Gay pickup bar refuses to serve woman
Wed, 2007-05-30 11:05
#1
Gay pickup bar refuses to serve woman
Wed, 2007-05-30 11:05
#2
quote:
May 30, 2007 01:01 PM
Canadian PressMONTREAL – A woman who was turned away from a gay bar has filed a human rights complaint.
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.
What The Fuck! We are 2007, right?
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/article/219412]The Star[/url]
Wed, 2007-05-30 11:27
#3
N.Beltov
Whoopie shit. Read a little further.
quote:
Bar owner Michel Gadoury says Le Stud has banned women most nights since it was established 11 years ago. He says he doesn't understand the fuss."We're not discriminating, [b]women have the right to come on certain days,[/b]" Gadoury told Radio-Canada.
So if this customer wins her case does that mean that I can crash ladies night in the local bars on "human rights" grounds?
What a spurious complaint. Didn't she notice the gay porn playing on the big screen??
quote:
The bar, an understated spot in a flamboyant part of the city, has the trappings of a local pub with pool tables and video poker terminals.On many nights it shows gay pornography on TV screens instead of the usual hockey game fare.
"Le Stud is the best place in town for a truly manly meat market," said a review on one travel website.
Good grief. Maybe dad was trying to tell her something.
Wed, 2007-05-30 11:35
#4
I'm against "Ladies' nights" too. I think it's wrong to charge a different cover charge (or refuse to admit people) based on gender.
As for "Ladies nights", don't get me started, but basically the reason they hold them isn't to do women any favours. The idea behind cheap drinks and free admission for women is to entice guys to the bar with promises of, well, lots and lots of half-drunk women.
Wed, 2007-05-30 11:48
#5
N.Beltov
Sheesh. I guess I'd make a lousy chauvinist pig. I thought "ladies night" was intended to keep hosers like me away ... as in "ladies" [i]only[/i].
Wed, 2007-05-30 11:52
#6
At gay bars you would probably be right but at straight bars ladies nights are indeed used to intice men.
And really, can a lesbian bar ban all men as well? Chances are - not.
Wed, 2007-05-30 11:58
#7
Catchfire
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
quote:
The bar, an understated spot in a flamboyant part of the city, has the trappings of a local pub with pool tables and video poker terminals.On many nights it shows gay pornography on TV screens instead of the usual hockey game fare.
It's in the fucking village, not a "flamboyant part of the city." And the reason it doesn't have "the usual" sports on its tv is because [b]the bar is called "Le STUD."[/b] Usual? Not for the village, assholes.
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:06
#8
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Sheesh. I guess I'd make a lousy chauvinist pig. I thought "ladies night" was intended to keep hosers like me away ... as in "ladies" [i]only[/i].[/b]
Yes you would, bless your soul. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Nope, ladies' nights definitely aren't about keeping men out. They wouldn't make any money otherwise!
I've been to a couple of lesbian bars in Toronto, and they don't exclude men from the premises.
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:21
#9
quote:
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.
This is the only part that really pisses me off. Is there some reason he couldn't speak directly to her and explain the policy? He chose to speak to the older man. That's a pisser alright.
The rest, well there are lots of other places to spend ones money and I'd sure like a place where "ladies night" meant no guys, sometimes would be nice to not be pestered. I can see it from both sides.
I am confused though if they have different days or nights though. I guess I am just used to most places being wide open during the day, like being able to take your kid to a pub for a meal during the day but not a night.
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:29
#10
Check this out
quote:
Quebec bar owner fined for refusing black customers
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 | 9:28 PM ET
CBC NewsA Montreal-area bar has been fined $25,000 for refusing to serve black customers.
Seydou Diallo said he was told Le Surf had a policy of 'no black people inside' when he tried to order a drink there in September 2003.
Seydou Diallo, one of the individuals refused at the bar, said he's still shocked by his treatment at Le Surf, which occurred three years ago.
Any fundamental difference between this and the gay bar? Even the bar names are similar.
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2006/07/26/racism-montreal.html]...
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:37
#11
Makwa
oopy
[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:39
#12
Makwa
This is simply wrong. What if her dad was gay and wanted to have her visit his fave spot? This policy is wrong, and they deserve to be busted. NOBODY, as long as they are playing by the rules, deserves to be barred. Don't start by telling me about the history of 'preserving a culture' because Aboriginal people were barred from many estabishment out west for many years. This sickens me.
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:40
#13
Makwa
oop
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:50
#14
Women were barred (no pun intended) from "tavernes" throughout Quйbec until the 1970s.
Likewise for "beer parlours" in various provinces.
I'm no expert on the law, but I'm sure this establishment could achieve its aim by re-designing itself as a private club.
But if it is a commercial establishment open to the public, it has to serve women. Otherwise, it should be padlocked.
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:50
#15
N.Beltov
Geez Wade, after that walloping that Michelle gave you upside the head for your incendiary and untruthful remark about the Janjaweed I would have thought that you wouldn't have the nerve to go on about the racism of others when you made such false claims yourself.
My mistake. Some posters are shameless. Are you a Conservative, by any chance?
Wed, 2007-05-30 12:55
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
[b]
I am confused though if they have different days or nights though.[/b]
No confusion in [url=http://english.montrealplus.ca/portal/profile.do?profileID=526071]this place[/url]:
quote:
[b]Men Only![/b]There are all kinds of them, but Le Stud is men’s only! Bears, chasers, S&M fetishists, sugar daddies, suit and tie types, regular guys in jeans: all have come to flirt, to be noticed, or to observe.
Wed, 2007-05-30 13:01
#17
Catchfire
I should clarify that my concerns expressed in my above post were with the mealy mouthed journalist ("flamboyant" as code for "gay") and not at the woman's complaint. Serve the woman. I can see no justification not to.
Wed, 2007-05-30 13:25
#18
quote:
Bar owner Michel Gadoury says Le Stud has banned women most nights since it was established 11 years ago. He says he doesn't understand the fuss."We're not discriminating, women have the right to come on certain days," Gadoury told Radio-Canada.
This is why it's confusing Unionist, regardless of your link what the owner said in the article is confusing. Women can come some days or some nights.
Wed, 2007-05-30 13:36
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
[b]This is why it's confusing Unionist, regardless of your link what the owner said in the article is confusing. Women can come some days or some nights.[/b]
Even if that's true, the fact that they advertise themselves as "men only" is offensive, especially in the context of Quйbec. I remember women occupying tavernes in downtown Montrйal in the late 60s to protest against the men-only policy. At that time, only tavernes were licensed to serve draft beer - which meant that women couldn't buy draft anywhere in Quйbec!!
I recall (as if it were yesterday - sign of old age) that the very first establishment which admitted women [i]and[/i] was licenced to serve draft was the Pink Peanut Pub at Expo in 1967. It was the pioneer of what became known as "brasseries", which were allowed to serve draft to both sexes, until this repugnant discrimination was finally ended once and for all.
ETA: Thread drift - this is the province where women were first allowed to serve on juries in [b]1970[/b]! Since then, with the passage of the Charte du Quйbec and many other such events, Quйbec marched right from the back to the front of the line on recognition of human rights and workers' rights in Canada, in a remarkably short period. [i]We ain't going back![/i]
[ 30 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Wed, 2007-05-30 22:51
#20
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]Geez Wade, ... My mistake. Some posters are shameless. Are you a Conservative, by any chance?[/b]
I am confused about what was allegedly wrong with Wade's post ...
Thu, 2007-05-31 02:25
#21
From today's Star
quote:
Audrey Vachon, 20, said she has never felt singled out the way she was on that day."I've frequented other places in the Village ... and it's the first time I've ever come up against this kind of closed-mindedness. In fact, it's the first time I've ever felt discriminated against."
quote:
"Here we are in a liberal country confronted by people who have used the charter of rights to assert their rights against discrimination, and who are now discriminating against others.
[url=http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/219794]The Star[/url]
Thu, 2007-05-31 04:23
#22
N.Beltov
quote:
Martha (bnS): I am confused about what was allegedly wrong with Wade's post ...
Did you read the other thread? [b]**[/b]
quote:
Wade Tompkins: Maybe now we'll see some real progress against the Janjaweed barbarians in Sudan who rape and enslave the Blacks.
To which he received the reply:
quote:
The Janjaweed are Black. But thanks for coming out.
After which he immediately added a "contribution" to this thread about a Montreal bar owner who was fined for refusing to serve a black customer.
To which I responded:
"I would have thought that you wouldn't have the nerve to go on about the racism of others when you made such false claims yourself."
Now do you understand? [Sarcastic comment removed.]
______________________________
[b]**[/b] It would have been clearer if I noted "in the other thread". I thought it was implied.
[ 31 May 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Thu, 2007-05-31 11:46
#23
From the Globe and Mail
quote:
Can minorities discriminate?
Montreal woman's complaint to the Human Rights Commission for being kicked out of gay bar stirs debate
INGRID PERITZFrom Thursday's Globe and Mail
May 31, 2007 at 4:44 AM EDT
MONTREAL — When she wandered past the flowery terrace of Bar Le Stud one afternoon last week, 20-year-old Audrey Vachon thought the sunny spot was the perfect place to enjoy a beer with her father.
What she failed to anticipate was that her presence violated the gay bar's male-only rule. She was turfed out by a waiter who said the bar was reserved for men - and promptly landed in the middle of a debate about whether it's okay for minorities to discriminate.
Ms. Vachon, who begins studying administration at junior college this year, filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Commission, saying she'd been the victim of discrimination.
She invoked the same section of the provincial Charter that was created to defend the rights of homosexuals in 1977, when Quebec became the first jurisdiction in Canada to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
"If I respect the rights of gays, then they should respect my rights, too," Ms. Vachon said in an interview yesterday.
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070531.wdiscriminat... and Mail[/url]
Thu, 2007-05-31 12:16
#24
Kind of reminds me of this story:
quote:
Gay pub wins right to ban straightsYahoo News
Tue May 29, 10:16 AM ET
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.
Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent people being discriminated against based on race, religion or sexuality.
But Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely said the 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 entering 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.
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.
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.
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.
McFeely told the radio that the hotel had received homophobic telephone calls since news of the ruling was made public.
Oh really, Mr McFeely?
I can sort of understand their desire to keep out the jerks who might show up just to bait or gawk but this seems like an overreaction. How can you be sure who's straight, anyway?
Thu, 2007-05-31 12:23
#25
Martha: I am confused about what was allegedly wrong with Wade's post ...
Beltov: Did you read the other thread?
I understood that you had a problem with some post of Wade's in some other thread, but there seems to me nothing wrong with his post in [i]this[/i] thread, i.e. the post to which you seemed to be responding.
Thu, 2007-05-31 12:33
#26
Is there a lawyer in the house?
If they make it a private club, not open to the public, surely they can ban men, women, Catholics, transgender, homophobes, socialists, disabled people - anyone they want - just as you can ban whomever you please from entering your home without being answerable to human rights legislation.
If they want to be a commercial establishment (and all the walk-in profit that entails), they can get a grip and read the human rights legislation - or, as I said, padlock time.
Imagine an ad for an apartment to rent that said "males only". Or "whites only". Not!
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:02
#27
Well, they might be able to argue the same thing as women's gyms do - that because gay men are a marginalized group, then it's addressing an imbalance to keeping straight men and all women out of the place.
Not that I support this. Public establishments should have to serve everyone unless they break the rules of the establishment (and, um, having a vagina doesn't count).
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:23
#28
quote:
... padlock time.
Perhaps a poor choice of words for a Quebec establishment. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
I think the gay bar, like the women's shelter in Vancouver that objected to the transgendered councilor should give thier heads a shake.
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:23
#29
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
Imagine an ad for an apartment to rent that said "males only". Or "whites only". Not![/b]
Lots of ads for apartments specify gender...
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:31
#30
Wow mixing this with the trans-gendered case in BC!!! in my humble opinon they have little similarities except they both will likely give rise to human rights complaints.
So I would like to know do they let ransvestites who are gay go into the bar and if they do how do they know they aren't really females posing as transvestites.
As for straight men well I've been to gay bars in the past and no body ever asked me what my orientation was and how would you decide at the door of a bar what someone's sexual orientation was and I expect that the bar would not be mistaken for a good old boys club by any homophobe.
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:44
#31
quote:
How can you be sure who's straight, anyway?
Easy. Kiss them and see what happens. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
This is very much a hot topic of debate these days. The discussion isn't just about whether it's okay to have men-only spaces but also how to define what a man is for that purpose. This sort of policy at bars and events have excluded female-to-male transexuals as well.
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:45
#32
From the Globe article:
quote:
Montreal lawyer Julius Grey, a Charter expert and veteran on discrimination and civil rights cases, says that while the Le Stud incident clearly violates Sections 10 and 12 of the Quebec Charter, he considers the case "borderline.""The bar's refusal in no way affected the girl's dignity or devalues her as a person. It doesn't seriously affect her status in society, whereas gays face constant discrimination," he said.
"Equality is a guiding principle and not a straightjacket."
Thu, 2007-05-31 13:50
#33
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
[b][quote}padlock time
Perhaps a poor choice of words for a Quebec establishment. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[/b][/QUOTE]
Definitely a bad choice of words concerning Le Stud. Padlock Time would be quite popular. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-05-31 14:16
#34
Of all kinds of establishments, a gay bar should realize how stupid it is to start policing the gender of their patrons. How do trans people fit into their policy?
I once attended a concert in a gay bathhouse in Toronto, on one of the rare nights when women were permitted in the lounge area. While men were allowed to walk around topless, I overheard women complaining about being told to put their tops back on by the bouncer. In a BATHHOUSE!
It's absolutely ridiculous how much sexist crap can be tolerated in the gay community under the guise of 'protecting' gay men.
Fri, 2007-06-01 10:01
#35
quote:
Of all kinds of establishments, a gay bar should realize how stupid it is to start policing the gender of their patrons. How do trans people fit into their policy?
Yeah, that is exactly the problem with reverse discrimination. Discrimination starts with putting people into categories; it's incompatible with the idea that people can define their own identities and have the right to reject categorization.
The problem I have with "safe spaces" is that some people who are seeking the very same "safe space" do not fit into whatever group created a "safe space" for themselves. So they are told to go make their own space. It is by definition exclusive, and un-progressive (reactionary), I think.
[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
Fri, 2007-06-01 10:14
#36
Some women like to go to gay bars with their galpals so they can enjoy their evening without fending off unwanted attention from male lurkers.
Fri, 2007-06-01 10:36
#37
Fortunately no one has yet invented a "gay detector." One wonders how one would register on such a device...would it show a percentage??
Fri, 2007-06-01 10:58
#38
The analogous case is probably the one from B.C. in which a women's organization refused a transsexual the right to participate in rape counselling.
Discriminated against groups have a limited right to secure their own spaces, even if that involves discrimination.
Normally, the problem arises when the "interloper" is not really the source of the oppression. In the B.C. case, women didn't want "men" counselling in rape cases, but were somewhat inflexible about who, exactly, was a man.
In this case, some sort of broad exclusion of "the other" seems to be in play. Myself, I can't see how a woman or two would detract from the bar-going experience.
I do think that the woman's dignity may have been affected. If you go to a bar with a friend, you shouldn't be told that your identity disqualifies you from service.
Fri, 2007-06-01 11:33
#39
It is "othering" that is exactly the problem. It's hard to discriminate against someone until you say they're "not one of us." The case in BC, I have a hard time not seeing that as simple transphobia. A group of women were claiming the right to define what a woman is, and the right to categorize the woman in question.
[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
Fri, 2007-06-01 11:43
#40
I am not sure how analagous the two cases are. On the surface maybe, but one involved rape counselling, the other drinking at a pub. I can see where one group might have a little more control over who is allowed to participate.
To anyone here that frequents gay bars, are women showing up there ever a problem. As was said I know that woman often like to go to these bars to avoid the harassment they get at straight bars. Do the number of woman ever overwhelm the men in these bars?
Fri, 2007-06-01 14:06
#41
In my mind, such as it is, the linkage is a discriminated against group useing the kind of discrimination they would formerly not have put up with.
And again, in my mind, such as it is, discrimination is discrimination. Being selective on who gets to discriminate and who doesn't brings us back to where we were in the first place, doesn't it?
And don't say "it depends..."
[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-06-01 14:12
#42
quote:
Definitely a bad choice of words concerning Le Stud. Padlock Time would be quite popular.
He he, the other level of that phraseology escaped me at the time, good one Doug.
I must be slipping.
[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
Fri, 2007-06-01 17:07
#43
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoLoopDweller:
[b]
To anyone here that frequents gay bars, are women showing up there ever a problem. As was said I know that woman often like to go to these bars to avoid the harassment they get at straight bars. Do the number of woman ever overwhelm the men in these bars?[/b]
It really depends on what sort of bar it is and what they have planned. At a dance party/club I doubt anyone much cares (within reason) how many women show up. At a naked or fetish party, the ladies aren't so welcome. Essentially, women are welcome at places gay men would reasonably want to take them. Wait! No arrows or gunshots this way, please! I'm just making a general observation which isn't necessarily my personal opinion.
Fri, 2007-06-01 20:54
#44
quote:
"The bar's refusal in no way affected the girl's dignity or devalues her as a person. It doesn't seriously affect her status in society, whereas gays face constant discrimination," he said.
Oh, I had no idea women were equals in society. Good to know we don't face constant discrimination. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-06-01 21:30
#45
quote:
Originally posted by Boze:
[b]It is "othering" that is exactly the problem. It's hard to discriminate against someone until you say they're "not one of us." The case in BC, I have a hard time not seeing that as simple transphobia. A group of women were claiming the right to define what a woman is, and the right to categorize the woman in question.[ 01 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ][/b]
That's like telling black people that affirmative action is discriminatory against whites. Just because a man with a penis decides he is a woman doesn't mean women are discriminating against him if they refuse to accept his claims to being female.
I realize that transgender issues are very sensitive and that people who are transgendered suffer a great deal of discrimination and rejection.
However, being female is not a state of mind.
Fri, 2007-06-01 21:39
#46
Who is this gay bar really discriminating against? Heterosexual men, not really because there is no way to tell if a man is gay or straight by looking at him, and I am not convinced there are droves of straight men trying to get into gay bars showing gay porn and allowing/encouraging touchy/feely dancing.
So to me, the primary population being discriminated against is women, not heterosexual men. Which women is it most likely to affect? I suspect that would be lesbians. Aren't lesbians a part of the gay village?
When did "gay" start excluding women? Come to think of it, when did "homosexual" start excluding women?
I do feel there is a lot of sexism within the gay male community. Gay men can be just as sexist as straight men.
Sat, 2007-06-02 09:48
#47
quote:
Originally posted by Infosaturated:
[b]That's like telling black people that affirmative action is discriminatory against whites. Just because a man with a penis decides he is a woman doesn't mean women are discriminating against him if they refuse to accept his claims to being female.
I realize that transgender issues are very sensitive and that people who are transgendered suffer a great deal of discrimination and rejection.
However, being female is not a state of mind.[/b]
"Male" and "Female" are biological qualities. "Woman" and "Man" are social categories. To quote Simone de Beauvoir, one is not born a woman, one becomes one. Beauvoir also wrote about "othering" and identified it as key to women's oppression.
As for your comparison to affirmative action, a closer approximation would be a dispute over who is black, because race after all is also a social construct. Nobody opposes affirmative action here (I hope), but I hope nobody would support a "blacks-only" club.
Sat, 2007-06-02 15:02
#48
Male and Female then. Females get to decide what it means to be a woman. That goes to the crux of feminism. Females/Women should not have to accept a male's definition of what being a female/woman is.
Sat, 2007-06-02 15:10
#49
quote:
Females get to decide what it means to be a woman. That goes to the crux of feminism.
Oh, but I know loads of feminists who disagree and are not transphobic, thankfully. Respectfully, people can determine their own identities and don't need anyone's permission to be who they are.
[ 02 June 2007: Message edited by: Boze ]
Tue, 2007-06-05 09:32
#50
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=001498]C... out the old thread that jrose dug up, on this same topic.[/url] Some interesting thoughts there.
Tue, 2007-06-05 11:14
#51
quote:
Check out the old thread that jrose dug up, on this same topic. Some interesting thoughts there.
Whoops, don't know how I missed this one! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]