterosexual, able-bodied, non-smoking white men over the age of 25 with degree level education and above average income - I just don't seem to fit in with the Tory Party since David Cameron took over.

MikeC said...

In response to snuffleupagus, I don't care particularly if I could get into this bar or not, but, I do care that I am able to get into public places irrespective of my sexuality.

Which brings us nicely to SORs of course.

However, in my above comment, I stipulate 'public' places quite carefully, as (although not having a definition neatly to hand) I do believe that it would be wrong to classify all businesses and services as 'public' and therefore wrong to force such businesses and services to ignore in all situations, a potential patron's sexuality. I don't mean this to sound like I'm encouraging denial of basic goods and services to those that don't share my sexual preference. Not at all. It's that I believe individuals and businesses should not be forced to serve all, in all circumstances. It's simply too much of a sweeping ideological stance to take, and forces upon all, the ideological position of some. We are still living in a plural democracy aren't we?