Two gay men kicked out of a pub for kissing in public

[Baneat]

Not asking. Forcing. And I've included the response, you just deliberately didn't read it.

Racism/sexixm/bigotry should be condemned not protected. I did respond to that part of you post, try reading yourself.

So liberty only applies if you allow/agree with it? I don't think a racist is right in his actions, but in his own restaurant and house and whatever else he owns, he can be the grand canary of the KKK and I can't and won't stop it.

Are you even reading? The KKK can eat at a public bar all they want, they can even preach cause we let priests get away with it. Gay people can also use the same bar. Everyone is free to use public places, not just some people. A business has to cater to everybody.

That isn't selective liberty, its the opposite.

You believe that someone's bar belongs to the people, I believe it belongs to the owner of the bar. We're done here.

one sec: I actually said this already and yet you haven't acknowledged that this is the core and fundamental difference of the disagreement. You either did not read or refute this, and thus, this is done.

Actually, I'd like to take this a little further. Do the mods of this site reserve the right to ban trolls? Yes, they do. Do they ban people that come in and stick up threads with swastikas and preach Hitler? I think they would.

My question is, do you have a problem with the mods being able to ban these people? by the same coin that a forum is a "public place" because the public go there, they cannot morally discriminate against any person, by your logic.

 

[Nieroshai]

I am an equal opportunity prude, so yes I would've been offended by male/female kissing too. But I doubt my views are mainstream, and do not wish my prudishness to be enforced.

 

[Ghengis John]

Thats what the "We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason" sign is for.
Besides, for all we know they were being obscene but hey, they are a minority so we are just supposed to excuse them huh? Were it a hetero couple that got kicked out everyone would just say "meh, they probably were being obscene" and would not have made such a big deal about it. But because its a gay couple everyone just blames the owner.
And the whole gay kissing protest thing is just fucking tacky.
Don't like the business? Do not give it your money.

Well said Marcone.

 

[rapidoud]

I don't know in the USA but in Australia we have a thing called "no offensive language in public" where if you are offended by something you have a right to tell them to STFU and if they don't you can call the police, so yes a neo-nazi would get kicked out of a bar.

But kicking them out for kissing is ridiculous, I suppose hugging's out of the question too.

 

[Baneat]

I don't know in the USA but in Australia we have a thing called "no offensive language in public" where if you are offended by something you have a right to tell them to STFU and if they don't you can call the police, so yes a neo-nazi would get kicked out of a bar.

But kicking them out for kissing is ridiculous, I suppose hugging's out of the question too.

Firstly, that gives hell again with the meaning of the term public. Bars are private establishments, in my opinion, but I hate repeating myself over and over. Some guys find neo-nazis offensive, some guys find kissing offensive. You have to ask, who are you to decide who's right? Do you do it because you clearly know better than the neo-nazi? ironically, that would be fascism, to control people because you think you know better (And this make it easier for them to live, where the term comes from). Or, do you do what I think should be done, and give the guy that owns the bar complete control over who's allowed into his bar, and sod his morality. Don't like it, don't go there, let people know that he's a racist by going to real public places and use real freedom-of-speech. Don't let the homophobe into your shop, don't let him into your house. That's what you can do, and it should be all one person can do.

@Eldarion

The bar is private property in that it is OWNED and operated by private citizens. The bar is on private property not public property therefore the establishment is owned by the person that owns the land. If it is public property than the owner of the pub would not own it. But since it is private property it is owned by a private citizen and that private citizen reserves the right to deny entry or discriminate against anyone he doesn't want on his private property; despite its function as a public gathering spot. No matter how wrong or immoral it is for him to do so.

The bar is on private land it is owned by a private citizen therefore the owner has right to make rules governing the property.

Mr. Baneat is trying to tell you that an establishment on private property that holds a public function is not the property of the people rather it is the property of one or more private citizens and subject to their will.

For example if i were to open a BBQ hut and put it on my own private property i would have a public venue on private property. If someone broke into my BBQ restaurant and stole my cleaving knives that person would be charged with breaking and entry of private property.
It is NOT who attends a venue that decides ownership it is who legally owns it.
The articles state the pub is owned by a Brewery not the public.

Thank you so fucking much, am I being seriously unclear or is it as obvious to others as it seems to me?

 

[The Wooster]

@Eldarion

The bar is private property in that it is OWNED and operated by private citizens. The bar is on private property not public property therefore the establishment is owned by the person that owns the land. If it is public property than the owner of the pub would not own it. But since it is private property it is owned by a private citizen and that private citizen reserves the right to deny entry or discriminate against anyone he doesn't want on his private property; despite its function as a public gathering spot. No matter how wrong or immoral it is for him to do so.

Under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 no-one should be refused goods or services on the grounds of their sexuality.

Simply put. Private property or nay, discrimination is still illegal. In the UK at least.

 

[Thumper17]

Serves them queers right, am i rite fellas?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHjsw5diO5lbj4_WjLYHM5CBSCtEahVIwCA-Tm6c10vPLNmfiq


Srsly, bad form. If it really bothered people, tell them not to do it again.

 

[Eldarion]

Not asking. Forcing. And I've included the response, you just deliberately didn't read it.

Racism/sexixm/bigotry should be condemned not protected. I did respond to that part of you post, try reading yourself.

So liberty only applies if you allow/agree with it? I don't think a racist is right in his actions, but in his own restaurant and house and whatever else he owns, he can be the grand canary of the KKK and I can't and won't stop it.

Are you even reading? The KKK can eat at a public bar all they want, they can even preach cause we let priests get away with it. Gay people can also use the same bar. Everyone is free to use public places, not just some people. A business has to cater to everybody.

That isn't selective liberty, its the opposite.

You believe that someone's bar belongs to the people, I believe it belongs to the owner of the bar. We're done here.

one sec: I actually said this already and yet you haven't acknowledged that this is the core and fundamental difference of the disagreement. You either did not read or refute this, and thus, this is done.

Actually, I'd like to take this a little further. Do the mods of this site reserve the right to ban trolls? Yes, they do. Do they ban people that come in and stick up threads with swastikas and preach Hitler? I think they would.

My question is, do you have a problem with the mods being able to ban these people? by the same coin that a forum is a "public place" because the public go there, they cannot morally discriminate against any person, by your logic.

This site isn't legally a public place, nice try. The internet doesn't work that way.

You seem to think that people should be allowed to make their own business and discriminate all they want. The only thing that leads to is the dominate majority starting Christian only/white people only/ect bars and permanently keep minorities out.

Freedoms at the individual level have to be enforced, the only thing a true democracy would accomplish is rule of the majority. The minority crowd would be forced to live their way. The way things work now protects a lot more people. It protects everybody in fact. That is why we have a republic. All the white people/Christians/whatever (just examples) could just take everybody's rights away if they aren't enforced by a central system.

Nice edit by the way, don't send me a prompt and pretend you win?

 

[wizzerd229]

personally I think two men making out is disgusting, and the bar owner was right for kicking them out, but that's just my opinion

*hands you a flame shield* you will need one, especially from me, a gay man, you fucking homophobic dic...oh wait, this is the escapist...
OT: i think the pub was in the wrong if it was just a quick kiss, but if they were making out, the pub was in the right.

 

[Baneat]

Not asking. Forcing. And I've included the response, you just deliberately didn't read it.

Racism/sexixm/bigotry should be condemned not protected. I did respond to that part of you post, try reading yourself.

So liberty only applies if you allow/agree with it? I don't think a racist is right in his actions, but in his own restaurant and house and whatever else he owns, he can be the grand canary of the KKK and I can't and won't stop it.

Are you even reading? The KKK can eat at a public bar all they want, they can even preach cause we let priests get away with it. Gay people can also use the same bar. Everyone is free to use public places, not just some people. A business has to cater to everybody.

That isn't selective liberty, its the opposite.

You believe that someone's bar belongs to the people, I believe it belongs to the owner of the bar. We're done here.

one sec: I actually said this already and yet you haven't acknowledged that this is the core and fundamental difference of the disagreement. You either did not read or refute this, and thus, this is done.

Actually, I'd like to take this a little further. Do the mods of this site reserve the right to ban trolls? Yes, they do. Do they ban people that come in and stick up threads with swastikas and preach Hitler? I think they would.

My question is, do you have a problem with the mods being able to ban these people? by the same coin that a forum is a "public place" because the public go there, they cannot morally discriminate against any person, by your logic.

This site isn't legally a public place, nice try. The internet doesn't work that way.

You seem to think that people should be allowed to make their own business and discriminate all they want. The only thing that leads to is the dominate majority starting Christian only/white people only/ect bars and permanently keep minorities out.

Freedoms at the individual level have to be enforced, the only thing a true democracy would accomplish is rule of the majority. The minority crown would be forced to live their way. The way things work now protects a lot more people. It protects everybody in fact. That is why we have a republic.

Nice edit by the way, don't send me a prompt and pretend you win?

It's an addendum, and I don't give a fuck about the legality. Read back to when I said I'm not talking about legality.

"I am forced to play nice" is not a freedom. Bars are not public places in the same sense a forum is not. You can break into a forum by hacking it, you can break into a bar and steal stuff from it. You can't break into your street, you can't break into your park. These are public places. I'm not repeating this again, I really am done, I'm not a meta-ethicist, and this isn't meta-ethical, ergo I will not go further than ethical fundamentals.

 

[Windcaler]

The article only gives one side of the story and as is often the case when we only have 1 side of the story I tend to think that it wasnt as innocent as they claim.

I do not know if this was just a peck or a full make out and groping session because of the lack of comment from the business. That said if a heterosexual or lesbian couple would have been treated the same way then I have no problems with the business's decision to ask them to leave. If they were singled out just because of the fact that they are two males kissing and not because of how they were kissing then the business is certainly in the wrong

 

[Eldarion]

@Eldarion

The bar is private property in that it is OWNED and operated by private citizens. The bar is on private property not public property therefore the establishment is owned by the person that owns the land. If it is public property than the owner of the pub would not own it. But since it is private property it is owned by a private citizen and that private citizen reserves the right to deny entry or discriminate against anyone he doesn't want on his private property; despite its function as a public gathering spot. No matter how wrong or immoral it is for him to do so.

The bar is on private land it is owned by a private citizen therefore the owner has right to make rules governing the property.

Mr. Baneat is trying to tell you that an establishment on private property that holds a public function is not the property of the people rather it is the property of one or more private citizens and subject to their will.

For example if i were to open a BBQ hut and put it on my own private property i would have a public venue on private property. If someone broke into my BBQ restaurant and stole my cleaving knives that person would be charged with breaking and entry of private property. If YOU owned a restaurant on private land and i burst in with friends claiming it to be public property due to its public nature wouldn't you have the right to toss my stupid ass on the sidewalk?
It is NOT who attends a venue that decides ownership it is who legally owns it.
The articles state the pub is owned by a Brewery not the public.

You are legally incorrect. In the united states and the UK a business like a bar is a public place and you can't legally discriminate against people who enter the establishment.

Not asking. Forcing. And I've included the response, you just deliberately didn't read it.

Racism/sexixm/bigotry should be condemned not protected. I did respond to that part of you post, try reading yourself.

So liberty only applies if you allow/agree with it? I don't think a racist is right in his actions, but in his own restaurant and house and whatever else he owns, he can be the grand canary of the KKK and I can't and won't stop it.

Are you even reading? The KKK can eat at a public bar all they want, they can even preach cause we let priests get away with it. Gay people can also use the same bar. Everyone is free to use public places, not just some people. A business has to cater to everybody.

That isn't selective liberty, its the opposite.

You believe that someone's bar belongs to the people, I believe it belongs to the owner of the bar. We're done here.

one sec: I actually said this already and yet you haven't acknowledged that this is the core and fundamental difference of the disagreement. You either did not read or refute this, and thus, this is done.

Actually, I'd like to take this a little further. Do the mods of this site reserve the right to ban trolls? Yes, they do. Do they ban people that come in and stick up threads with swastikas and preach Hitler? I think they would.

My question is, do you have a problem with the mods being able to ban these people? by the same coin that a forum is a "public place" because the public go there, they cannot morally discriminate against any person, by your logic.

This site isn't legally a public place, nice try. The internet doesn't work that way.

You seem to think that people should be allowed to make their own business and discriminate all they want. The only thing that leads to is the dominate majority starting Christian only/white people only/ect bars and permanently keep minorities out.

Freedoms at the individual level have to be enforced, the only thing a true democracy would accomplish is rule of the majority. The minority crown would be forced to live their way. The way things work now protects a lot more people. It protects everybody in fact. That is why we have a republic.

Nice edit by the way, don't send me a prompt and pretend you win?

It's an addendum, and I don't give a fuck about the legality. Read back to when I said I'm not talking about legality.

"I am forced to play nice" is not a freedom. Bars are not public places in the same sense a forum is not. You can break into a forum by hacking it, you can break into a bar and steal stuff from it. You can't break into your street, you can't break into your park. These are public places. I'm not repeating this again, I really am done, I'm not a meta-ethicist, and this isn't meta-ethical, ergo I will not go further than ethical fundamentals.

You seem to think that people should be allowed to make their own business and discriminate all they want. The only thing that leads to is the dominate majority starting Christian only/white people only/ect bars and permanently keep minorities out.

Freedoms at the individual level have to be enforced, the only thing a true democracy would accomplish is rule of the majority. The minority crown would be forced to live their way. The way things work now protects a lot more people. It protects everybody in fact. That is why we have a republic.

I re posed the part you ignored as to why allowing that doesn't work in the real world.

Also websites are not public places like bars are, don't care if you don't believe me its a fact.

 

[Baneat]

@Eldarion

The bar is private property in that it is OWNED and operated by private citizens. The bar is on private property not public property therefore the establishment is owned by the person that owns the land. If it is public property than the owner of the pub would not own it. But since it is private property it is owned by a private citizen and that private citizen reserves the right to deny entry or discriminate against anyone he doesn't want on his private property; despite its function as a public gathering spot. No matter how wrong or immoral it is for him to do so.

The bar is on private land it is owned by a private citizen therefore the owner has right to make rules governing the property.

Mr. Baneat is trying to tell you that an establishment on private property that holds a public function is not the property of the people rather it is the property of one or more private citizens and subject to their will.

For example if i were to open a BBQ hut and put it on my own private property i would have a public venue on private property. If someone broke into my BBQ restaurant and stole my cleaving knives that person would be charged with breaking and entry of private property. If YOU owned a restaurant on private land and i burst in with friends claiming it to be public property due to its public nature wouldn't you have the right to toss my stupid ass on the sidewalk?
It is NOT who attends a venue that decides ownership it is who legally owns it.
The articles state the pub is owned by a Brewery not the public.

You are legally incorrect. In the united states and the UK a business like a bar is a public place and you can't legally discriminate against people who enter the establishment.

As he's following from my argument, I'll consider this as an extension to an ethical discussion, not a legal one.

MLK didn't win freedom for the blacks through affirmative action. Milk did not pressurise the businesses who wouldn't let gays in(fitting actually) with some "play nice" policy. He arranged boycotts, he hurt those san-fransisco bars with their wallets. If you supported gay rights, you didn't go to the bars that were unfriendly to gays. Look what he managed to do. Look what "positive" discrimination does.

BUT: This is really tiring me, I know where I stand, and nothing will or can be said that hasn't been, it's beaten, I'm done, this time, I really won't reply further.

 

[Eldarion]

As he's following from my argument, I'll consider this as an extension to an ethical discussion, not a legal one.

MLK didn't win freedom for the blacks through affirmative action. Milk did not pressurise the businesses who wouldn't let gays in(fitting actually) with some "play nice" policy. He arranged boycotts, he hurt those san-fransisco bars with their wallets. If you supported gay rights, you didn't go to the bars that were unfriendly to gays. Look what he managed to do. Look what "positive" discrimination does.

It was directed at me, so I don't know what your talking about. I responded to him.

Also, MLK didn't accept what was clearly an unfair and unjust situation. You want to just accept it and I already told you in the real world that doesn't work.

You seem to think that people should be allowed to make their own business and discriminate all they want. The only thing that leads to is the dominate majority starting Christian only/white people only/ect bars and permanently keep minorities out.

Freedoms at the individual level have to be enforced, the only thing a true democracy would accomplish is rule of the majority. The minority crown would be forced to live their way. The way things work now protects a lot more people. It protects everybody in fact. That is why we have a republic.

^You keep ignoring this.^

BUT: This is really tiring me, I know where I stand, and nothing will or can be said that hasn't been, it's beaten, I'm done, this time, I really won't reply further.

Bury your head in the sand any time you feel like it, but I have to assume you just don't have an answer for the post I showed you 3 times now.

 

[CaptQuakers]

Barmen/women can kick who ever they like out of their pub. If enough people complained about the 2 mens actions they will be kicked out JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. In a place like a pub the views of the many out way the views of the few.

Also the kissing thing after was just stupid. Every time something like this happens the gay community always seem to go ott and bring up human rights and all this crap. Just suck It up and get on with It. This has probably happened to 100's of straight people and yet we hear nothing about It.

Thats just my thoughts