Discrimination aimed at women by gay males?
Discrimination against women from gay males horrified by the sight of a woman drinking in their presence. Yeah, it's as stupid as it sounds.
The more I think about this story, the more I wonder just what these people were thinking. A woman in Montreal was treated like trash in a gay club:
A woman who was turned away from a gay bar has filed a human rights complaint.
From that first sentence, you would think the owner of the bar politely told the woman she could not enter the establishment. But that is not, in fact, what is alleged to have happened:
Audrey Vachon was recently refused service at Le Stud in Montreal's gay village after sitting down with her father for a quiet afternoon pint.
A waiter came over and told her father, Gilles, that the bar doesn't serve women.
Vachon, 20, says the waiter avoided looking at her during the conversation.
"On the spot I didn't believe it, I thought it was a bad joke," Vachon said today in an interview.
"I didn't say a word until I'd left. I was too shocked. I was embarrassed, I was humiliated, I felt guilty that I'd even gone there, like I'd done something wrong."
Here's the thing. When you are allowed entry into a bar, you expect to be served. To be allowed to come in and then to be allowed to sit down, only to be told you won't be served, well, that's just mean spirited.
Now restaurants and bars can refuse service to people to someone who disrupts the reasonable comfort of other patrons. For instance, someone who is intoxicated can be refused service.
So as far as I can tell, that this woman entered the bar was not considered to constitute reasonable discomfort for the other patrons, and she was allowed to come in. But that she could spoken to by the staff, and even be seen with a drink in her hand, well, that did cross the line and so she was expected to sit in silence and be ignored.
Or better yet, leave.
Does this seem absurd to you? What reasonable discomfort would the gay male patrons have suffered if she had been given a beer? Does it seem reasonable that had she been allowed to buy a drink, the gay male patrons of the bar would have been so horrified that afternoon business would have collapsed?
Or worse, there might have been a violent reaction from the gay crowd.
Do gay men have a problem seeing women drinking in their presence?
Remember, this is really a gender issue, not a sexual orientation. Vachon's father was offered service, though it was reasonable to assume that he was heterosexual since he was a father (of course, it doesn't have to be true, but it is likely). Yet he was spoken to by the staff. The account we have heard does not include a challenge by the staff that Vachon's father declare his sexual preference. Nor, for that matter, is Audrey Vachon asked to declare her preference. She could have been a life-long lesbian, but to the staff of this bar, it was her gender that created an atmosphere of discomfort for the gay male patrons.
Now my question is this. How can we extend this right to discriminate based on gender across all sectors of Canadian society? Golf courses, private clubs, and so forth? In Canada, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a club or organization to refuse membership on the basis of gender in Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers. But in this the focus was on membership to a private club. There was no formal membership requirement to gain entry to Le Stud in Montreal. But the Le Stud incident essentially allows for a group of men to enter into an establishment, loudly declare that they are gay, and so demand that no women be allowed service going forward.
So if a bunch of heterosexual males wanted to go into a bar and watch boxing on the big screen without their wives or girlfriends ruining the evening, then just declare their raging queerness, and hey presto no women can come in.
OK, that's absurd, but then these sorts of incidents are based on the absurd. And there is nothing more absurd than watching homosexuals demand equal rights -- you know what they mean by "equal".
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
heterosexual homosexual Le Stud Montreal Canada Audrey Vachon
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Are they worried they may be attracted and confuse themselves?
Posted by: Libby at May 30, 2007 04:16 PM
Just this week an Australian human rights tribunal said this practice was alright. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing happen here.
Posted by: Natedawg at May 30, 2007 05:22 PM
I'm waiting for the SOWs to stampede to woman's defense.
Posted by: ZiLLa at May 30, 2007 05:44 PM
You have been up north for too long, the Stud allows women on wednesday nights . many gay bars have ladie's nights. I do not agree with a woman being refused simply because of gender to me that would be like refusing blacks, but many gays are not comfortable around women, as many figure they can make them become heterosexuals, like Macho males thinking that they can change lesbians into nimphets, their problem being that they have not met a REAL MAN.
Even if I don't agree, I maintain that these people are on their turf.
In MALE NUDE DANCER BARS a man cannot go in unless escorted by a woman, so what is the difference ?
Get your story STRAIGHT (no play on words )
Posted by: at May 30, 2007 06:34 PM
She's wasting her time with the Humna Rights Commission because we already know how stacked it is with bitter angry Leftists out for revenge to all past wrongs, plus awarding large settlements to oppressed minorities is all part of affirmation to the victimhood mind set that keep the HRC in business merely by the self interests of Lawyers and HRC workers relying on inner hatred to harm anyone that doesn't fit into thier version of reality and Human Rights.
Posted by: Roger at May 30, 2007 06:36 PM
Even if I don't agree, I maintain that these people are on their turf.
What about white turf (blacks not allowed)? Or Christian turf (Jews not allowed)? Or straight turf (gays not allowed)?
Marriage used to be straight turf...
Posted by: Steve Janke at May 30, 2007 06:57 PM
Both BC and Alberta have women only gyms and workout places. The BC human "rights" commission said it was OKAY. The “decision” was a PC farce; but it stands.
Needless to say, there are NO men only gyms and workout places; those that are not women only are mixed.
So, do not expect anything from the human “rights” commission – they are nothing more or less than arbitrary, left-wing wackado PC kangaroo courts. They exist to protect specified “victim” groups, or members of these special interest groups.
Posted by: at May 30, 2007 07:21 PM
You have been up north for too long, the Stud allows women on wednesday nights . many gay bars have ladie's nights. I do not agree with a woman being refused simply because of gender to me that would be like refusing blacks, but many gays are not comfortable around women, as many figure they can make them become heterosexuals, like Macho males thinking that they can change lesbians into nimphets, their problem being that they have not met a REAL MAN.
The poor boys have to put up with boorish behaviour in a bar. I'll just go get my violin.
Even if I don't agree, I maintain that these people are on their turf.
Equivocate much?
In MALE NUDE DANCER BARS a man cannot go in unless escorted by a woman, so what is the difference?
The difference is someone needs to register a complaint.
Get your story STRAIGHT (no play on words )
Holy non-sequitur Batman.
Posted by: Eric-Vancouver at May 30, 2007 08:03 PM
Hi -
Read you a lot - appreciate the dispassionate comments about principle, but do not appreciate when these comments randomly verge into some kind of arbitrary moral judgement.
"And there is nothing more absurd than watching homosexuals demand equal rights -- you know what they mean by "equal".
Nothing more absurd than someone arguing to be treated with equality? Really? Wow - so much for live and let live.
The bar did a stupid thing. Most gays would say the same thing.
"what do 'THEY' mean by equal anyway?"
"They," huh? I think WE all want the same things.
Posted by: j at May 30, 2007 08:40 PM
Well, now the politically correct (PC) movement is evolving from bashing the hetro/white/male to bashing each other in a race for PC dominance.
Since we (hetro/white/male) are now second class citizens (oh yes, we are!) the other "disenfranchised" groups now must duke it out to see who will take the "PC top spot".
My advice? Bet on the black/disabled/lesbian...for the win.
Posted by: at May 30, 2007 09:37 PM
Would they boot me? I'm TRISEXUAL...but I draw the line at GOATS....
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at May 30, 2007 09:56 PM
It is probably better to take your business somewhere else to another nightclub or bar instead of these bars.
Posted by: Crazydan at May 30, 2007 11:27 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...when you hear somebody screaming for their rights, check your own.
Who screams louder about discrimination than the gay lobby? Who's the first to discriminate when it suits them? The gay lobby.
Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch at May 31, 2007 09:14 AM
Oh yes, the Gay Lobby --- is that next to the Straight Vestibule?
Posted by: j at May 31, 2007 12:11 PM
Steve tell us about the gay bars you go to
Posted by: Home-boy at May 31, 2007 12:55 PM
So what about all the lesbian establishments that ban men throughout (not only) the western world? Is it ok if they do it? Nobody seems to question it. I have an entire hotel in my town refusing to accept men as guests.
And then of course the women-only gyms, women only days in public baths (recently ruled not discriminatory in Hannover, Germany) - what a joke.
To the author: yes, it does seem absurd. But certainly not more absurd than the whole "women only" thing.
Posted by: A. Ibrahim at May 31, 2007 09:35 PM
I agree that her Human Rights Complaint will go nowhere for fear of upsetting the gay community. I mean, the police stopped raiding bath houses due to the same pressure.
BTW, is anyone aware of heterosexual bath houses in this country? Would they even be legal? I would doubt it. Is that fair?
Posted by: Sentinel at May 31, 2007 10:31 PM
...it's nice to see the rooster coming home to roost.
Posted by: tomax7 at June 2, 2007 01:55 AM
I always find it delicious when one group - one which has whined and complained for decades about discrimination and demanded equal treatment under the law - turns around and expresses their gratitude for all the freedom our society has afforded them by discriminating against a member of another group (women) who have long been victims of discrimination.
If the irony were any sweeter I'd need an insulin shot.
Posted by: Tom at June 3, 2007 03:15 PM
 
|
|
