Gay pickup bar refuses to serve woman

74 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2007-06-05 11:50

kropotkin1951

quote:

In Canada we have laws that say if a service is available to the public you cannot deny some people service on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, religion etc. etc. You can however start your own club for members only and get to say who those members are.
This isn't about rights it is about this "club" wanting to have the advantage of walk in traffic off the street but without the responsibility to serve everyone who wants to drink there. If they are allowed to then what other bar is allowed to deide who they will and will not serve. And how do you tell the gender of a female "impersonator"?

A quote from me on the other thread.

Tue, 2007-06-05 12:03

#53

Draco

quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]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.
[/b]

There was an article on
[url=http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=b01a603a-ce18-4... that issue[/url] the other day. A man in Montreal has filed a complaint against a women's gym in response to this case, just to make a point.

Thu, 2007-06-07 03:58

#54

Dead_Letter

quote:

Originally posted by Makwa:
[b]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.[/b]

If that's the case with her Dad, he can go alone. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

This [b]is[/b] about preserving our culture. Guys go to gay bars to be amongst other gay guys, not to get gawked at by weird straight people or harassed by malevolent ones.

We should have the right to our own spaces, few as they are. She can have a drink at 3921606009 other locations in Montreal - she doesn't need to do it at the gay bar.

Thu, 2007-06-07 04:04

#55

Dead_Letter

quote:

Originally posted by Infosaturated:
[b]there is no way to tell if a man is gay or straight by looking at him[/b]

I haven't found that to be the case. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Gay men really do seem to share some physical traits - not all of them, surely, but many. It's no science, for sure, but I think if you picked up 80 straight boys and 20 gay men off the street and said, "Pick out the gay ones," just based on looking at their faces, people would do better than they mathematically should if your statement is true. Then again, I'm unaware of anybody trying that study so ... what do I know ...

[img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Thu, 2007-06-07 04:19

#56

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:
[b]
This [b]is[/b] about preserving our culture. Guys go to gay bars to be amongst other gay guys, not to get gawked at by weird straight people or harassed by malevolent ones.
We should have the right to our own spaces, few as they are. She can have a drink at 3921606009 other locations in Montreal - she doesn't need to do it at the gay bar.[/b]

In your home or in a private club, you can have your "own space".

In an establishment open to the public, you allow everyone, or no one. It's really that simple.

Men had their "own spaces" for a long time in Montreal and other cities. So did Christians. So did whites in many parts of the world. Humanity considers these spaces repugnant.

Or maybe it's ok for the oppressed to have their own spaces?

Like a bar with a sign that says, "No whites allowed", or "Jews only"?

Not in my city, thanks.

Thu, 2007-06-07 04:24

#57

Stargazer

quote:

We should have the right to our own spaces, few as they are. She can have a drink at 3921606009 other locations in Montreal - she doesn't need to do it at the gay bar.

So much for solidarity in the gay community. Funny how men get out right pissed about this issue but don't have any problem taking over women only spaces in the village. How many women only bars are there and how many men go every time? Pathetic that men in the village cannot see (and refuse to see) their own damn sexism. Sorry guys, you get no free pass just because you are gay. Gawking?? All straight women must want you? "These women can just go to their own bar (oh and by the way we can go to - because we can!)"

Plain wrong! Please!

Thu, 2007-06-07 04:33

#58

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]
Pathetic that men in the village cannot see (and refuse to see) their own damn sexism.[/b]

I agree with the thrust of your post, but I don't think it's right to generalize. Once people think about these issues, the vast majority will I'm sure favour inclusion and not exclusion.

Thu, 2007-06-07 05:01

#59

Stargazer

I'm sure some do unionist. But you may want to ask the women in the village and who frequest there about the 'vast majority'. Seriously.

Thu, 2007-06-07 07:14

#60

Martha (but not...

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]In your home or in a private club, you can have your "own space". In an establishment open to the public, you allow everyone, or no one. It's really that simple.[/b]

I agree entirely.

I do have a technical legal question: Can I set up what is effectively a bar, and then have it designated a "private club"? Maybe charge a $1 annual membership fee or something, and then screen memberships for my particular group? If so, then it seems that anyone can sort of get around the law.

Thu, 2007-06-07 12:16

#61

kropotkin1951

The test is the substance not the form. The evidence would be around whether it is a service commonly available to the public. Your scenario looks to me like a service commonly available to the public but I am not a Tribunal Member.

quote:

In University of British Columbia v. Berg (1993), 18 C.H.R.R. D/310 (S.C.C.), Lamer C.J.C. said that
Every service has its own public, and once that "public" has been defined through the use of eligibility criteria, the [Human Rights] Act prohibits discrimination within that public. (at para.
...
The idea of defining a "client group" for a particular service or facility focuses the inquiry on the appropriate factors of the nature of the accommodation, service or facility and the relationship it establishes between the accommodation, service or facility provider and the accommodation, services or facility user and avoids the anomalous results of a purely numerical approach to the definition of the public. Under the relational approach, the "public" may turn out to contain a very large or a very small number of people.
48 Prospera Place offers a venue for public events. The only criterion for admission is that, those attending an event, must have a ticket for the event in question. Nothing else is necessary. There is nothing to suggest that those attending events at Prospera Place were allowed access based on any personal characteristics or because of some private relationship between them and Prospera Place as was the case in Marine Drive Golf Club v. Buntain, Charles et al., 2005 BCSC 1434 (currently under appeal).
49 In light of Berg and Marine Drive Golf Club, I have no difficulty concluding the services provided by Prospera Place are services customarily available to the public, and that the services provided by Prospera Place are captured by s. 8 of the Code.

Thu, 2007-06-07 12:43

#62

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Martha (but not Stewart):
[b]Can I set up what is effectively a bar, and then have it designated a "private club"? Maybe charge a $1 annual membership fee or something, and then screen memberships for my particular group? If so, then it seems that anyone can sort of get around the law.[/b]

Excellent question. I'll bet this was an issue when it came to religious discrimination and the Royal Canadian Legion! And in trying to get around no-smoking bylaws!

My suspicion is that a tribunal will have a close look at whether the "private" aspect of a club is bona fide, or whether it's actually open to the public in everything but name, with "membership" being an easily obtained technicality aimed merely at subverting the law - and it will rule accordingly, on a case by case basis.

Here's what the [i]Charte du Quйbec[/i] says, as a starting point to our investigation(since we're dealing with Montrйal):

quote:

[i]Discrimination forbidden.[/i]
10. Every person has a right to full and equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms, without distinction, exclusion or preference based on race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.
[i]Public places available to everyone.[/i]
15. No one may, through discrimination, inhibit the access of another to public transportation or a public place, such as a commercial establishment, hotel, restaurant, theatre, cinema, park, camping ground or trailer park, or his obtaining the goods and services available there.

[url=http://www.canlii.org/qc/laws/sta/c-12/20050513/whole.html]Source.[/url]

Anyone else have any thoughts on Martha's question?

ETA: Whoops, somehow I missed kropotkin's post - his point responds very well to your question, Martha. Substance, not form. Sorry about that!

[ 07 June 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

Thu, 2007-06-07 15:03

#63

jeff house

quote:

Can I set up what is effectively a bar, and then have it designated a "private club"? Maybe charge a $1 annual membership fee or something, and then screen memberships for my particular group? If so, then it seems that anyone can sort of get around the law.

No organization which "offers services to the public" may discriminate.

As a result, if no such services are offered, any discrimination is not covered by the law.

Thu, 2007-06-07 15:09

#64

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by jeff house:
[b]
No organization which "offers services to the public" may discriminate.
As a result, if no such services are offered, any discrimination is not covered by the law.[/b]

Sorry, jeff, that's a logical fallacy. Just because organizations which offer services to the public may not discriminate, it does not follow that organizations which do not offer services to the public may discriminate. You've confused the converse with the contrapositive.

In fact, under Quйbec law (cited above), one cannot "through discrimination" inhibit access to a public place - irrespective of whether services are offered or not.

Thu, 2007-06-07 15:31

#65

writer

The father was interviewed a couple of days ago on CBC radio.

According to him, they had 20 minutes or so for an afternoon visit, and decided to go to a nearby place after meeting up. The closest area to hang out was the Village.

They walked along the sidewalk, saw a patio, sat down outside; then he was told his daughter would have to leave.

His point was: If it is a private club, it should be private. Tables beside a sidewalk: Not so private.

He said he saw no signs outlining the bar's no-women policy.

Thu, 2007-06-07 16:33

#66

Summer

To find discrimination under the Charter of rights there has to be a violation of human dignity. Most provinces' human rights codes have a bofa fides exception to discrimination and some have even imported the human dignity test into the question. I'm not familiar with the Quebec Charter so I have no idea if they have similar tests.

In the one ladies only gym case I've read (BC I believe), the tribunal said it wasn't discrimination under the Code. I think this was partly b/c the complainant seemed like a shit disturber, but of course, they said it was b/c his human dignity was affected, there were plenty of other gyms he could go to and if the gym let him join, they would lose so many of their clients. It seems like many parallels can be drawn between the ladies-only gym and the gay only bar (except for the shit disturber part).

Thu, 2007-06-07 16:41

#67

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by Summer:
[b]To find discrimination under the Charter of rights there has to be a violation of human dignity. [/b]

You are mistaken on two counts.

First, the "Charter of Rights" is part of the Canadian constitution. It doesn't apply to factories, supermarkets, or apartment blocks. And it isn't about "discrimination", but rather, equality before the law.

If you mean the Canadian Human Rights Act, or its provincial equivalents (like the Quйbec Charte, which is what is applicable to a bar in Montrйal), then you are wrong on the "human dignity" issue. It is illegal under all human rights legislation to discriminate in employment or in providing commercial service on the basis of (for example) sex or religious belief or disability. It is [b]not necessary[/b] to show, in addition, that the complainant's "human dignity" was affected. Such discrimination is unlawful, period, no strings attached.

Thu, 2007-06-07 17:09

#68

Summer

I know. Please read the last sentence of my first paragraph.

ETA: actually, scratch that, you might as well re-read the the whole thing. Note where I say [i]some[/i] provinces [i]imported[/i] the human dignity test into the human rights codes. I didn't say all, I didn't say Quebec and I didn't say that it's actually in the human rights codes/acts themselves. BC did it in the gym case and I'm pretty sure I've seen in Ontario as well.

It's not illegal to make a distinction based on gender, race, religion etc. It's illegal to discriminate. Some might argue that it's akin to affirmative action to allow a discriminated group to have their own space.

I support women's only gyms, so I'm open to hear from gay men as to why they need their own bars.

[ 07 June 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]

Thu, 2007-06-07 18:40

#69

pookie

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
You are mistaken on two counts.
First, the "Charter of Rights" is part of the Canadian constitution. It doesn't apply to factories, supermarkets, or apartment blocks. And it isn't about "discrimination", but rather, equality before the law.
[/b]

First of all, the Charter would apply to a human rights code that was found to be underinclusive or in some other way discriminatory. A complainant, like the woman here, could certainly challenge an interpretation of the human rights code which made it permissible to distinguish among patrons on the basis of sex.

Second, "equality before the law" is now one of the least commonly invoked Charter equality guarantees. There are three other guarantees which have assumed far more importance: equality under the law; equal protection of the law; and equal benefit of the law.

Finally, "discrimination" is an integral part of the Charter's equality guarantee. You cannot establish an equality violation without it.

Sun, 2007-06-10 18:11

#70

dirtyblond

Is it an equality issue and how would you establish that is why the service was being denied because the establishment believes she is inferior, or could it be these men just want to be left alone and not be someone's entertainment for the night. I went with my gay friend to his gay establishment and it was a real show for me because of course it was all new to me all the dressing up and all the men looking and acting like I never seen before. Men in minnies, men in gowns, etc all flirting and making out with each other I was a little embarrassed and decided after that it was a far better thing leaving the gay club to gays and their right to feel okay about themselves and not the freak show.

Sun, 2007-06-10 18:32

#71

Stargazer

What? Discrimination is discrimination eh. I highly doubt the woman in question, nor many others, want to go because it is a form of entertainment for them. Feak show? What do you mean by that? Sounds like a very derogatory way to describe the bar, and the people.

Wed, 2012-11-14 00:02

#72

Unionist

*bump*

Wed, 2012-11-14 00:06

#73

Unionist

From April 29, 2008:

[url=http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=8e195cb6-e9b3-4... bar settles complaint[/url]

Quote:

A year after a woman filed a complaint against Le Stud for discrimination, there were only men in sight today. While the bar is not necessarily welcoming to women, the Quebec human rights commission said it can’t deny them entry.

Le Stud settled with Longueuil’s Audrey Vachon, who filed a complaint to Quebec’s human rights commission last May after she was asked to leave the establishment because she is a woman.

In a statement released earlier, the human rights commission said it helped mediate the settlement, but refused to provide specific details on what Vachon was awarded.

The commission said it has received assurances Le Stud will adhere to charter rights, which means it can’t deny entry to anyone based on gender or sexual preference.

NOTE: the reference to "charter rights" above is to a Québec provincial statute, not to the Canadian Charter, which doesn't apply to commercial establishments.

Wed, 2012-11-14 00:06

#74

6079_Smith_W

Hmmm... what I wonder is how that "gay pickup bar" title got a pass.

Gay pickup bar refuses to serve woman

Pages