The latest triumph of the liberal agenda, via Reuters:
An Australian hotel catering [to] 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.
The legal term for this approach is: "separate but equal," see Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Is such segregation the goal of self-styled "progressives"?
Can you say "Back to the Future"? Sure, I knew you could.
MORE:
This sloppy reasoning in this MSNBC story makes me crazy:
The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.
Question 1: If the service was limited to gays, would that be discrimination?
Answer 1: See above.
Question 2: What was the discrimination? Was Ms Carlson really "denied access to eHarmony because she is gay"?
Answer 2: No: "Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a 'men seeking men' or 'women seeking women" option."
Question 3: So, a non-smoking bar must be unlawfully discriminating, right?
Answer 3: All your base are belong to us.
3 comments:
What about gay mortgage brokers? My belief is that Reg B's prohibited bases for discrimination due to marital status and sex (which also extend to associations) would make it illegal to market a "het" mortgage brokerage service, and therefore should outlaw gay-oriented mortgage brokerships. But they exist.
As for denying access, no, she was not denied access. eHarmony doesn't provide male/male or female/female matches, so her suit really amounts to a demand that it should do so. eHarmony's business is supposedly to provide "scientific" matches, and it says it does not have enough data to do so for same-sex oriented people.
The obvious difficulty of compiling data like that for such a small segment of the population should give everyone pause.
M_O_M: on the topic of demanding a service be performed by another regardless of his or her preference, I assume you've noted the proposed "Birth Control Act," HR 2596, introduced in the House by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), who argues:
An American woman can decide to put her life on the line for our country in Iraq, but she can be prevented from making basic decisions about her own health here at home. Access to birth control is a women's health issue, a private matter and a constitutional right. No one - not pharmacists, politicians, or religious leaders - should be able to tamper with that right.
An identical bill, S 1555, was introduced by Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, Clinton, Murray and Boxer.
NAARL's happy. So, I assume, is Wal-Mart and the 7th Circuit (distinguishable issue).
Post a Comment