Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So because you think they might be allowing gay bachelorette parties while denying heterosexual ones, that means they are clearly discriminating?
You misread - why would a bachelorette party be held in conjunction with a gay wedding when such marriages are not legal in the state? The ban is clearly directed at a particular segment of the population. Denying this by pointing out that no BP's are hosted at the club is being obtuse. In fact the entire subject is silly and underlines just some of the confusion results when we try to play around with gender definitions - what is a gay bachelorette party anyway?
You misread - why would a bachelorette party be held in conjunction with a gay wedding when such marriages are not legal in the state? The ban is clearly directed at a particular segment of the population. Denying this by pointing out that no BP's are hosted at the club is being obtuse. In fact the entire subject is silly and underlines just some of the confusion results when we try to play around with gender definitions - what is a gay bachelorette party anyway?
*sigh*. And if they did, and still refused straight women the same service, then THAT would be clear discrimination.
But what your obvious prejudice leads you to *think* they might or might not do, is completely irrelevant.
Why can't you just admit that your claim that this club is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is incorrect if they are refusing to host ANY bachelorette parties for ANYONE - gay or straight.
I already stated in my opening post that the bar is wrong for banning any party because of marital status, or sexual orientation.
Because of the Unruh Civil Rights Act which in the state of California forbids any establishment for discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.
Quote:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."
*sigh*. And if they did, and still refused straight women the same service, then THAT would be clear discrimination.
But what your obvious prejudice leads you to *think* they might or might not do, is completely irrelevant.
Why can't you just admit that your claim that this club is discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is incorrect if they are refusing to host ANY bachelorette parties for ANYONE - gay or straight.
Actually, I can't see anywhere in those articles yet where the owners stated that they are banning all bachelorette parties. In fact one quote I just read - the owner specifically says that "straight bachelorette parties" will not be allowed. That kind of blows your stance that this is not discrimination way out of the water.
Until someone can prove that they are allowing lesbians to have bachelorette parties, and they are not allowing heterosexuals to have them, there is no discrimination.
You misread - why would a bachelorette party be held in conjunction with a gay wedding when such marriages are not legal in the state? The ban is clearly directed at a particular segment of the population. Denying this by pointing out that no BP's are hosted at the club is being obtuse. In fact the entire subject is silly and underlines just some of the confusion results when we try to play around with gender definitions - what is a gay bachelorette party anyway?
So by banning bachelorette parties neither hetero, nor homosexual bachelorettes will be celebrating there.
Do you approve of the Vermont resort banning only homosexual couples from having receptions there?
I'm not saying that the club would be hurt - but the gay marriage cause will be. Some of the people who are undecided and whom might have been leaning towards supporting gay marriage, are going to be upset by this - they will see it as a cheap political trick - and become suspicious. Those undecided people are the gay army's target audience. If they don't gain their support - then they don't win in the political arena.
You have to understand that the only thing I am attacking is the gay army's hypocrisy. I am entirely consistent with all my opinions. I oppose gay marriage on moral grounds. I would certainly respect a vote to allow gay marriage in the state if one was successful. The members of the gay army do not like the ballot when it goes against them - as it has twice here in California in the last 12 years. That demonstrates hypocrisy. Likewise - they feel that it is OK to discriminate based on sexual preference when it is targeted toward heterosexuals - but they throw a tantrum if the tables are turned. That doesn't fly with me.
The gay marriage cause won't be hurt. Eventually it will be decided by the courts, not popular opinion.
Quote:
Actually, I can't see anywhere in those articles yet where the owners stated that they are banning all bachelorette parties. In fact one quote I just read - the owner specifically says that "straight bachelorette parties" will not be allowed. That kind of blows your stance that this is not discrimination way out of the water
No it does not as there is currently no such thing as "gay bachelorette parties" anyway. No pre marriage parties for anyone. No discrimination. Don't get hung up on the word "straight" because it's not proving what you think it proves.
Actually, I can't see anywhere in those articles yet where the owners stated that they are banning all bachelorette parties. In fact one quote I just read - the owner specifically says that "straight bachelorette parties" will not be allowed. That kind of blows your stance that this is not discrimination way out of the water.
You're STILL trying to flog this dead horse?
Lesbians can't have a bachelorette party because they can't get legally married.
Which means NO lesbian AND NO straight women bachelorette party services are being offered. Which means ALL bachelorette parties.
Your 'stance' has been blown right out of the water over and over again.
In fact it's been blown so far out of the water, it will probably come down as rain in Sydney (or Parramatta) in a few weeks time depending on weather trends.
The rule is no bachelorette parties. The club has the right to set the rules for its establishment.
How well do you think it would go over if I had a lesbian bachelorette party in some establishment that is against same sex marriage?
You would be rightfully declined and then cause a national uproar resulting in getting the establishment shut down like the lesbian couple did to the Inn in Vermont last year. The bachelorettes are very unlikely to take, let alone succeed, with such a measure.
You misread - why would a bachelorette party be held in conjunction with a gay wedding when such marriages are not legal in the state?
Couldn't a couple get "married" without getting legally married? Either way, it doesn't matter. If no gay bachelorette parties are being held there, not allowing heterosexual bachelorette parties to be held there is not discriminating. I don't see how you can possibly try and argue this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
The ban is clearly directed at a particular segment of the population. Denying this by pointing out that no BP's are hosted at the club is being obtuse.
I'm actually not denying that. But your disagreement with their motives does not make their actions discriminatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem
I already stated in my opening post that the bar is wrong for banning any party because of marital status, or sexual orientation.
Because of the Unruh Civil Rights Act which in the state of California forbids any establishment for discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation.
And, what the bar is doing is against California law.
A. Something being against the law and something being wrong are not one in the same.
B. By your quoting of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, I'm assuming your focus is on the bolded sections...
"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."
Question: Do you take this to mean "Every business should provide every service requested, regardless of whether or not this business typically provides said service in the first place"?
If the bar simply isn't holding bachelorette parties, this means it is not one of their services any longer. I wouldn't walk into KFC and demand someone file my taxes for me. Similarly, you shouldn't walk into this bar and demand they give you a service that just isn't part of what they do anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
