Gay/Lesbian Issues

You'll Never Guess the Latest Business to Be Cited for Not Serving an LGBT Person

|

Somehow they still manage to make the back hair look meticulously groomed.
Denver Wrangler

A Denver bar has been cited by the state's Division of Civil Rights for discrimination because it refused to let a gay man dressed in drag enter. The bar is the Denver Wrangler, and despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person.

What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano, dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn't because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn't match his driver's license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.

Marzano is not transgender and has made no claims that he is. Nevertheless, the State of Colorado has determined that the Wrangler has likely violated Marzano's right to public accommodation on the basis of his appearance.

The state's report notes that the bar has a dress code forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes. While the report states there's nothing wrong with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or transgender people. The Wrangler is a "bear" bar, whose target demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What's alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:

"[T]he Respondent caters to a gay subculture known as "Bears," which are bisexual or gay males which tend to place importance on presenting a hypermasculine image and often shun interaction with men who exhibit effeminacy. This is evident from the pictures and statements made by employees regarding the "Bear" culture of the club and several links on the Respondent's webpage referencing "Bear" clubs … ."

Emphasis added by me because WT-bloody-F? You know what gay people love? Having the government tell them how their various subcultures work and think on the basis of talking to a bunch of people at a bar and looking at pictures. The preference for dating or friendship with certain types of people is not the same as "shunning" other types of people. And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.

I find this ruling maddening as somebody who has been fighting against the illogical slippery slope arguments that acknowledging and respecting transgender people will result in absurd outcomes like men faking it in order to peep on women in the bathroom. It's a stupid, irrational fear. And now we have a man who is not transgender nevertheless using the law to punish a business for not letting him in. And we have a state agency in Colorado declaring that a subculture within the gay community is inherently sexist for having a preference for masculinity.

This case is a good demonstration as to why it's so important to hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association. The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar. And if the community finds it significantly discriminatory, they can use social pressures to push for change (as Marzano has apparently done with a call for a boycott).

Read more coverage of the ruling here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

256 responses to “You'll Never Guess the Latest Business to Be Cited for Not Serving an LGBT Person

  1. Oh, this is delicious.

    A gay bar gets sued by the state for discriminating against gays because it made an extra effort to comply with a state law.

    1. Who knew?!

    2. I’m so confused as to who can go in and out and where…. nonononono… I mean, like look what the hell you made me do.

      How about everyone just shut the hell up and not worry about who serves who and/or why the hell not.

  2. I do love when they eat there own.

    1. [A million punchlines about gay sex.]

      1. [counter joke riffing off gay sex punchline.]

      2. I was thinking more of a ghey-rights uroboros.

    2. Trust: A gay cannibal

  3. the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person

    It’s come to this. And MM notes – delicious!

    1. And MM notes – delicious fabulous!

      1. +1 Queer Eye for the Straight Gay. Er, Guy…

        1. Queer Eye for the Bear Guy.

  4. Maybe the slippery slope isn’t so fucking irrational, Scott.

    1. Yeah, we keep seeing evidence that the slippery slope is not actually a fallacy.

      1. It needs an asterisk, that’s for sure.

      2. It can be if there’s an actual difference between the two points (for instance the consent issue that arises between allowing man-man marriage and allowing man-dog marriage). But in the case “that acknowledging and respecting transgender people will result in absurd outcomes like men faking it in order to peep on women in the bathroom”, one is a man being treated as a woman because he says he is one, and the other is a man being treated as a woman because he says is one.

      3. While the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, it’s important to distinguish between the slippery slope argument and the fact that laws do ultimately work on broad principles. That means that the law can’t embrace a principle without embracing that principle for everyone who comes down the pike. Would this case even raise an eyebrow if it were a bar patronized by heterosexuals being sued for discriminating? Well, how can you hold the principle and then say gay people are exempt?

        1. “While the slippery slope argument is a fallacy,”

          I don’t even know what that statement means. Are you saying slippery slopes never occur in the legal system or in politics? Or what?

          “Would this case even raise an eyebrow if it were a bar patronized by heterosexuals being sued for discriminating?”

          Doesn’t that depend on who the eyebrow is attached to? Are you assuming that all gay people want non-discrimination laws?

          You are a deeply confused man.

      4. Well, the last 80 – 100 years seem to provide ample confirmation that its not a fallacy, so yeah.

        1. You can say that it happens. You just cannot argue that it will always happen.

          1. Well, sure. Its not like a law of nature or anything.

            It is a prediction, that, based on history and experience, we are heading down a slippery slope if we do X.

            What you often see around here is the form of slippery sloping that goes something like:

            “This sure looks like all these other projects, which we were assured at the time were not going to run out of control, and which all kinds of incentives point to having it run out of control, so we think its going to run out of control.”

            That’s not a fallacy.

      5. Slippery slopes do exist, but logically it is still a falacy.

        1. Water slides are FAB-u-lous!

    2. Slippery with astroglyde perhaps?

    3. [joke in reference to the words “slippery slope” in the context of talking about gay bars]

  5. Live by the anti-discrimination sword, die by the anti-discrimination sword.

    I find this hilarious for some reason.

    And I feel bad for the .2% of gay people who opposed the bakery bullshit too.

    1. That number was way higher among gays on HnR.

      1. It was. Isn’t being collectivized fun?

      2. It’s also way higher among straights on HnR (than straights in general).

      3. I have never met a gay libertarian who wasn’t more pissed with the gay community than the anti-gay community. At least with the anti-gay community you can identify the opponent.

        1. As a Jew, I sometimes want to apologize to gentiles for, say, The New York Times Editorial Page, among a million-billion other things.

          1. Please – unless you’re a Jewish person who is on the NYT editorial board, or unless you’re a gay person who belongs to some “gay rights” organization, you’ve done nothing to apologize for, you haven’t even associated with people with bad ideas – stop apologizing!

            1. Stop collectivizing yourself!

              1. Outstanding!

            2. Judaism is inherently collectivist. It’s mostly about the collective relationship of the tribe to God, so why shouldn’t it be that way for their relationship to anyone else?

          2. I can understand that. A lot more than I can understand why douchebag progs the world over feel a need to shit on Israel, and Judaism in general.

            1. It seems progs are stuck in ye olde 19th century “Jews = Capitalism” meme. Yeah, so who’s really “progressive” again?

        2. The anti-gay community doesn’t do outrageous things in my name and then call me self-loathing just because I have the temerity to disagree.

          1. see.

            When I was working the Denver pride fest booth some of our most “aggressive” volunteers were our gay members. The patrons would wander by the booth and after taking the quiz ending up Left our gay volunteers were more likely to shred than persuade. Had to have a few cool down sessions with them.

      4. Closer to 50%.

          1. Well then it’s 8%

    2. Considering the couple in WA refused to sue the florist shop and the state felt the need to step in, it was higher than .2% among gays who have been involved in non-discrimination lawsuits too.

      But we should never let that get in the way of a tiny number.

      1. It’s not the size of the digit that counts…

      2. Considering the couple in WA refused to sue the florist shop and the state felt the need to step in…

        Er, are you sure about that? The lawsuit brought by the AG was a separate one, filed by the AG without consulting the gay couple. But they did bring their own suit under the CPA separately (and prior to the AG).

        1. It’s entirely possible I misunderstood what was going on when the original case went down.

          My understanding at the time was that they had posted on facebook that they were disappointed. The state AG found out and started pursuing it and they declined to proceed further. There was a media storm and they were eventually talked into filing suit after gay activists and ACLU types started working on them, but just wanted proceeds donated to a charity.

          I remember being excited that they weren’t going to sue and then disappointed that they folded, although frankly I don’t know that I expect someone who doesn’t explicitly share my principles on the issue to hold up against community pressure from multiple angles.

          1. Yeah, you will have a big victory. Beating up on a little old lady for following her own beliefs. Big man.

          2. The state AG found out and started pursuing it and they declined to proceed further.

            So you’re saying that the Attorney General was cruising gay Facebook pages???!?!

            (Can I write a slanderous and misleading headline or what?)

      3. Yeah, we’re SO proud of our AG here. Busy body piece of shit that he is. And it’s not like she wouldn’t do business with them.. She just wasn’t comfortable with the level of involvement their wedding would require.

        I’m campaigning hard to get that fucker out of office when the time comes.

    3. I was really pissed about the bakery lawsuit because I had just donated money to the ACLU for the first time (they were assisting).

      The worst part, to me, besides trampling on the rights of a private business owner, is that essentially they were making Michele Bachman right.

  6. This is hilarious.

    Discrimination isn’t nearly as bad as this.

  7. they should have read the amended social contract.

  8. Wasn’t this always going to be the end game? I’m sorry you were duped, Mr. Shackford. Because regardless of how one felt about the activism or the cause, this was always going to be how it was settled. Through the courts. You think the, um, entanglements of secular religion and dogma would result otherwise? This was sorta the original push against settling these issues through the courts instead of the legislature.

    But expediency rules the day, I guess, despite its consequences. We’ll adjust. I’m sure the bears can handle a drag queen in their bar. Who does it hurt, really?

    1. “who does it hurt, really?”

      The owner’s of specialty gay bars butts across America.

      1. That was the gay marriage argument. Sarc button on. “Who exactly will this hurt, man?” was what they asked, not considering people with objections would be forced into what is essentially specific performance.

        You breached my gay marriage contract by refusing pictures!

      2. It could do real damage to the bar owner. If the bar loses its “bear vibe” he might lose the majority of his customers. I don’t really know the culture but I bet it would be like running a man bar and having a bunch of chicks come in and kill the dude vibe.

        1. Side note: I have been to drag queen bars before, but a “bear bar” just sounds funner somehow.

          1. Depends on how hairy your belly is?

        2. Where I am the various subcultures tend to congregate in specific bars but WTF… I have never heard the likes of “no high heels” before. Geez Denver, mix it up a little.

          1. I’ve noticed that if you are going to run a small business you have to offer something not catered to in the mainstream. You can’t compete with big business because their volume allows them to beat you on price. The only choice is to serve a high margin niche and men without families are flush with cash.

          2. where I live in Pa, the various subcultures established their own “social clubs” over 100 years ago. It was mainly a bar, but members (and only dues paying members could enter) could buy insurance n’at. So there were the Polish Falcons, German Brotherhood Union, Croatian Hall, Slovenian National Benefit Society, Slovak Club, Carpatho-Russian Citizen’s Club (featured in the Tom Cruise/Leah Thompson movie “All the Right Moves”), etc. These days IIRC they are required to admit anyone for membership, but do I have a good reason to want to belong to the Carpatho Club? (although I did have my wedding reception at the Serbian Hall, my mother had to join to rent it for the day)

            1. My mother’s stepfather was something of a wheel within the Croatian Fraternal Union. Campaigned for LBJ for POTUS among them (maybe also in the painters’ union), got himself & my mother into his inaugural ball.

    2. Wasn’t this always going to be the end game?

      Yes, it was. Those who argued that gay marriage mandates via the Equal Protection Clause weren’t going to end with special protections and privileges for gays were both (a) willfully ignorant and (b) terminally na?ve.

      1. or (c) dishonest.

        1. Yeah, let’s not discount the mendaciousness.

        2. “Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.” Or something.

          1. I had typed that in before but had been away too long. When did this stop being the norm?

      2. I don’t know who made that argument, but it wasn’t I.

        My argument was that they were 2 completely different issues. Having adverse consequences to the existence of a right, isn’t an indictment of the right whatsoever, but of the jackholes trying to use that right as a wedge issue for their own, separate agenda.

        And it wasn’t a big stretch to imagine that A would follow B.

        1. Much like in the heady days of the Egyptian revolution much was made of process in the pages of reason, so was not enough made about process w/r/t gay marriage. As opposed to the ends, that is.

          1. Homos are now more socially accepted in our society, which also happens to be populated by cunts who believe that their special snowflake existence demands that no one ever deny them anything, anywhere, for any reason.

            And the jackboots are only too happy to back them up. Whcih brings us ot the present situation.

            1. Yeah, the only point is that reason was certainly agitating for this to go through the courts, which meant that these sort of things were invariably following. It certainly would have been better if, in the inexorable march of time, that this had happened without any need to address the EP clauses of the states.

              Though it may have, anyway, under state constitutions.

              Again, a law guy who passed the bar, not a lawyer. Feel free to correct.

              1. Or, equal rights means, you know, equal rights.

                SLD applies.

                1. Yeah, but we’ve always backed off of any discrimination and compulsory labor that didn’t involve race — precisely because of race — which is sort of unique in our history.

                  But sure, you can use that tautology.

                  1. I don’t think I’m the one here whipping his fallacies.

                    1. Goddamn it.

                      …whipping out

                    2. Nah, mang, a tautology is just something that equals something, right?

                      But, fuck, whip it out like Heart.

      3. If Texas refuses to recognize a gay marriage done in Vermont, but does recognize a straight marriage performed there, how is that NOT a violation of equal protection?

        1. For the same reason that New York’s refusal to recognize a CCW license issued in Texas isn’t a violation of EP*?

          *Under current jurisprudence. There’s actually a very interesting discussion to be had about the ability of states to refuse to recognize the actions of other states.

          1. I would think a closer parallel would be refusing to recognize only some CCW permits from another state. A marriage is a marriage.

            1. OK, try this:

              NY allows off-duty cops to carry in NY, but not real people who have CCWs.

              But, really, the point doesn’t depend on selective recognition of licenses issued by other states. Although, I have an example of that as well:

              Some states issue limited licenses to in-house attorneys. Those don’t typically qualify for “reciprocity” from other states in their lawyer licensing.

              If a state doesn’t issue gay marriage licenses itself, then I don’t think there is a separate EP issue for licenses issued by other states. Either gay marriage licensing is mandatory everywhere, or not. If you think marriage should be a federal issue, fine (although one searches in vain for an enumerated power making it so).

              But, fundamentally, the EP argument is an exercise in question-begging. The question is, how is marriage defined, and who gets to define it? The EP argument assumes the answer to both of these, those answers being (1) marriage is “any two adults”, not “man and woman”, and (2) the federal courts, not the state legislatures.

              1. I see what you’re saying, I guess I just think current jurisprudence is wrong on this.

                Likewise if the fedgov said there had to be reciprocity for CCW but NY only recognized the licenses for cops then obviously the law isn’t being applied equally.

      4. It’s bullshit to expend any real energy to cater to a tiny minority of people defined only by their personal behavior. Considering all the unsavory statistics related to homosexuality, one would think they would be grateful to merely be left in peace.

    3. Dude, the first thing our scoutmaster (Big Gay Al) taught us was that you never get between a Bear and its club. Recipe for someone getting hurt.

      1. That’s only for brown bears. Black bears have actually been known to use their cubs as decoys to make their own escape easier.

    4. What about the entanglements of religious religion and dogma? Why shouldn’t private businesses be able to discriminate on the basis of religion, both against customers and against employees?

      It seems odd that bizarre and often offensive beliefs about morality and sexuality should be protected only if the people holding them justify them with something supernatural, and that’s effectively the situation we’ve had for a long time.

  9. Scott there’s a special circle in hell for people who post awful clickbait headlines. Do you really want to spend eternity clicking through an infinite slideshow of what Julia Roberts is wearing every second of her life randomly interspersed with video ads for Uwe Boll movies?

    1. Click here to see this one weird trick that owners of bars don’t want you to see and transvestites everywhere love.

    2. There are a lot of reasons I’m already going to hell. This is probably slightly less painful than what I’ve been told would happen to me in the past.

    3. Sounds like my typical Tuesday night. You should try it; you won’t believe how much fun it is.

  10. Hmm, sounds like yet another example of “If you get into bed with government expect to get fucked”?

    1. You’ll get the government you want, and you’ll get it good and hard?

  11. FYI – Drag queens get really pissy when they’re out-snarked by straight dudes.

    1. If you ever show up at a drag bar in NYC and they call you “John Denver” because of your beard and being twenty pounds overweight, well, you just tell them that their experimental coked-out plane set adrift has crashed into something straight.

      I thought of that years too late šŸ™

      Drags are cool. Bears are cool. This is stupid.

      1. Nobody’s ‘cool’ by virtue of some contrived identity

        Cool is how you act. Being all like, “institutionalized oppression lawsuit!” because you couldnt get into a fucking bar isn’t exactly the definition of ‘cool’.

        1. It’s not the contrived nature of identity politics. I rail against that. It’s a generic. Kind of like, “everyone is cool by me.”

          In other words, I’ve seen enough drag shit, especially, to be like, “They’re cool. It’s cool,” as a synonym for okay.

  12. “And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.”

    It’s almost like you’re implying that gays are just ordinary people, and not just a monolithic bloc of victimhood stereotypes. You some kinda homophobe, pal?

    1. But the real question is, as always, just how do the Millennials feel about this subject?

      1. Millennial here: I am amused.

      2. Like Norman after Kirk and crew got done with him.

        “Captain Kirk: Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.

        Harcourt Fenton Mudd: Now listen to this carefully, Norman. I am… lying.

        Norman: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie, then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie, but you lie… You tell the truth but you cannot for you lie… illogical! Illogical! Please explain!”

    2. “And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the human demographic, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.”

      FYFY

      1. Don’t ruin the dreams and aspirations of budding sociology majors everywhere, they need something to do and identity groups to statistically analyze and speak for.

    3. And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic population, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.

      Why limit it to gays?

    4. It’s almost like you’re implying that gays are just ordinary people, and not just a monolithic bloc of victimhood stereotypes. You some kinda homophobe, pal?

      Mind blown! I wonder, stick with me here, if the same might be true for women. Maybe, just maybe, they too could be capable of making intelligent political decisions instead of blindly buying into the mentality of us vs. them, false dichotomy politics?

      1. well damn, way too late

  13. You know what? In all seriousnes?

    HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Never mind – I can’t.

    As you were.

  14. Freedom of association begins right after I get gay marriage and the right to force someone to bake me a cake, sell me flowers, and take my picture. Then we’re by god gonna have freedom of association.

    1. All for something that will be curable within a few decades.

  15. Earlier I was reading through the comments on the article yesterday about the guaranteed income. The minutia of how that would/should work and the ramifications were discussed endlessly. Now we have another ball of string impossible to unravel with government trying to manage another thing it is unable to manage – personal associations.

    This is the shit that happens when government expands beyond the handful of things it can actually do. I see dark days ahead.

      1. Darker.

        It is going to get worse. Much worse.

        1. Thank you for that ray of sunshine. I can’t disagree.

          1. Sadly, he’s right.

  16. My $0.02: Bars are rightly subject to public accommodation nondiscrimination laws. There can be some discrimination if it isn’t about who the person is based on protected classes but for legitimate business purposes. Bars have been known to impose dress codes and such as a pretext for unlawfully excluding certain groups. But the world would suck if there weren’t niche bars. In general I think it’s best if this works as an informal, understood way. You avoid going to a biker bar if you’re not a biker because that’s their space; but they can’t legally discriminate against you either. If you want to discriminate, make it a private club. This particular case is a close call. It depends on whether the dress code policies are used to discriminate unlawfully.

    1. Shorter ‘Tony’: Fuck freedom of association, it’s okay to use force to get what I want.

      1. I’m one of the only people here who this might have any slim chance of affecting, and I’m the least hysterical about it. I’ve always been in favor of public accommodation laws such as have existed for 50 years. Like everyone else except bigots and libertarians. There is a perfectly reasonable and understandable middle ground here that prevents discrimination but allows bars to cater to a niche clientele.

        1. “I’m one of the only people here who this might have any slim chance of affecting…”

          You think that because you have no idea what is really going on.

          1. Adding gay and trans people to a nondiscrimination regime that’s been in place for half a century is not going to result in you being put in a musical theater forced labor camp.

            1. No, but radfems are freaking out because transgendered people are trying to use anti-discrimination laws to make their way into womyn-only space. In that controversy, who do you think is right?

              1. Actually I’d prefer not to step in that hornet’s nest.

                1. Actually I’d prefer not to step in that hornet’s nest.

                  Nice evasive maneuvers.

                  1. The (anti-trans) radfems I think are in the wrong. They can’t seriously claim that women are more subject to oppression than trans women (the basis of their highly criticized anti-trans attitudes). It’s become accepted that trans people are entitled to be treated as the sex they self-identify as. And I find the radically exclusionary politics of radfems to be counterproductive.

                    1. ” They can’t seriously claim that women are more subject to oppression than trans women “

                      Says the gay white middle class guy

                      which is just a few blowjobs short of being the oppressor class. Your opinion lacks relevance, standing. Plus you’ve been known to troll libertarian boards, indicating deep-seated self-loathing.

            2. Either you believe in freedom of association or you don’t. There is no middle ground.

              Seriously, otherwise you get the gov trying to enforce the silliest of stuff, eventually by people with guns (which you hate).

              If I don’t want people to come in my business because they don’t have a suit on, doesn’t that discriminate against poor people? Is that ok?

              1. I just explained how there is a middle ground, in law and practice.

                Everyone’s freaking out about a slippery slope, but I think there’s an even bigger problem looming if the government takes it all back and says it’s OK to discriminate in public accommodations based on race, etc.

                1. No, you didn’t. Can I discriminate against poor people by saying you must wear a suit? A suit of a certain quality?

                  Can I discriminate against blacks by saying you can’t wear your pants down around your hips?

                  Why is that ok?

                  If it is ok, can I just say I don’t want blacks in my place?

                  1. You can’t have such a dress code if it is understood to stand in for racial discrimination. (That’s why I said this is nuanced.)

                    I just think that a lot more ugliness is in store if we revert to a pro-discrimination regime than what we have to contend with now.

                    1. Who gets to decide if its “understood”.

                      You see where this leads?

                    2. Who gets to decide if its “understood”.

                      A court.

                      You see where this leads?

                      Peace and order?

                    3. Yeah, trying to force people who don’t want to be around each other together leads to peace and order.

                      Or you know, actual voluntary association.

                      But yeah, let’s have courts decide who can hang out together, and then have police enforce those rulings. Peace, love, and rainbows everywhere.

                      And how will a judge unequivocally know if someone is doing to keep the place classy or keep the blacks out. His opinion? Yeah, seems fair.

                      And what if I don’t care if blacks come in, but they just can’t afford suits? What if a judge decides that’s discrimatory? Do I now how to allow t-shirts?

                    4. And what if it is blatantly discrimatory but the judge says its not, because he likes the place and hates blacks?

                      Will you accept that decision?

                    5. That’s what an appeals process is for.

                    6. Level of wealth or poverty is not a protected class. We’re talking about places of business. We’re not communists.

                    7. Tell that to the blacks.

                    8. Peace and order?

                      Spoken like a true fascist.

                    9. “Pro-discrimination” is an exaggeration. It would merely be discrimination-neutral.

                2. And what is this bigger problem you speak of? Nobody has ever explained to me all the bad stuff that will happen if people can choose with whom to discriminate against.

                  I’m serious, please explain to me what bad will happen.

                  Please…

                  1. I direct you to study history, particularly of the Southern US.

                    1. You mean Jim Crow, which was itself a violation of freedom of association, being a state prohibition on associating with blacks?

                    2. You see, it doesn’t make a difference to me whether the law explicitly calls for discrimination or whether it stays silent in an environment of widespread discrimination. To me both are endorsements of discrimination in society. Accepting the status quo is a deliberate choice. But then I’m not inclined to view government per se as evil and to blame every social ill on the nearest one I can find. Southern governments were not imposing discrimination on innocent, open-minded Southern whites.

                    3. If government wasn’t imposing discrimination by force (what do you think a law actually is?), why did they think the Jim Crow laws were necessary, O Moron?

                    4. If white Southern civilians were as aghast at Jim Crow laws as you imply they were, why wouldn’t they throw the racist bums out of office?

                      Bigots are not going to refuse to use the force of law to impose their bigotry if they have that opportunity. Why on earth would they?

                    5. Nice strawman, halfwit. If everyone in the south was on board with discrimination, laws wouldn’t be needed to force it. Jim Crow allowed the bigots to discriminate without any financial consequence because there was no alternative, thanks to the law.

                      Bigots are not going to refuse to use the force of law to impose their bigotry if they have that opportunity. Why on earth would they?

                      The irony, it burns.

                    6. Yeah, that’s kind of how it works. “I’m an asshole racist. If you’re not an asshole racist like me, then you’re a niggerlover, ergo your shop should be burnt to the ground, and my racist asshole friends we majority voted into power are gonna make sure we don’t have to bother.” Bigots have this weird tendency not to want to keep it to themselves.

                    7. Tony brings up the south and Jim Crow because he would absolutely be a discriminatory asshole.

                      Hey Tony: most people that own a business only care about one color…GREEN.

                    8. The Southern US had Jim Crow laws, the very antithesis of free association. You really are an ignorant moron.

                    9. You mean the history where the street car company didn’t want to segregate their customers by race, but the state, in all its glorious benevolence, made them do it?

              2. you get the gov trying to enforce the silliest of stuff, eventually by people with guns (which you hate).

                No, ‘Tony’ actually loves the use of force turned against people he disagrees with so that he can get whatever he wants.

                1. And kill them if he doesn’t.

            3. There will be a cure before long. Thus ending the whole argument about gays.

        2. That’s right Tony, you’re the only gay guy that posts here.

          (Rolls eyes)

          1. Maybe he’s the only true gay guy who posts here. Yes, I have had that particular no-true-Scotsman used on me.

          2. Did I say that?

          3. Tony implied he was the only drag queen that posts here. Not the only gay guy.

            1. I hate to lump whole groups of people together, but drag queens I avoid. I had some to a party once and they broke out a window and stole some expensive colognes. And they’re always the center of attention!

        3. There is a perfectly reasonable and understandable middle ground here that prevents discrimination but allows bars to cater to a niche clientele let’s me have my cake and eat it too while simultaneously allowing me to be a slimy, unprincipled asshole.

          Actually Tony, there isn’t. Enjoy the ride you’re getting courtesy of your own petard.

    2. It depends on whether the dress code policies are used to discriminate unlawfully.

      It should never be “unlawful” to discriminate with regard to who you allow on your own property.

      1. I know, I know.

        1. Obviously, you don’t.

          1. So do all of you think Rand Paul is a giant pussy for pretending he never said he was against the public accommodation part of the CRA?

            1. That’s not what he said. MSNBC portrayed him as being against the CRA *in it’s entirety*.

              1. So he is still claiming that he’s against the public accommodation piece, or did he walk that back and pretend he never said that? Like about 15 other things? (Cutting aid to Israel comes to mind as a recent example.)

                1. Ultimately, the man has ambitions for higher elected office, and being a politician with such ambitions, I’m willing to concede that he’ll stretch the facts or outright lie in that pursuit. I think he still finds himself angry over the fact that a country that spends around 135% of what it collects in revenues is giving foreign aid to anyone. I’m sure he also maintains his philosophical opposition to public accomodations laws. Just like I’m sure Obama was supportive of gay marriage in 2008 when he ran for POTUS but claimed opposition based on the polls at the time.

                2. He said “if you like your discrimination you can keep your discrimination.

                  Tony how old were you when your father abandoned you/your family ?

                3. So. According to you Tony. If a KKK member walks into a dry cleaning business, owned by an African-American couple, and ask’s them to wash his robes,(For pay of course) The business owner has to comply because of public accommodation laws.Do you know how insane you sound ??

                  1. But that’s not the case. They wouldn’t be turning the KKK member away because of his race or religion or any other quality cited in the CRA.

                    1. Turd Burglar.

                    2. Dare I say you briefly have a point.

    3. In general I think it’s best if this works as an informal, understood way. You avoid going to a biker bar if you’re not a biker because that’s their space; but they can’t legally discriminate against you either.

      Sure, an informal, understood way that allows for diversity works best. But “the law” has to be one way or another. If a bunch of jackasses decide not to “avoid going to a [X] bar” because they want to troll, or even unintentional situations like a bunch of women taking over a gay bar, either the club has the right to maintain its niche or not.

      As always, it’s the smallest and most marginalized groups that will need the protection of freedom of association in maintaining their niche.

      If you want to discriminate, make it a private club.

      Tends to be a distinction without a difference. For this sort of thing, or liquors laws, it’s typical to have “private clubs” with nominal membership fees, e.g. this. Just call the cover charge a “membership fee” and, bam, you’re done. (Maybe offer some drink coupons for “members” to offset it.) You’ve also just rendered pointless including bars in the non-discrimination law.

      1. The West End Wine Bar “became a private club” to avoid local liquor laws, but the “membership fee” is $1, payable at the door.

      2. It’s easy enough if you reject public accommodation laws altogether, but it becomes quite nuanced otherwise. Courts have allowed or rejected discrimination depending on what seems to me as an “I know it when I see it” test. Generally there has to be a legitimate business interest at stake, and that has to be the basis for discrimination, not the patrons’ attributes.

        It’s not the end of the world if etiquette is what people rely on to maintain niche spaces instead of the law recognizing a right to discriminate.

        1. It’s not the end of the world if etiquette is what people rely on to maintain niche spaces instead of the law recognizing a right to discriminate.

          Tell that to the radfems.

          1. Martha Burk!!!! Martha Burk!!!

        2. It’s not the end of the world if etiquette is what people rely on to maintain niche spaces instead of the law recognizing a right to discriminate.

          It’s not the end of the world if etiquette is what people rely on to gain access to niche spaces without belonging to that niche, instead of the law recognizing a right to access.

          I just don’t see it in the same category of public accommodations as hotels.

          1. Especially since, as you noted, they can easily become a private club, and as cases like the West End Wine Bar in Chapel Hill demonstrate, you can be a private club with a nominal $1 membership fee, payable at the door.

            Or are you suggesting a whole raft of bureaucracy to determine what sufficiently makes one a private club?

            1. I agree that bars are a bit more troublesome than hotels and restaurants and such, because they often tend to be niche. I don’t see a good reason for treating them differently though when it comes to discrimination law. They will self-segregate. The owners just can’t formally turn someone away on account of race, etc.

      3. As always, it’s the smallest and most marginalized groups that will need the protection of freedom of association in maintaining their niche.

        And the smallest minority of all is the individual.

        1. That’s something that bigots need to learn first. If all discrimination that ever happened was based on not liking the cut of a particular person’s jib, there would never have been a need for laws that protected people from discrimination that was happening based on the group they were perceived as belonging to.

          1. But in this particular case, isn’t it pretty much simply not liking the cut of this particular person’s jib? They’re objection to the costume.

            1. Don’t confuse Tony with relevant facts directly following from his post and completely contradicting his point. He really can’t think too well.

    4. When you can figure out how to describe your complex and subjective views on which discrimination is OK and which is not into some government policy that actually makes sense, you let me know.

  17. In other bear news: Bear at Hungarian zoo rescues crow from drowning. Goes back to calmly eating lunch.

    1. What does crow taste like?

      1. That’s what I’ll be asking all of you when Elizabeth Warren is sworn in as POTUS in January 2017

        1. I’m not sure taste will have much to do with that.

    2. “Did Bob get stuck in the water again? He’s such an idiot.”

      Considering the frighteningly intelligent things I’ve seen crows do, this one isn’t impressing me much. I do like the nonchalance of the bear. “HOLD STILL, YOU FUCKHEAD.”

      1. Just say no to corvid intelligence getting an enforcement arm

    3. You can hear the crow’s buddies in the background. Reminds me a of story about a ornithologist who specialized in crows. He would climb up trees to check eggs, which would agitate the crows. Thing is, crows remember and communicate amongst themselves about threats. So everytime he would get spotted by the local crows, they would go nuts. This eventually spread to other flocks so that he could barely go outside without getting mobbed by crows.

      1. If my wife steps out on the back deck, the crows just watch her (well maybe they roll their eyes at her because of how much she talks on the phone out there and they have grown tired of her endless noise).

        On the other hand if my boys or I step out, they take off because we have thinned the murder with pellet gun a few times. Early in the year it is much easier to plunk one because they are young and dumb. By now, they all know the drill.

        1. As a young kid growing up on a farm we had a huge pecan tree 100 yards from the house. I also thinned the murder out from time to time with a shotgun. When I walked out of the house without a shotgun the birds paid me no mind. When I had a shotgun they scrambled before the screen door even closed.

          Crows are some smart birds indeed.

  18. I’ve been to the Wrangler many times, and it can be sort of a gay Animal House. The Beer Bust on Sunday is fantastic, especially when the Broncos games are on. My wife and I go out drinking there with several gay friends on occasion, and the clientele is not as policed as the story would let on.

    1. I imagine that the bar is telling the truth about the driver’s license bit. They probably were genuinely concerned about being cited.

      They were in a position where they could not win no matter what they did.

      For the most succinct comment see first comment by MegaloMonocle.

      To understand how it came to this see the load of stupid that Tony shat.

    2. I’ve been there with my old roommate whose boyfriend was one of the shirtless bartenders. There were all kinds of people there, bachelorette parties, closet lesbos (one of whom went to my conservative catholic university, she waved and smiled sheepishly), and quite a few guys in drag. The dance floor was a lot of bears with guys in drag. I assume they weren’t lying about the license thing, because they don’t seem to turn down anyone who is documented and willing to pay them for drinks. But it’s irrelevant, because they have the right to refuse service or entrance to anyone, despite Tony’s lucid and completely reasonable arguments to the contrary which consist entirely of calling people racists and bigots.

      1. That sounds about right. I’ve seen numerous guys in drag at the Wrangler.

  19. “We don’t serve bears beers in this bar.”

    http://www.thefirearmsforum.co…..ar.138393/

    1. That was terrible, but I laughed.

  20. Seriously, you can’t fit a sheet of onionskin paper between the “equal rights for same-sex marriage” movement and the “we want cake!” movement.

    1. Including sexual orientation as a protected class is a matter of equal rights.

      1. Here, ya go, Warty!

        1. Damn commas.

      2. A protected class gets special protections and privileges. It not a matter of equal rights, its a rejection of equal rights.

        1. Which one is the ‘unprotected’ class again?

          1. White males, soon to be straight white males.

        2. What special privileges specifically do you think gay people are agitating for? What will gays be able to do that straights won’t? That’s what it means to have a privilege–it means you get to do something someone else doesn’t. So, please, enlighten me.

          1. What will gays be able to do that straights won’t?

            Demand service from people who don’t like them, and whom they don’t like.

            If a florist told me to go get fucked or a gay bar had the bouncer escort me to the curb by my ear I wouldn’t be able to sue for discrimination, because I’m not a member of a protected class. You basically get the legal privilege of being an asspained, whinging cunt. I can see why it so appeals to you.

            1. I wouldn’t be able to sue for discrimination

              If the law is worded to protect “sexual orientation”, you sure as hell would. Gays aren’t the only folks with a sexual orientation, you know.

            2. You apparently don’t understand how this works. It’s not “gay people can’t be discriminated against.” It’s “you can’t be discriminated against because of your sexual orientation.” Straight white males are just as protected by such laws as anyone else. It’s just that, you know, they don’t tend to have a problem being discriminated against anywhere.

              1. I eagerly await your citations of straight white males getting their anti-discrimination lawsuits heard, much less won.

                Hahahahahaha

                1. Gregory Kenney. Although the proceedings are ongoing his claim is currently being heard by the courts.

                  Krieger “routinely favored other single, younger females without children and discriminated against [Kenney] because of his gender, sexual orientation, ‘traditional family status,’ and age,” his lawsuit says.

                  […]

                  Trinity’s lawyers say Kenney was ousted for leaving two students behind at an away game.

                  1. Thanks for the link jesse, that’s an interesting case.

                2. “Tony|8.5.14 @ 10:16PM|#

                  But as a grown-up I realize how utterly absurd it is for a white male to complain about anyone else getting some kind of leg up.”

              2. Oh, bullshit. You stupid twat.

              3. It is you who doesn’t understand, or pretends not to, how these things really work, not just how they are written on paper.

                I am discriminated against by Spanish speaking potential customers on a daily basis because they want to deal with a Spanish speaking provider of my services. I have even had them come out and tell me so to my face because some of them believe in the La Raza version of History and they think that Texas was stolen from Mexico by the US.( none of them seem to care that Mexico stole it from Spain but that’s another conversation)

                I just shrug it off because I know there is nothing I can do about it. I am a straight white male and no one cares when I am the victim of some injustice they claim to hate.

                1. That might have something to do with the fact that straight white males have had all the privilege and power for centuries and centuries. Nevertheless the claim that minorities are seeking special rights that others don’t get is false.

                  1. Spaniards and Italians are white now?

              4. It’s just that, you know, they don’t tend to have a problem being discriminated against anywhere.

                If I can’t be discriminated against because of my gender or sexual orientation… then the women’s locker room is fair game!

                1. Do any of you know anything about this subject, or as dogmatists who get their thoughts from checklists and bad novels do you not feel the need? I said the issue is nuanced. But please don’t bother figuring out what counts as legal discrimination and what doesn’t if it’s going to hurt your head too much.

                2. “… then the women’s locker room is fair game!”

                  Just claim you are a woman mad.casual.

              5. Yeah, Tony…you really understand what straight white males go through. We get discriminated against in employment regularly. But, the worst area is love, marriage, and anything to do with children, which arguably is the most important part of life. But, other than that…not much.

                1. I’m a white male who is straight as far as anyone knows who I don’t inform otherwise. You think I didn’t have moments of frustration because of my white maleness being a disadvantage in school admissions? But as a grown-up I realize how utterly absurd it is for a white male to complain about anyone else getting some kind of leg up. Yeah, all of a sudden it’s a big fucking deal now that white males aren’t getting all the legs up all the time everywhere.

                  As a gay man, I believe I’m discriminated against in the realm of marriage and family life to a somewhat higher degree, what with not being allowed to get married and have my family legally recognized at all.

  21. So gay marriage is bad because it leads to discrimination against gays. Is that what we’re going with?

    1. No, it means you might have jumped the, um, gun.

    2. Nah, we’re going with mandating gay marriage via the Equal Protection Clause is bad for everyone’s freedom of association. Even, as it happens, gays.

      1. Anti-discrimination laws covering personal appearance predated the court cases on same-sex marriage by decades.

        1. Fuck the draft was 1A, what are you pointing to?

    3. You’d think we would have learned our lesson with the spooks.

      Now everyone wants a fucking cake.

      1. Don’t worry about your Saturday or Sunday. We’ll take care of that and pay you.

        Love,

        EP

    4. Warty, in the picture above which one looks more like you?

      1. The one on the right looks kind of like me with a back toupee.

    5. So gay marriage is bad because it leads to discrimination against gays. Is that what we’re going with?

      Some of us called this. Lots of what was claimed to be anti-gay discrimination was passive heterosexism at best. Gay marriage doesn’t address the normalcy of heterosexism, it just grants highlights the extra-special status of an arbitrary minority.

      A wider array of more diverse and open marriages highlights the whole fucking book and renders stupid distinctions moot.

  22. A guy went out bear hunting one day. He saw a bear and shot it. It was a perfect shot in the head. He walked over to retrieve the dead bear and it wasn’t there on the ground.

    He was wondering where it went. Then he felt a tap on his shoulder. He looked back and it was the bear. The bear said, “Grab your ankles.”

    So the hunter did and the bear started ramming him up the ass.
    The next day, the hunter went back out hunting with a bigger gun. He thought, “I am going to get that damn bear this time!”

    He saw the bear, shot him twice, then he noticed the bear was again not on the ground when he tried to retrieve it.

    He got another tap on the shoulder. You guessed it, the bear again, saying, “Grab your ankles.”

    He rammed the guy up the ass again.

    The next day the guy went out again, this time he had a 50 caliber machine gun with Armor piercing, explosive tip rounds.

    He saw the bear and went crazy on him and filled him full of lead!
    Then he got another tap on the shoulder. He looked back and saw the bear.

    The bear said, “You know, “I am beginning to think that you are not really coming out here to hunt!”

  23. How has no one linked this yet?

    1. I expected this (couldn’t find a vid).

  24. State policy makes people scared to let people in bar.
    State policy punishes people if they fail to let people in bar.
    Local police usually submit the best way to avoid problems is pay 4X as much for an off-duty cop doorman who gives people so much shit that people stop coming to said place.
    And so the world turns, and no one is much better off for it.

  25. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.

    Yeah, particularly in that homophobic Bible belt known as Denver…

  26. “You know what gay people love? Having the government tell them how their various subcultures work and think on the basis of talking to a bunch of people at a bar and looking at pictures. ”

    I am sorry, but I feel no sympathy. If you demand government dictate who people must associate with, you cannot complain when that same government targets you.

  27. Fuck him.

  28. If anyone cares. Bears don’t often shun interactions with men who exhibit femininity. I know plenty of bears willing to plow thin twinks and queens.

    That being said – maybe now my fellow LGBT’s will see the flaw in their concensus that everyone should accomodate us. No one should be forced to accomodate anyone they don’t want to. I keep telling them over and over how flawed this is but they just scream Social Justice! While I’m here thinking….wouldn’t it be best if we knew who the assholes were that way would could boycott…it’s very effective. But I digress…”Public accomodation” should only include public land.

  29. “I find this ruling maddening as somebody who has been fighting against the illogical slippery slope arguments…”

    Slippery slope arguments are absurd until you’re the one slipping.

  30. they just scream Social Justice!

    In my social life, I only hang out with folks who are either apolitical or at least open to new ideas. Yes, it is rather limiting but I like it that way.

  31. Fucking really? This country is becoming more and more ridiculous.

  32. Haven’t the SF Giants decided to forbid anyone in a feathered headdress from entering the ballpark? Things are getting a bit weird out there in freedom land.

  33. Well then you have to oppose the laws that ban racial discrimination as well, but you are not courageous enough to do that. But you are the hypocrite for supporting homosexual rights when it is the logical conclusion of homosexual rights for the homosexuals to use their rights to violate the rights of others. Homosexuals are the enemies of freedom and liberty. Time to realize that.

    1. Turd Burglar.

  34. It’s especially disturbing that you can get an administrative ruling like this against you on the basis of a single incident. It’s a trap, no chance to say you’re sorry & will fix it up. Since the trap operates both ways, how do they decide between the liquor license & the HRC? Whichever’s the greater financial loss, I guess. Wasn’t there a similar Canadian case about a yr. ago, like age discrimination vs. under-age liquor service?

  35. “What’s alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:…”

    It is discriminating against others. The question should be whether this should be against the law.

    “The preference for dating or friendship with certain types of people is not the same as “shunning” other types of people. And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.”

    Shackford is engaging in an “is/ought” fallacy. For better or worse, gay political activism is invested in the notion that other people not validating their expression of identity is a horrible crime of discrimination, which is the greatest sin.. Exactly why that should not apply between homosexual subcultures is not clear. The owner’s of the bar get my sympathy, they should be able to serve the clientele they want.

    1. “Validating their expression of identity.” Ah, the evolving political correctness of bigotry. Deserves a research paper.

  36. This, of course, is a Hershey Bears Bar:

    http://www.hersheylodge.com/di…..rs-den.php

  37. Next they will be policing sexual dominance equality under the banner of Equal TOPortunity (TM).

  38. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. http://www.Fox81.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.