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

[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"?

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.

I don't think I said

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.

Yet you say I did say this? I've made it crystal clear, through at least five posts that I'm not concerning myself with the legality of the actions, since I don't know enough, I'm concerning myself with what I think SHOULD be allowed, which is an area I do have understanding of. Can you source that quote of me? I really don't know when I said that. I have not made one claim to know the law on this matter.

 

[Valksy]

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!"?

I use the term allegedly because I do know that witness statements were taken by the police as someone in the that pub put their hands on one of the men, with a view to physically ejecting him which isn't strictly legal. It is my instinct to switch to legalese in that sort of case (I don't believe there were any charges, but what happened is on record now).

The kiss in worked because the pub closed its doors at 3pm and, if it was still shut at 9:30 probably did not open for the rest of the day. So, half a days takings lost - on a Friday in a busy city in the middle of what is London's "gay village". Couple of grand then, at least. Good. Might be another kiss in during the week, hope they shut their doors again.

And I don't disagree that it is their rules. But those rules have to be blind.

 

[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.

It wouldn't be illegal if it was not based directly on orientation and rather the actions they preformed in the pub. Yes tossing someone out based solely on sexuality is discrimination and illegal but the law is a blunt weapon and its wielder fills in the blanks with context. If he is more abrupt when tossing out an offender of his rule because he is homosexual would that be a notch against him? But i admit i should have used another word in my post.

If the gay gents in question were in violation of a "legal" house rule then he had every right to throw them out. In fact considering my experiences in Soho, which is full to the brim with gay bars, I'm inclined to think the gentlemen in question were breaking the rules. That's simply conjecture however and unless there's some video footage were never going to get an unbiased account of the event.

Now your second question is an interesting one. If the owner treats two people different when applying the rules because of their sexuality their race, etc then yes, that technically is illegal in the UK. Should he be held accountable? I don't think so. People are just too complex in that regard for any kind of legal judgement to be made. It does, however, make him a little bit racist/homophobic/etc but I think we all discriminate to a certain degree.

 

[The Wooster]

Yet you say I did say this? I've made it crystal clear, through at least five posts that I'm not concerning myself with the legality of the actions, since I don't know enough, I'm concerning myself with what I think SHOULD be allowed, which is an area I do have understanding of. Can you source that quote of me? I really don't know when I said that. I have not made one claim to know the law on this matter.

Actually, my bad. I kind of got lost in the huge fucking quote maze we've got going here. Sorry.

Anyway. As for whether or not he should be allowed to discriminate. Well. Let's quantify your argument first.

Would you, for example, be okay with a bar that refused to serve black people? Or women? (I actually used to work in a club that wouldn't serve women in the lounge. Backwater shithole that it was)

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

Uh...innocent until proven guilty has always been the law, even in Britain. Which would mean that the burden of proof rests on the homosexual couple/the local government, because they have accused the owners of the bar of committing a crime.

Because the Bar Owner is the accused, burden of proof rests on the government to establish that the owner did not kick out heterosexual couples for the exact same thing.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Yet you say I did say this? I've made it crystal clear, through at least five posts that I'm not concerning myself with the legality of the actions, since I don't know enough, I'm concerning myself with what I think SHOULD be allowed, which is an area I do have understanding of. Can you source that quote of me? I really don't know when I said that. I have not made one claim to know the law on this matter.

Actually, my bad. I kind of got lost in the huge fucking quote maze we've got going here. Sorry.

Anyway. As for whether or not he should be allowed to discriminate. Well. Let's quantify your argument first.

Would you, for example, be okay with a bar that refused to serve black people? Or women? (I actually used to work in a club that wouldn't serve women in the lounge. Backwater shithole that it was)

It's like the debate is going in circles.

This question has already been asked, and the answer was yes.

 

[Baneat]

Yet you say I did say this? I've made it crystal clear, through at least five posts that I'm not concerning myself with the legality of the actions, since I don't know enough, I'm concerning myself with what I think SHOULD be allowed, which is an area I do have understanding of. Can you source that quote of me? I really don't know when I said that. I have not made one claim to know the law on this matter.

Actually, my bad. I kind of got lost in the huge fucking quote maze we've got going here. Sorry.

Anyway. As for whether or not he should be allowed to discriminate. Well. Let's quantify your argument first.

Would you, for example, be okay with a bar that refused to serve black people? Or women? (I actually used to work in a club that wouldn't serve women in the lounge. Backwater shithole that it was)

Now, by okay, what exactly do you mean? Would I patronize the bar? would I like it if they did it? would I, if I had my say in how this should be handled, allow the bar to continue to discriminate against blacks?

I've been straw manned from this distinction earlier in the thread, so we need to be super-clear on what exactly "okay" is.

 

[Corialos]

Me, personally? I don't care if you're gay or straight. It doesn't matter, because frankly what people do on their own time or who they choose to fall in love with is no one's business but their own, and I think more people should realize this so that all peoples can be treated equally, and so that the sexuality/morality debate can stop being so damn controversial.

Now, that being said, as far as the kissing goes, my question is, what kind of kiss was it, and what was the duration? This matters when you're trying to judge something as "obscene." A quick peck is fine, and deeper kissing is pushing it. When people outright begin to make out in public, it tends to make everyone else uncomfortable, and so yes, can be considered obscene. Knowing this, a pub owner has every right to throw out these sort of people if they make others uncomfortable and are therefore driving away customers. It's only immoral if it's not based on discrimination, which is impossible to discern, since we were never there.

The point I'm trying to make is that, whether you're straight, gay, bi, or robosexual (joke), it doesn't matter what you are, no one wants to see you getting intimate in public. So, just keep it in the bedroom, please.

 

[Baneat]

Yet you say I did say this? I've made it crystal clear, through at least five posts that I'm not concerning myself with the legality of the actions, since I don't know enough, I'm concerning myself with what I think SHOULD be allowed, which is an area I do have understanding of. Can you source that quote of me? I really don't know when I said that. I have not made one claim to know the law on this matter.

Actually, my bad. I kind of got lost in the huge fucking quote maze we've got going here. Sorry.

Anyway. As for whether or not he should be allowed to discriminate. Well. Let's quantify your argument first.

Would you, for example, be okay with a bar that refused to serve black people? Or women? (I actually used to work in a club that wouldn't serve women in the lounge. Backwater shithole that it was)

It's like the debate is going in circles.

This question has already been asked, and the answer was yes.

Oi, watch what you say please, it's an ambigious question, thuogh before it was used as a trick to jump into straw-manning. Clarity first, then I'll answer.

 

[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.

Uh...innocent until proven guilty has always been the law, even in Britain. Which would mean that the burden of proof rests on the homosexual couple/the local government, because they have accused the owners of the bar of committing a crime.

Because the Bar Owner is the accused, burden of proof rests on the government to establish that the owner did not kick out heterosexual couples for the exact same thing.

Read the legislation. I did.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about criminal law, this is civil law. Not the same. The expected quality of the proof must be "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a criminal mechanism. But cases under the Equality Act are civil and the burden of proof requirement is as I described.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

Oi, watch what you say please, it's an ambigious question, thuogh before it was used as a trick to jump into straw-manning. Clarity first, then I'll answer.

It's hardly your fault that the other side has to resort to fallacies.

 

[Fraught]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat as everyone on this thread who said that they'd be uncomfortable with even a heterosexual couple making out. But I wouldn't really make a big fuss, I'd just...deal with it.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

Uh...innocent until proven guilty has always been the law, even in Britain. Which would mean that the burden of proof rests on the homosexual couple/the local government, because they have accused the owners of the bar of committing a crime.

Because the Bar Owner is the accused, burden of proof rests on the government to establish that the owner did not kick out heterosexual couples for the exact same thing.

Read the legislation. I did.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about criminal law, this is civil law. Not the same. The expected quality of the proof must be "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is a criminal mechanism. But cases under the Equality Act are civil and the burden of proof requirement is as I described.

So you are saying that people accused of violating the Equality Act are considered Guilty until proven Innocent?

What are the punishments for violating this law? Despite it's verbose nature, the act doesn't seem to say.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

 

[Baneat]

Hey guys, I'm just going to throw out the same thing I did in the "should gays be allowed to marry" thread.

Assuming that they were thrown out not because they were kissing, but because they were gay...

Would it be all right to do the same out of racist grounds? Like, throwing out indians or blacks because of it? If not, then why is it wrong with homosexuality?

It should be legal to let the barman throw them out

It isn't right for the barman to throw them out, but that's not your decision to make.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

Bullshit.

I'm Spanish. We were fascist until 78.

You have no fucking clue of what you're talking about. In fact, I take it as a personal offense. You want to know what forty years in a fascist country look like, ask my dad or my grandfather. It doesn't have people banning discrimination for racial or sexual orientation reasons. That's what freedom and democracy look like. We know because we've seen it happening and now gay people get to kiss wherever they want and marry whoever they want without going to jail.

I had a great constitutional law professor in university, a man that worked to bring democracy to the country directly. He used to say "Egality is the right to be different. That right must be actively protected." Otherwise, it is washed away by the extreme power of the normalcy imposed by the masses. That's what democratic systems do: they enable the freedom of the minorities over the imposition of the majority. It's not just about voting or "doing whatever you want".

I guess I shouldn't be so annoyed by ignorance, but when it comes to this issue ignorance turns into something nasty and evil so fast that it's really hard not to.

Actually...Your statement is pretty much the opposite of the truth. Democracy is the rule of the majority. Democracy quite literally means "rule of the people." Democracries enable the complete and total domination of the majority over minorities. Which is why some people prefer Republics over true Democracies.

You are confusing freedom and democracy. Democracy is only inherently freedom for the majority. That said, I support gay marriage, and equal treatment for gays in general, but it annoys me that you percieve democracy as the exact opposite of what it really is.