The Shotgun Blog
« He can always defend the cockroaches | Main | No idea »
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
What's good for the goose...
Hot on the heels of the news earlier this week, of an Australian ruling allowing a bar catering to homosexual men to ban heterosexuals, comes this story of a Quebec woman pressing a human-rights complaint against a gay bar that refused to serve her.
Any bets on whether she'll win her case?
Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 30, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8357fe7bd69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's good for the goose...:
Comments
Sure she'll win, its a clear case of discrimination based on sex -- since she's a woman the male server and male manager of the bar are in the wrong (regardless of their sexual orientation). Now if her father had been refused service because he was straight (not that the article indicates this or refutes it) the court would decide against him based on the establishment's concerns for its clientele's "sensitivities"
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 11:13:25 AM
I believe that in Canada, we are protected, to be free from discrimination by sexual orientation. The only place a business can be exclusive, is if there is something that has to do with modesty--such as single sex change rooms, and exercise Clubs. Furthermore, there is exclusivess in many sports, but that has been changeing as well, where girls and boys play hockey together. Some sports have long included both men and women on the same teams. What is sport is sport! I have always wondered why men do not do syncronized swimming. Could be real entertainment!
I played hockey with the boys, and still like wearing dresses--so the age old adage of Tom-boyism does not hold water. Neither is it true that doing something that would otherwise have interested more females than men, turn men into sissies.
We have been forced to share our traditional concept of mariage with gays. If they wanted exclusivity, they could have chosen their own term, such as domestic relationship, or gay contract, or comething like that. They have stolen our terms, and now they wish to be radically separate and yet enjoy all the same rights and parts of the establishment as the hets. Well, as far as I am concerned, they cannot have it both ways. If they succeed, then there needs to be a real push to ensure laws are passed that stop this kind of one way protection.
It was once termed reverse racsim, when blacks or others discriminated against whites. Now, it is recognized to be simply racism. Well, what happenned in that bar, in relation to our laws and charter, is simply sexism! Had she dressed as a man, though, or looked like that actor/actress Pat, then things would have been different. Makes me want to dress as a man, and go there, and get service. Then again, I would ahve to hang around with gay men, and I would not be interested in that.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-30 11:30:45 AM
I don't know, I like the idea of exclusivity. I like the idea of all boy/men clubs such as Boy Scouts, men's clubs etc. It gives them a place where they can just "be boys", without having to deal with mixed gender appropriateness. I think one of the things that are missing in childhood now are the club houses with the "no gurls allowed" signs on the door.
I think our society for all its desire for equality and its battle against discrimination is still using "reverse" discrimination, you mentioned women's only fitness clubs (or women's only areas in a co-ed club for that matter) and now these gay only bars. I have a feeling that the courts will uphold their status even as they've struck against the all male status of other institutes. Which is comment on what exactly it means to be "equal" in our society -- WASPs need not apply.
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 12:05:08 PM
Male WASPS, of course.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 12:08:30 PM
Of course :) Though if you're a female WASP with conservative ideas of family/gender roles/politics you too need not apply...
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 12:10:11 PM
Your distinction is accepted! Go to the head of the class.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 12:16:25 PM
Just to clarify, I believe the ruling was in Australia, not Scotland. The proprietor of the bar is Scottish, but runs the business in Australia.
Not that it makes any difference to the story, I just don't want to see the Scots getting trashed unnecessarily.
Posted by: Natedawg | 2007-05-30 2:17:29 PM
Whenever there's trashing going on, the Scotch IS always involved! :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 2:20:03 PM
And I thought it was the fault of secret admiration of Irish whiskey?
Right, that be the reason why the Irish don't rule the world, while Scots open gay-men-only bars.
Always wondered what they did in Scotland when it rained, day after day.... Figures, the practice would be imported into Australia. ANd there I though they were the last beacon of manliness on the planet. Alas, I am dissapointed!
Oh my, I have perspired!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-30 3:07:21 PM
"Any bets on wheter she will win her case"?
She already won her point; even in the eyes of any gays. The waiter(ess) will loose his(her) job by the end of the day and the "Stud" will make public excuses...
No need for the human-rights: the story is already in the news witch will rest the case of that waiter(ess) before the late News.
That's why we say that Canada is a "Country of rights": nothing can stop the massive opinion of the Canadian people when an abuse of common sense is involve. This guy made an ugly error of judgment (maybe he was in his "SPM") and will have a hard time finding another job for a while - espacially inna gay bar.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 3:19:25 PM
Marc~
"and will have a hard time finding another job for a while - espacially inna gay bar"
You talking from experience? :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 3:28:59 PM
"That's why we say that Canada is a "Country of rights": nothing can stop the massive opinion of the Canadian people when an abuse of common sense is involve."
I'm not so sure of that, so often common sense isn't common enough for many of our esteemed citizens... Typically its the opinion of those you scream the loudest that carries the day, ergo gay marriage, liberal governments, etc...
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 3:55:08 PM
sorry who not you...
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 3:57:35 PM
You know, we refer to males as 'he', and females as 'she'. This si a tad narrow, if you know what I mean. Given the fact that others have taken on human rights, it is about time we create a new term for them boys who prefer boys. I move that we call them a combination of she (which they are not) and rights, which they now have. We could call them Rees (Rights/hees) or Shights (Shes and rights).
I am open for suggestions.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-30 3:59:32 PM
What is wrong with this woman that she wants to drink in a bar with fags?
She should be suing for some counselling.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-05-30 4:14:09 PM
Well In fact obc...kind of.
I happen to be a chef and worked as a cook in many establishments in and around Mtl. Never inna "gay bar" but some of my friends did, do or even live there.
Why? You want me to organise a tour for U...?
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 4:17:30 PM
Hmmm i can see a couple of possible problems with that:
Rees is too close to Reese thus you may get a defamation lawsuit from some one who's name is actually Reese...
Also Shight is to close to Shiite, thus angering the Muslim population -- who I believe kill their homosexuals don't they?
perhaps some already existing term -- like they trumped the term gay (which used to mean happy... sad day that was...) -- for example we could call those of the homosexual persuasion with male genitalia sissies, and those with female genitalia hissies where the first letter indicates the gender they are trying to emulate and of course sissy already refers to one who is -- in the opinion of others -- less than manly.
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 4:17:52 PM
So, Daniel, throwing a hissy fit would have a new meaning. Throwing a sissy fit? Hmmm. That sounds about right.
No thanks, Marc. I'm not planning on anymore Quebec visits this year. I spent a week there on May 7. lol!
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 4:23:22 PM
I was refering to -common sense- Daniel, not religious freaks who will never go further than what's write in the bible or people who use religion as an argument. Common sense, the thing that we use to give the World a break; or a chance if you preffer.
Try that once inna while...you will get beter results.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 4:26:20 PM
If you rely on common sense, you sow the seeds of your own destruction. What was sensible 100 years ago no longer is. What is sensible today will not be tomorrow. If you do not have a firm code that does not change its moral values, you end up with no moral values.
Mormons and Muslims favour(ed) multiple wives. Today, gay marriage is acceptable. Tomorrow, maybe three men and two women will be an acceptable marriage - the men: one might be 20 (for verility), the other 65 (for wealth). The women: one might be 18 for beauty, one 25 for children, the third 45 for sewing, cooking and berating.
Not a future I care to contemplate.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 4:36:11 PM
Marc,
I use common sense every day. Such as what makes more sense: Using a crosswalk or crossing the road twenty feet from the crosswalk? Pet the stray dog or leave it alone before it bites you? expect to take care of your own problems or demand that the government does it for you?
Common sense isn't giving the world a break, common sense is that painfully obvious "give your head a shake" decision making process that so many people just fail to consider...
You don't have to be a "religious freak" to think that a Liberal/NDP/Green government doesn't have your best interests in mind. Nor that gay "marriage" shouldn't be legislated -- nor in fact should any form of marriage (gay, straight, or common law), marriage license are just another way of the government getting into your pocket.
I think the term you are looking for is "tolerance" (though that word's meaning has also been liberalized -- Orwell didn't know how right he was...) and your instant labeling of me as a religious freak indicates that you are sadly lacking in said liberal virtue...
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 4:43:56 PM
You're not quit right obc.
...And gay priests who are devlopping sexual deviance for young kids and a mariage where one is gay (but lie to himself...cause Jesus dosent like that) and both r unhappy cannot be found easely in Quebec anymore; Witch proves that your theory works both sides.
Nah, if there's a thing that can wrap people from any religion to discuss togheter and live with each others...is common sense.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 4:48:47 PM
Daniel,
Where did I refer to you as a religious freak...? Seriously ?
...And "tolerance" wasent the term I was looking for: "GROS BON SENS" was more accurate.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 4:58:49 PM
Well, I'm guessing from your gay priest likes little boys comment you are talking about Catholicism because I don't know of any other religion/faith that prevents its clergy from marrying and having children -- as most faiths realize this is a recipe for disaster (pent up sexual frustrations/urges eventual vent themselves in one manner or another). And people who "discover" they are gay while married probably need counseling as they probably have some sexual abuse in their history (as there is no genetic evidence for homosexuality -- its as much a deviation as pedophilia).
As to witch, which witch are you talking about?
Again it is tolerance that allows people -- regardless of faith and/or opinion -- to live together in peace (or at lease without violence), not common sense. Common sense says that if I don't like you I should probably stay away from you...
Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-30 5:00:58 PM
Marc,
You know why Priests manage to remain, er, celebate?
By tending to their flocks by night!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-30 5:09:25 PM
It appears to me that "equality" is getting a bum rap here.(Did I make a pun?) It also has the appearance of discrimination on the part of the bar owner. As to the story about the woman being denied service in Quebec, this, I believe is also a denial of "equality" under the Charter.
Posted by: Stephen Gray | 2007-05-30 5:13:21 PM
"And people who "discover" they are gay while married probably need counseling as they probably have some sexual abuse in their history.
I maybe express myself poorly in english but not as poor as your theory, Dan.
I don't tolerate idiots. Still, I keep exchanging with you because GROS BON SENS tells me your not a bad person just because you're an idiot.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 5:15:07 PM
:-) @ Lady.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 5:22:07 PM
Marc~
You view all religions through the eyes of an ex-Catholic(?). There are good people in every religion and bad ones as well. Same as people who use common sense - bad and good.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 5:31:59 PM
OBC,
I'm sure the muslims who happen to read that last post in the -Shotgun- will be more than happy but REALLY SUPRISE.
Good and bad (or wrong) - that's what I'm talking about !!!
...as oppose to "Good or Evil".
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 5:54:13 PM
Good & Evil works just as well for me, Marc.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-30 5:56:08 PM
But you are using of common sense first.
And I respect you for that.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 6:00:20 PM
Hockey time!
Regards,
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-30 6:01:38 PM
Yay hockey-time, I get the last word! Or rather, cartoon!
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/hills/7207/page2.html
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-30 6:06:26 PM
Marc~
"PQ won't topple Liberals despite budget impasse"
Guess there won't be another Quebec election anytime soon, eh?
Posted by: obc | 2007-06-01 9:13:37 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.