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

[Baneat]

I'm wondering where the civil libertarian's would have been if it was a man and a young boy kissing. Or how many people realise the pub is in London,England (it even says in the link). Or how many people have read the staff's side to the story which states that the couple had already been asked to stop many times.

I also wonder why certain organisations deem anything that happens to gay people homophobia or homophilia.

I know there's a lot of gay people who are sick to death of people claiming victories "in their name".

I'm very much a libertarian, and this is interesting. See this young boy, how young is he? I need to know this in order to respond clearly. Are we talking a 40 y.o and an 18 y.o, or we talking a 25 y.o and an 8 y.o?

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Once again for the hard of thinking in this thread - The law in the UK is quite specific. If you decide to throw people out for kissing, you had better apply the same standard to everyone. If you DON'T, if you only throw out the gay couples but not the straight ones, you have broken the law and you WILL get your fucking face legally stamped on.

If you don't want to serve gays or asian people or Hindus then CLOSE your business and piss right off. When the owner/operator of a business decides to start selling goods and services then they have to obey ALL of the laws, not just the ones that they agree with. So you do have the right to be a racist prick, but you don't have the right to open and business and run it as a racist prick. Personal choice. You can't ignore the health and safety laws, you can't ignore the licensing laws and you cannot ignore the laws that stop discrimination.

Once upon a time, in the UK (to our shame) people would put up signs in B & Bs and pubs that said "no blacks, no Irish". That is not allowed. And they are not allowed to say "no gays".

If the pub in question ends up in court, they might have to prove that they would treat all couples the same. A notion that makes me laugh as I very much doubt that the imaginary straight couples they have kicked out would not come running to help them.

The only thing that matters is that the standard is the same for everyone. A sign saying you have a right to refuse service to whoever you want is fucking worthless if the whoevers are always people of different skin colours, religions or sexual orientations. So take your silly fucking sign and shove it where the sun does not shine.

This thread is full of self-righteous fascists like yourself. My goodness, I'd be in good company except most of the fascists here seem to have an atypical moral compass.

Oswald Mosley is probably laughing in his grave at the moment. One look at today's Britain with all it's hate speech and "equality" laws and it's not all that far off from what he would have wanted.

 

[Baneat]

The two are horribly, horribly confused in this thread, and clarity is really needed if you're gonna get any further with it. I'd say it was illegal for the barman to act like that, I don't like what the barman did, but I'd defend what should be his right to act like a prick tooth and nail.
.

Just to check. Would you be happy if he threw out someone who was black because he didn't like black people and didn't want them in his pub? Would you defend his right to do so?

I'm just wondering, so I know whether to take you seriously or not.

I would not be happy if he did this. - I'll extend that further, actually, I'd be very unhappy. I'd no longer buy from that place, and I'd tell others not to do so, as he is a racist.

I would defend his right to do it.

I'm not happy with people eating shit for sexual pleasure (it grosses me the fuck out)

But I will defend their right to do it.

 

[Valksy]

Once again for the hard of thinking in this thread - The law in the UK is quite specific. If you decide to throw people out for kissing, you had better apply the same standard to everyone. If you DON'T, if you only throw out the gay couples but not the straight ones, you have broken the law and you WILL get your fucking face legally stamped on.

If you don't want to serve gays or asian people or Hindus then CLOSE your business and piss right off. When the owner/operator of a business decides to start selling goods and services then they have to obey ALL of the laws, not just the ones that they agree with. So you do have the right to be a racist prick, but you don't have the right to open and business and run it as a racist prick. Personal choice. You can't ignore the health and safety laws, you can't ignore the licensing laws and you cannot ignore the laws that stop discrimination.

Once upon a time, in the UK (to our shame) people would put up signs in B & Bs and pubs that said "no blacks, no Irish". That is not allowed. And they are not allowed to say "no gays".

If the pub in question ends up in court, they might have to prove that they would treat all couples the same. A notion that makes me laugh as I very much doubt that the imaginary straight couples they have kicked out would not come running to help them.

The only thing that matters is that the standard is the same for everyone. A sign saying you have a right to refuse service to whoever you want is fucking worthless if the whoevers are always people of different skin colours, religions or sexual orientations. So take your silly fucking sign and shove it where the sun does not shine.

This thread is full of self-righteous fascists like yourself. My goodness, I'd be in good company except most of the fascists here seem to have an atypical moral compass.

Oswald Mosley is probably laughing in his grave at the moment. One look at today's Britain with all it's hate speech and "equality" laws and it's not all that far off from what he would have wanted.

Right. Gotcha. Equal rights for everyone is fascism.

Now I know exactly how seriously to take you.

 

[Ickorus]

Their pub, their rules.

Really, it's as simple as that.

Who's to say that the owners aren't religious? It could quite easily be that homosexuality is against their religion and they choose to uphold that standard to their patrons at least as long as they are customers or their pub.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I'm very much a libertarian, and this is interesting. See this young boy, how young is he? I need to know this in order to respond clearly. Are we talking a 40 y.o and an 18 y.o, or we talking a 25 y.o and an 8 y.o?

Lets say that the boy is young enough that you can't be sure. He has no ID and is not buying alcohol. Are you going to protect his right to sit there and kiss? (using exactly the same arguments as you've put forward)

Now, does it change simply because the guy is "actually" over 18? If it does, then you've just left the bar-owner with an impossible decision, and an unenforcable law.

Edit: Just realised this might be taking as equating homosexuality with paedophilia. Not my intention. Works equally as well with an older man and a younger girl.

 

[ezeroast]

It's the same thing, you wouldn't kick a guy out of a bar for kissing his girlfriend would you?

I would, my bars have to be depressing, it stimulates sales of course! Happy people muddy up everything with their fancy mathematics.

yea, who want to get loaded around happy people with hope and their whole lives ahead of them? not me

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Right. Gotcha. Equal rights for everyone is fascism.

Now I know exactly how seriously to take you.

About as seriously as I'm taking you. If you can't understand how forcing your personal sense of morality on others is fascist, then you really are beyond help. I'm sorry you dislike freedom so much.

 

[Baneat]

I'm very much a libertarian, and this is interesting. See this young boy, how young is he? I need to know this in order to respond clearly. Are we talking a 40 y.o and an 18 y.o, or we talking a 25 y.o and an 8 y.o?

Lets say that the boy is young enough that you can't be sure. He has no ID and is not buying alcohol. Are you going to protect his right to sit there and kiss? (using exactly the same arguments as you've put forward)

Now, does it change simply because the guy is "actually" over 18? If it does, then you've just left the bar-owner with an impossible decision, and an unenforcable law.

Well I thought the issue you were pressing is that we should have problem with sexual abuse of minors. The libertarian stance to take is to put the rational thought under the place of the parent until he reaches the age of majority (and I pick 18, it's a safe age to assume their reasoning skills have developed fully)

Reasoning for that is without reasoning you couldn't make an actual choice anyway, so it's still within the parent's domain

But, I think you're getting into the law, which I don't wish to consider as it's not my field of understanding, normative ethics is. When it comes to the technicalities of current law, ask someone else, sorry.

And don't worry about the implied equation, it wasn't what I was angling with either.

 

[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.

Still don't know 100% if they are discriminatory.

And we never will since we weren't there. The point I'm making is that you and everyone else making points about how it's a private establishment and the owner can do what we wants, are wrong. Flat out, factually incorrect.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

It says in the article that it was a kiss on a first date. Now, I don't know about you, but none of my first dates have involved a kiss that anyone would consider obscene. So yeah, bartender's being a dick.

 

[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.

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.

Still don't know 100% if they are discriminatory.

And we never will since we weren't there. The point I'm making is that you and everyone else making points about how it's a private establishment and the owner can do what we wants, are wrong. Flat out, factually incorrect.

Is it not "Should be able to" rather than "Can do"?

 

[LimitedPunctuation]

well.. who cares? if it was a heterosexual sexual couple being kicked out, no one would care. this is as retarded as saying, we shouldn't hit women because theyre women, but then saying genders are equal..

 

[Shycte]

While I think it is a bit asshole-ish from the owner, no one has the right to be served at a bar. If the bar wants to lose customers it's their problem.

 

[Valksy]

Wrong Equality Act 2010.

Wrong. Equality Act doesn't work unless the reason is about equality. I can't put up a sign saying "No gays", but I can kick a gay guy out in the same way I kick a straight guy out.

Otherwise, you've just given Gay people a right to drink alcohol in the pub after 2 in the morning.

If they can prove that other couples were kissing and ONLY they were chucked out, then the Equality Act works. Otherwise, they're just pandering for media attention.

I believe that the burden of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt" under the Act) would require that the pub in question demonstrates that it applies the standard equally.

The publican/landlady did say (paraphrase) "it's my pub, I can do what I want" and that is blatantly untrue. That she was allegedly screaming at them for being obscene and disgusting rather suggests that it was because of their sexuality.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

And we never will since we weren't there. The point I'm making is that you and everyone else making points about how it's a private establishment and the owner can do what we wants, are wrong. Flat out, factually incorrect.

Right, but I think most of the people here are saying that it should be the owner's choice. Regardless of what the law currently says.

Ironically most people in countries with "anti-discrimination" laws aren't aware of their existence.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The publican/landlady did say (paraphrase) "it's my pub, I can do what I want" and that is blatantly untrue. That she was allegedly screaming at them for being obscene and disgusting rather suggests that it was because of their sexuality.

Now we've got to be careful.

The media want this story to be big. Stonewall et. al. want this story to be big. Big enough that we lose sight of facts and get caught up in paraphrasing, allegedly and ulterior motives.

Talk to the staff, talk to the customers. Find out if there's a pattern.

The kiss-in itself had a HUGE following with people demanding this and that
but

By 2130 BST, most people had moved on elsewhere for the night.

A group of a half a dozen 20-somethings were quietly sat around on the doorstep to the pub.

"It's real shame people didn't stay for longer," said Gareth Rhys, 21, from Cambridge.

People don't care about whether it was right or wrong, people care about the word "abuse".

And, ffs, which landlord never says "My pub, my rules!"?

 

[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.

Still don't know 100% if they are discriminatory.

And we never will since we weren't there. The point I'm making is that you and everyone else making points about how it's a private establishment and the owner can do what we wants, are wrong. Flat out, factually incorrect.

Is it not "Should be able to" rather than "Can do"?

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.

No. This is you stating something that is not fact as fact in order to win an argument. The fact that several other notable posters are doing the same, either out of ignorance or deliberately, is disappointing.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

It's the same thing, you wouldn't kick a guy out of a bar for kissing his girlfriend would you?

Yeah, I would. I work security at clubs and hotels. Management has a strict policy of not allowing that kind of behavior. You get one warning (usually friendly), then your out. It can and has led to some pretty nasty scenes.