Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 90

Thread: Australian gay bar wins right to ban heterosexuals

  1. #1

    Australian gay bar wins right to ban heterosexuals

    WTF?

    [QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSSYD21543120070529?feedType=RSS[/url]

    Gay pub wins right to ban straights
    Tue May 29, 2007 10:16AM EDT

    MELBOURNE (Reuters) - An Australian hotel catering for homosexuals has won the right to ban heterosexuals from its bars so as to provide a safe and comfortable venue for gay men.

    In what is believed to be a first for Australia, the Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled last week that the Peel Hotel in the southern city of Melbourne could exclude patrons based on their sexuality.

    Australia's equal opportunity laws prevent people being discriminated against based on race, religion or sexuality.

    But Peel Hotel owner Tom McFeely said the ruling was necessary to provide gay men with a non-threatening atmosphere to freely express their sexuality.

    "If I can limit the number of heterosexuals entering the Peel, then that helps me keep the safe balance," Peel told Australian radio on Monday.

    McFeely said that, while the hotel welcomed everyone, its gay clientele had expressed discomfort over the number of heterosexuals and lesbians coming to the venue in the past year.

    He said there were more than 2,000 venues in Melbourne that catered to heterosexuals, but his hotel was the only one marketing itself predominantly to gay men.

    Victoria's state human rights commission backed the ruling, saying it was in line with equal opportunity guidelines defending the rights of groups subject to discrimination.

    Commission chief Helen Szoke said the hotel's gay clientele had experienced harassment and violence. "(They) also have felt as though they've been like a zoo exhibit with big groups of women on hens' parties coming to the club," Szoke told reporters.

    McFeely told the radio that the hotel had received homophobic telephone calls since news of the ruling was made public.[/QUOTE]


    So, is this extreme political correctness to the point of reverse discrimination? What the hell is going on in this world?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

  3. #3
    God, I love Bush supporters.

    Habeas corpus disappears here without a peep, but losing the right to enter an Australian gay bar evokes outrage.

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]God, I love Bush supporters.

    Habeas corpus disappears here without a peep, but losing the right to enter an Australian gay bar evokes outrage.[/QUOTE]


    Yeah, that's accurate. Are you always this sloppy with your summaries of events?

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]God, I love Bush supporters.

    Habeas corpus disappears here without a peep, but losing the right to enter an Australian gay bar evokes outrage.[/QUOTE]

    Can you remind us which specific American Citizens out of our 250+ Million have lost or been denied the right of Habeus Corpus please?

    A Link to a legitimate news organization backing it up would be great too, thanks! Appreciate it.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]God, I love Bush supporters.

    Habeas corpus disappears here without a peep, but losing the right to enter an Australian gay bar evokes outrage.[/QUOTE]


    God, I love morons who post on message boards.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Can you remind us which specific American Citizens out of our 250+ Million have lost or been denied the right of Habeus Corpus please?

    A Link to a legitimate news organization backing it up would be great too, thanks! Appreciate it.[/QUOTE]

    The threat to Habeas Corpus comes from an interpretation of the Military Commissions Act, passed last year, that holds that "enemy combatants" don't get HC rights. The Bush people have taken that and tried to assert --in the article below, and elsewhere-- that HC rights can also be suspended to citizens they dub "enemy combatants," whatever that means.

    The law at issue is new and, so far as I'm aware, hasn't been applied to any citizens yet, but Alberto Gonzalez --the top legal officer in the U.S.-- said under oath in January that he did not believe HC was guaranteed to every American by the constitution. You'll note the incredulous reaction from the Republican head of the judiciary committee in the transcript supplied below.

    ______________________

    Gonzales says the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus
    Attorney general's remarks on citizens' right astound the chair of Senate judiciary panel
    Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 24, 2007

    One of the Bush administration's most far-reaching assertions of government power was revealed quietly last week when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that habeas corpus -- the right to go to federal court and challenge one's imprisonment -- is not protected by the Constitution.

    "The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

    Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

    Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

    Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.

    Gonzales did not propose any such drastic rollback and devoted most of his discussion to fending off senatorial attacks on a law signed by President Bush last October. That law included a provision stripping federal courts of authority to hear habeas corpus suits by noncitizens classified by the government as "enemy combatants.'' Specter and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, are sponsoring legislation to undo the restriction.

    But critics on both ends of the ideological spectrum said the attorney general was claiming a broader and more chilling power.

    "This is the key protection that people have if they're held in violation of the law,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who has criticized the administration's actions on civil liberties. "If there's no habeas corpus, and if the government wants to pick you or me off the street and hold us indefinitely, how do we get our release?''

    Chemerinsky was joined by Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor and former Justice Department official under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

    If Gonzales' view prevailed, Kmiec said, "one of the basic protections of human liberty against the powers of the state would be embarrassingly absent from our constitutional system.''

    Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said this week that Gonzales stood by his remarks but was asserting only that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus. The attorney general recognizes, Roehrkasse said, that the Supreme Court has declared "the Constitution protects (habeas corpus) as it existed at common law'' in England. Any such rights, he added, would not apply to foreigners held as enemy combatants.

    Habeas corpus was recognized in English law at least as early as the Magna Carta, in 1215, and perhaps earlier. In the United States, it refers to bringing a prisoner's case before a federal judge, who has the power to order the government to release anyone who is being held illegally.

    It has become an issue in Bush's efforts to hold military captives at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with little or no access to civilian courts. The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that that those prisoners could file habeas corpus claims in court, rejecting the administration's argument that inmates held outside the United States had no such right. That ruling was based on the court's interpretation of laws passed by Congress and did not discuss whether Guantanamo inmates had a constitutional right to habeas corpus.

    The distinction is potentially crucial, because Congress, in the law signed last October, prohibited federal courts from reviewing habeas corpus suits by Guantanamo prisoners or any other noncitizens held as enemy combatants. The law's validity depends on whether the Supreme Court concludes that the prisoners' constitutional rights are being violated.

    The issue of habeas corpus came up during last week's hearing when Specter asked Gonzales how a congressional statute could withdraw the right "when there's an express constitutional provision that it can't be suspended and an explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo alien detainees?''

    The court ruled only on the right to habeas corpus that was created by statute, Gonzales replied. He then asserted that the Constitution does not contain any express right of habeas corpus, only "a prohibition against taking it away.''

    The issue extends far beyond Guantanamo.

    The Supreme Court has interpreted federal judges' powers of habeas corpus to apply to prison systems around the nation and the legality of convictions in state as well as federal court.

    For example, federal judges, who are appointed for life, regularly invoke habeas corpus when overturning convictions or death sentences of state inmates, overruling decisions by elected state judges.

    Bruce Fein, a former Reagan Justice Department attorney who has become an outspoken critic of the Bush administration, noted that the day before his Judiciary Committee appearance, Gonzales had denounced "activist judges'' and advised them to stay out of national security matters.

    Gonzales' comments to the committee on habeas corpus, Fein said, contained a message that "Congress doesn't have to let them (judges) decide national security matters.''

    "It's part of an attempt to create the idea that during conflicts, the three branches of government collapse into one, and it is the president,'' Fein said.


    What Gonzales, Specter said
    Excerpts from the exchange between Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17:

    Gonzales: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. ...

    Specter: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in cases of rebellion or invasion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there's an invasion or rebellion?

    Gonzales: I meant by that comment, the Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. Doesn't say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except...

    Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction and violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General.

    Source: Senate Judiciary Committee transcript

    E-mail Bob Egelko at [email]begelko@sfchronicle.com[/email].

    [url]http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/24/MNGDONO11O1.DTL[/url]

    This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,043
    The reasoning for this isn't too far fetched.

    [QUOTE]...the ruling was necessary to provide gay men with a non-threatening atmosphere to freely express their sexuality.[/QUOTE]

    Unless there are straight men beating down the door to get into gay bars (I mean you, Mr. Haggard)...why should straight men care if they are not allowed in the Blue Oyster Bar?

    Probably wouldn't be an issue if gays were not assaulted because of their sexuality. But the last thing Hans and Franz wants is some liquored up straight guy bar hopping to their bar, not knowing what it is, being hit on by some gays and the straight guy freaking out and maybe becoming physical. Well, maybe SOME of them would like that...but not a Matt Shepard-style beat down...

  9. #9
    So anyway, what does everyone think about banning heterosexuals from a gay bar? Is this on the same level as the guy that owns the Philly cheesesteak place to only serve customers who speak English? Anyone? Bueller?

    I'm tired of posting a legitimate thread just to be hijacked and ripped on by liberals because it has nothing to do with the War in Iraq or bashing Bush. God forbid we should talk about something else to pass the time during the middle of the day.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan]The reasoning for this isn't too far fetched.



    Unless there are straight men beating down the door to get into gay bars (I mean you, Mr. Haggard)...why should straight men care if they are not allowed in the Blue Oyster Bar?

    Probably wouldn't be an issue if gays were not assaulted because of their sexuality. But the last thing Hans and Franz wants is some liquored up straight guy bar hopping to their bar, not knowing what it is, being hit on by some gays and the straight guy freaking out and maybe becoming physical. Well, maybe SOME of them would like that...but not a Matt Shepard-style beat down...[/QUOTE]

    That's true, but doesn't it open the door for heterosexuals to lobby for the same "right", i.e. "I just want to go to a straight bar after work and not worry about getting hit on by a gay guy in the bar."

    Although that sounds ridiculous, it's not that far fetched in terms of the issue at hand.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]The threat to Habeas Corpus comes from an interpretation of the Military Commissions Act, passed last year, that holds that "enemy combatants" don't get HC rights.[/QUOTE]

    Thank you. I was unaware that the legal rights of American Citizens as granted by the Constitution extended to non-citizens captured in combat actions against our forces. I must have missed that section of the Constitution, but I'll go check and see where it is. Thanks again.

  12. #12
    Has there every been a straight man attacked because of his sexual orientation?
    How would they if you are gay or not?
    Pauliec is a soccer fan, doesn't that automatically put you in the gay slot?

    [QUOTE=pauliec]That's true, but doesn't it open the door for heterosexuals to lobby for the same "right", i.e. "I just want to go to a straight bar after work and not worry about getting hit on by a gay guy in the bar."

    Although that sounds ridiculous, it's not that far fetched in terms of the issue at hand.[/QUOTE]

  13. #13
    Equality is Great....for everyone OTHER than the Majority. That is the ultimate truth of the PC World we live in.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Thank you. I was unaware that the legal rights of American Citizens as granted by the Constitution extended to non-citizens captured in combat actions against our forces. I must have missed that section of the Constitution, but I'll go check and see where it is. Thanks again.[/QUOTE]

    I guess you're unfamiliar with the case of Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen held as an "enemy combatant" by Bush et al.

  15. #15
    I wonder if the straight guy community will get any reparations from this injustice?

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]I guess you're unfamiliar with the case of Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen held as an "enemy combatant" by Bush et al.[/QUOTE]

    I am familiar. Thats one (sort of at best) in 300 Million.

    Any others?

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=cr726]Has there every been a straight man attacked because of his sexual orientation?
    How would they if you are gay or not?
    Pauliec is a soccer fan, doesn't that automatically put you in the gay slot?[/QUOTE]


    Does it, does it really?

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish]I am familiar. Thats one (sort of at best) in 300 Million.

    Any others?[/QUOTE]

    No others yet that are known publicly, at least not to me. (Of course, when you can hold people without charges --as they did to Padilla for years-- it becomes very possible that there are other cases we don't know about.) But I find the precedent (and the Bush/Gonzalez attitude about setting it) far more disturbing than, say, my new inability to enter a gay bar in Australia.

  19. #19
    [IMG]http://full.pixelsndots.com/93a92de71dd3801cb6262517c1.png[/IMG]


    No, sorry. Cheap joke at your expense.



    [QUOTE=pauliec]Does it, does it really?[/QUOTE]

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Everyone, please answer this very simple, straightforward question:

    Is discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation acceptable or not?

    If you cannot provide a one-word answer to this very simple question, you are engaging in laughable CYA spin and you know it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us