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

[Sentox6]

Prevention of abuse against minorities is an integral part of democracy.

Surely even the briefest moment of introspection would be sufficient to realise that this is - at most - simply one part of a specific view of democracy, not a universal tautology as you seem to suggest.

 

[googleback]

WELL that's pubs for you.

 

[Yossarian1507]

Well, since my official stance on homosexuals is "You're gay? Cool. You like to talk about it, sure, no problem. But for the love of God, don't make out with each other near me, or I'll start puking", I guess I would make the same decision as a bar owner.

 

[Athinira]

His bar - his rules. Simple as that.

Owning a bar/pub/serving establishments also subjects the bar owner to specific rules. It isn't just "your bar". You still have standards you have to comply with, and in most modern countries, those standards prohibit discrimination.

If the rules apply to heterosexuals as well, then it's not a problem. But as soon as those rules start discriminating people (on race, sexuality etc.), it means the owner isn't following the standards of law, and he is therefore entitled to a big (and might i add, well-deserved) fine or possibly even a forced closing of his establishment for repeat offenders.

Personally I'm glad i live in a country where such rules are taking seriously. In fact, politicians in Denmark are currently trying to increase the potential consequence for clubs who discriminates against people, meaning that if it goes through, the police will be allowed to close the club and remove it's alcohol-serving priviledge if it finds out that discrimination takes place.

 

[RelexCryo]

You have listed constitutions which claim that minorities have rights. You have not listed anything which claims a system where minorities are denied rights by the majority inherently prevents a system from being a democracy.

Secondly, you claimed I have not made an argument showing a system where minority rights are violated is a democracy. I did make an argument, and I supported it.

You are essentially arguing definitions, but your personal definition not only defies majority definition, but also listed sources. Considering I support gay marriage and teating homosexuals equally, this is all rather amusing.

I don't "claim" crap, and this has gone way past amusing into plain sadness, really.

Look, you want the actual argument, fine. I'll give it another shot and try to stop being so dismissive (but it's *really* hard, so bear with me).

*sigh*

Modern representative democracy is based on the assumption that large nation-states are too large and powerful to run under old regime premises. Old monarchies relied on de facto support from nobility with financial and human resources to raise in rebellion periodically, which created an unspoken political connective tissue to the system. Still with me there?

"Old Regime Premises?" If you mean aristocracy and monarchy, then we discontinued those because it was believed that they constitute an inherent violation of human rights. If you mean Athenian direct democracy, electing people to political office instead of drawing lots simply seemed more logical.

When after illustration and the French and American revolutions states become separated from this system and a new way to rule them is necessary some thinkers warn these new entities that they hold too much power around a single, monolithic government structure. This has a strong potential to degenerate into really abusive neo-absolutism (they were clever folk, too, this actually happened through nationalism and imperialism and led to two world wars).


The political engineers of the time engaged in some of the most fascinating and fruitful political discussion ever seen in the planet to come up with systems to prevent this. Representation was carried over from the old regime, but they quickly realized that it needed to be contained in a self-balancing system. They were using gamification three hundred years ahead of time in order to come up with a political "game" that would ensure that, no matter how corrupt, evil or self-centered a politician was, he would lack the power to become a tyrant.

Early on in these democracies, voting was not even that big of a deal. Anywhere between 2 to 20% of the population could vote. Women couldn't, sometimes people who weren't land owners couldn't. Over time the voting segments were increased and universal suffrage became a tentpole of the modern democratic system, but people often forget that checks and balances to guarantee the protection of minorities (which originally couldn't vote) predate it by a long time and is actually closer to the core of the modern democracy than 100% voter coverage is.

Keep in mind, at the time, Blacks were slaves in roughly half the country, and Native Americans were being mass murdered on the frontier. So protections of minorities wasn't really that widespread either.

The objective was never for voting to be universal or to be applied directly to every issue. It was to design a set of rules that would guarantee that majorities could choose a leader for the country without oppressing minorities.

In that case they failed horribly, non-whites were oppressed pretty thoroughly.

Majorities already ruled before democracy. Kings were added and removed through violent and nonviolent conflict based on the availability of majoritarian support.

It would be more accurate to say that it was based on the support of the people who had weapons and were well organized. When revolts erupted, they were generally put down by well organized armies with weapons. The majority needs to organize and arm itself before it can effectively revolt, a well armed and organized army dedicated to supporting the King can prevent that. Oda Nobunaga famously created the Sword Hunt in Japan to do exactly that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt

When that was lost revolts erupted overnight. Rulers were replaced. It was the protection of minority that allowed the system to turn into a merely formal struggle in which opinions were tallied and leaders were given complete but temporary power.

The inherent flaw in this argument is that America had an election in which power was transfered nonviolently while oppressing everyone who wasn't a white male.

Voting is fundamental, but the whole notion of "more votes equals being right and that's what laws need to convey" is absolutely off base. It's never been the case. Besides, no electoral system is focused on representing the vote layout directly. They all include tweaks to a) overrepresent the majority so that they can vote without needing ad hoc agreements with every minority group and b) give minorities stopping power so that the majority group can't do crazy things like change the constitution unilaterally.

...

...ooooh, man, being so nice hurts.

Better, though? I explained. Can you stop calling me out on nonsensical crap now? Please?

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Personally I'm glad i live in a country where such rules are taking seriously. In fact, politicians in Denmark are currently trying to increase the potential consequence for clubs who discriminates against people, meaning that if it goes through, the police will be allowed to close the club and remove it's alcohol-serving priviledge if it finds out that discrimination takes place.

It's depressing that the countries with the most freedom seem like they just can't wait to get rid of it.

 

[LuckyClover95]

I think there's a bit of double standards going on here :/

 

[Gralian]

...one still has to wonder why you wouldn't just go to a place more geared towards your culture specifically and will be entirely accepting of what you do.

Because they liked that bar? because they wanted a change of scenery? because the gay bars they'd been to were full of douche bags for the night? There's a million reasons, and none of them fucking matter. There's only the concept of gay bars because everything else is a defacto "straight bar" it's fucking stupid.

I don't think the "heteronormative state" or "oppression" is the reason for gay bars. People don't go to them because they'll get chucked out of other places, they go because they can dance, flirt, grope and kiss their preferred gender in an environment that's universally accepting and encouraging of it. I don't claim to have much knowledge of gay bars, i've never been to one and i don't' really know what the deal is inside one, but i'm sure you go in with the full intention and expectation of intimacy, be it flirtation or heavy PDA. I've said it before, pubs are not bars and you don't go into one to do that sort of thing regardless of orientation. I'd be willing to bet that if they went to a bar, any bar, instead of a pub and made out they wouldn't get any grief. The only reason i suggest a gay bar is that - as much as people will claim otherwise - it's okay to be grossed out by same sex kissing or displays of intimacy. I know it's easy to dismiss that off as being homophobic, but that's just the way it is. Therefore i figured it would make sense to go to an environment where you're more likely not to turn any heads or gross anybody out. It's not a discriminatory thing, it's more of a politeness thing and i think it would make both the gay couple and straight crowd less awkward altogether. In all honesty though, i'd say to anyone, be they gay or straight, that i don't want to see them dry humping and swallowing each other's tongues in a pub, go do that in a bar or nightclub.

 

[RelexCryo]

"Old Regime Premises?" If you mean aristocracy and monarchy, then we discontinued those because it was believed that they constitute an inherent violation of human rights. If you mean Athenian direct democracy, electing people to political office instead of drawing lots simply seemed more logical.

No, I...

Wait, you don't know what "old regime" means?

As in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien_R%C3%A9gime_in_France

THAT old regime? As in the one single thing the term means in history lessons since kids are maybe twelve until they stop studying history?

Ok, this conversation is over now.

I mean, seriously, where are you from? How hold are you? Why does none of this sound familiar to you? Are you an AI? An alien trying to learn our customs? Are you going to eat us or use us as bioelectrical batteries for your postapocalyptic society?

And no, we didn't "discontinue" monarchy because it was "an inherent violation of human rights". They were discontinued because Americans didn't want to pay taxes to the British and the French lopped off the heads of their nobility so those structures needed to be replaced with something and the precepts of illustration took over. Modern fundamental rights are defined *after* that happened, not before.

Keep in mind, at the time, Blacks were slaves in roughly half the country, and Native Americans were being mass murdered on the frontier. So protections of minorities wasn't really that widespread either.

Oh, you're American.

That explains it, I guess...

No, "minorities" means "political minorities". Racial minorities come later, after civil and human rights movements throughout the 20th century prove the logical point that "minorities" applies to all those other groups, too. Gays are going through that process now.

In that case they failed horribly, non-whites and women were oppressed pretty thoroughly.

See above.

It would be more accurate to say that it was based on the support of the people who had weapons and were well organized. When revolts erupted, they were generally put down by well organized armies with weapons. The majority needs to organize and arm itself before it can effectively revolt, a well armed and organized army dedicated to supporting the King can prevent that. Oda Nobunaga famously created the Sword Hunt in Japan to do exactly that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_hunt

Aaaaand you're spouting Second Ammendment nonsense now. Yep. This conversation has officially ended badly.

No. Again, that didn't happen. Half of the revolts in the Middle Ages didn't even lead to war. A bunch of the time it was just some guy standing up in a meeting and declaring that he was revolting, which triggered the necessary changes in power if he had enough theoretical support.

Sure, weapons were needed, but they were all ready and accounted for, and the maintenance of "an organized army" required support in itself from the nobility and the peasants actually doing the fighting. Worker and slave revolts were relatively frequent, often requiring only farm tools as weapons because the social pyramid was so bottom heavy if just a small percentage of the lower population wanted to fight, even with their bare hands, nobody could really stop them. Again, this actually happened. Often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolt_in_late_medieval_Europe

How do you think the French Revolution even happened?

The inherent flaw in this argument is that America had an election in which power was transfered nonviolently while oppressing everyone who wasn't a white male.

Because "minority" only has meant "non white male" since the late sixties! That's not what I mean or democracies meant at all! Gah!

The system is built upon the defense of minorities. The geniuses leading the thing at the time didn't mean racial minorities, but of course their wording and logical makeup absolutely supported racial minorities being free and equal too, so the natural evolution of the system expanded towards universal freedom and suffrage.

Because the system was built to defend minorities. Political ones.

So they were able to argue that they were minorities and had a right to their difference as well.

See?

Will you please not invade us and replace us with pod people now?

With regards to that second amendment comment:

"In the end, they were almost always defeated and the nobles ruled the day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolt_in_late_medieval_Europe#Background

The peasants, despite your claims that they could easily win, were defeated the vast majority of the time in those popular revolts.

With regards to political minorities: You should have specified that. Considering that this thread is fundamentally talking about homosexual rights, not about the rights of voters to disagree with the government's position to not be imprisoned or killed, it is confusing to just say "minorities."

Lastly, "Ancien Régime" is the term used to refer to the regime in France. Old Regime is a generic term that can be applied to a lot of things.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

If someone is making out in a bar next to me, no matter what gender, I'd be uncomfortable and ask them to stop.

Having seen some of the guys I've seen playing tonsil tennis with their girlfriends in London pubs, asking them to stop is a one-way ticket to being hit with a bottle

OT: There's no way we can call this anti-gay since there's no way to tell how the landlord/pub owner guy would have reacted if a straight couple were doing the same. We just don't know, so we can't assume "oh he's just a homophobic old bastard". Maybe the guy just doesn't like seeing people make out in his pub. Or maybe he received enough complaints from other people in there, that he had to act on it and get the couple the hell out of the place.

I want to be outraged at this, but calling homophobia on it seems a little premature.

 

[RatRace123]

It depends on the type of kiss, if it was just a simple peck, then I think that'd be unfair.
If a couple, no matter if it's homosexual or heterosexual, were basically trying to eat eachother's faces though, then it's understandable why people might be offended by that. Two men, or a man and a woman, that's just kinda distracting either way.

I'm gonna assume this incident was the latter.

 

[supermariner]

Thank God this wasn't in the North
we don't need any more backwards thinking stereotypes than we already have

Either way, the article (or as much of it as i read) didn't actually mention if they were or weren't being obscene. So the owner kicking them out may or may not be justified

I doubt there'd be any big issue made about this if he actually wasn't just a homophobe and they were actually being obscene.
Though British papers can barely be trusted to hold scissors unattended
so it's a hard one to judge

 

[RelexCryo]

With regards to that second amendment comment:

"In the end, they were almost always defeated and the nobles ruled the day."

The peasants, despite your claims that they could easily win, were defeated the vast majority of the time in those popular revolts.

With regards to political minorities: You should have specified that. Considering that this thread is fundamentally talking about homosexual rights, not about the rights of voters to disagree with the government's position to not be imprisoned or killed, it is confusing to just say "minorities."

Lastly, "Ancien Régime" is the term used to refer to the regime in France. Old Regime is a generic term that can be applied to a lot of things.

1) Yes, pesants were defeated EVERY TIME... after the fact. Because they lacked a political structure. They weren't kept down by force of arms continuously and would have been able to create a new society if they were given swords or guns. Keeping your entire populace under violent control was as hard to do then as it is now. The moment they acquired some nobility support and a wider strategy and political background (not, you know, weapons) they changed the world permanently, so they logically would have to be defeated every time before the one time they won and changed the political system. I don't see what point you're making.

2) So you agreed with me all along that the defense of minorities was fundamental to modern democracy, you just thought I meant gay people and women. Huh. Sooo why did you argue so vehemently for straightforward majority rule being the defining aspect of democracy for so long?

3) I have never seen a single person in a discussion about politics and history hear "old regime" and jump to "he must mean either the Middle Ages or Ancient Greece". The first four entries for Old Regime in google lead to articles on the French Revolution and the fifth to the Russian revolution. The rest speak of Old Regime as "absolutist monarchy before the modern era". But hey, you didn't get it. Fair enough.

1) Lacking a political structure would prevent them from creating a stable system that did not descend into chaos. Based on your earlier assertions that a revolting peasant class could easily win battles, that would not have stopped them from killing the nobles who oppressed them. It would simply have prevented them from maintaining an orderly system after they killed the nobles. And yet they often failed to kill the Nobles who oppressed them, rather than successfully killing them, and then failing to create or maintain a new system of government.

2) Fundamental to modern Democracy yes, but fundamental to Democracy, period? Socrates was forced to drink Hemlock largely because he disagreed with the majority in Athens. Arguing that protection of political minorities is inherent to Democracy, not modern Democracy but Democracy itself, is rather foolish considering that.

 

[AlexWinter]

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

Obvious troll is obvious.

OT: If they were proper going at it in front of everybody and didn't stop when asked then I see no problem with this, would have happened with a heterosexual couple I imagine.

Although otherwise it is discrimination and like somebody already mentioned, it wouldn't have been the same deal if it were two lesbians getting at it.

 

[LuckyClover95]

If someone is making out in a bar next to me, no matter what gender, I'd be uncomfortable and ask them to stop.

Have you ever been to a bar?..

Hahahahahaha!
That is all.