Let me say this simply.

At the gay bar that doesn't allow bachelorette parties:

Straight, non-party-group women? ALLOWED.
Lesbian, non-party-group women? ALLOWED.
Straight individuals of any gender? ALLOWED.
Gay individuals of any gender? ALLOWED.
Groups of men or women, of any sexual orientation, who DON'T intend to throw a risque, raucous party? ALLOWED.

Bachelorette parties for straight women? NOT ALLOWED.
Bachelorette parties for lesbian women? NOT ALLOWED.
Bachelorette parties for drag queens and transgender men/women? NOT ALLOWED.

It is not PEOPLE who are being forbidden. The only thing forbidden is a certain type of event. Period.

Please stop the ridiculous "Reverse discrimination!" paranoid bullshit. It just makes you look ignorant.

based on your ASSUMPTION that they "intend to throw a risque, raucous party"

that is your fallacious assumption, that these people INTEND to do X.

the bar can limit behavior of patrons from engaging in such behavior. but they can't assume because a person is a bacheloretee, that they are going to do that, just like you can't assume that a drag queen is going to jump on a table and start lip synching to "it's raining men", and thus prohibit them from your bar.

you can't ban people with fraternity sweatshirts based on your assumption they are going to do X.

the bartender can act based on ACTIONs, not on group membership.

illinois has an antidiscrimination law. the ACLU believes the bar is violating it by this policy. i agree.

the bar owner is entirely within his rights to prohibit behavior. of bachelorettes or ANYBODY else as long as the rules are applied consistently.

he cannot ban their entry by making the ASSUMPTION they will engage in such prohibited behavior.

BULLSHIT

a rep from the Illinois ACLU made the claim that it arguably is a violation.

i have read the illinois anti-discrimination law. have you?

of course not. try reading it. then, the original article (with the quote from the ACLU rep)

educate thyself.

hth

You can wipe your ass with "may well" because that's about all it's worth. And yes, I HAVE read the Illinois law.

You have YET to show the pertinent statute that requires bars to host bachelorette parties. You have YET to show how a "bachelorette party" is a protected class.

the issue is can they ban bachelorettes BECAUSE they perceive they might engage in certain behaviors.

a bar can set all sorts of limitations on BEHAVIOR.

nobody is denying them that right.

fwiw, i believe they should have greater discretion than they do. for example, i am vehemently opposed to laws in WA state that prohibit smoking in bars. that should be up to the owner of the bar.

you need to make the clear distinction between BEHAVIOR and persons.

can they ban bachelorettes (and others) from engaging in behaviors that are disruptive?

yes.

can they ban bachelorettes, drag queens, etc. because they suspect they might engage in raucous behavior?

no

that simple

Why is that so hard to understand?

and her cohorts are PERSONs.

you can't make the (often fallacious ) assumption that certain persons are prone to engage in certain behaviors and thus pre-emptively ban them. not in a place of public accomodation.

he can set rules of behavior in the bar (no dancing on the bar, no whatever) and apply those rules equally to bachelorettes, their cohorts, drag queens, and frat doods.

that's fine.

but as long as the bachelorettes OBEY the behavioral rules they have the same right to be in the place of public accomodation as ANY other adult.

by banning them at the door because he perceives they MIGHT do X, he is acting in a prejudiced manner, and in a manner that i believe violates the illinois anti-discrimination law.

Bcahelorette parties are not protected under any law in Illinois.

The ban on prior restraint exists only in your world.........unless you cite a SPECIFIC statute. Otherwise, a business (public accommodation or not) can decide who it does business with - PROVIDED it doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, gender etc. etc.

for the hudredth time.

if by "party", you are referring to certain activities, he has every right to ban said activities.

if by party, you mean group of people who are celebrating an event, then no, he does not have the right to arbitrarily deny them entry because he doesn't like what they are celebrating.

Show it. Put up or shut up.

but he can't deny people entry because they are members of a group.

it is BEHAVIOR that is the question here, not group membership.

you can't assume because a person is a bachelorette and she has her buddies with her, that she is going to engage in any prohibited behavior.

You supposedly know the law - let's see it.

(775 ILCS 5/5‑102) (from Ch. 68, par. 5‑102)
Sec. 5‑102. Civil Rights Violations: Public Accommodations. It is a civil rights violation for any person on the basis of unlawful discrimination to:
(A) Enjoyment of Facilities, Goods, and Services. Deny or refuse to another the full and equal enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of any public place of accommodation;

it is my argument that this runs afoul of the above law because the bar owner is banning these people based on their expression of
"orientation. "Sexual orientation" means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender‑related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person's designated sex at birth. "Sexual orientation" does not include a physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult. "

my argument, and the one i believe the ACLU is referencing is that these people are celebrating the pending heterosexual union, and by banning these people because of their membership in the group (see: bachelorette party) , a group that is openly proclaiming a celebration of a heterosexual (presumably... not sure if the bar owner is banning lesbian bachelorette parties) union, that it runs afoul of the law.

he's denying the bachelorette entry because she is openly proclaiming her marital status and heterosexuality

You and the "ACLU" (let's face it, it was an off the cuff comment in a newspaper article - not an argument).

Bachelorette parties consist of women, men, straight people and gay people. They are not a protected class - not by composition OR default.

"What they are celebrating" is not a protected category.

what they are celebrating is directly related to their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, which is protected.


in fact, distinct elements of their clothing, etc. are direct expressions of that celebration

i'll leave it for the finder of fact/law to determine if it's a violation. imo, it is. it hasn't been adjudicated. obviously.

it is also my experience that ACLU peeps don't usually make off the cuff legal analysis comments to newspaper reporters.

he said it's arguable. i agree. i'm not saying it's a slam dunk. i think it's a strong case.

LOL. Thanks for the giggle. Which elements? The penis necklace or the dildo hats?



"what they are celebrating is directly related to their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, which is protected."

So when I attended a bachelorette party that made me straight? Hey, I'm going to a baby shower next weekend. Am I straight again?

This ain't 1950.

Jeebus, people.

Frankly, most bachelorette parties are annoying as f**k, so I don't think banning them or saying they aren't welcome is very unreasonable.

Most of teh ones I've been to are both boring AND annoying.

imagine the fabulousness of Lizza -- drunk and on drugs --

:woohoo:

:rofl: and i'd sing too!

'don't cry for me argentina' til the cows come home.

Broadway AND Madonna. We can drink Haruka mad!

"Highhhhhhhh flyingggggggg adddddddored..."

but i do it with Fabulous Passion!

haruka will need two bottles and some beer.

She will need a case with a whisky chaser.

"Colonel Peron, Eva Duarte... I've heard so mcuh about yooooooooou!"

oh she is going to be one grumpy haruka

:rofl: cause i'm gettin all excited about this already.

do you think she has any favorites -- say from les miz -- or cats?

'M-E-E-M-O-R-I-E-S...'

"Let's start at teh very beginnnnnning, the very best place to starrrrrrrrt..."

Haruka may shoot us before the night is out!!!

wigs -- show tunes -- and irritating the shit out of some on you love.

'PEOPLE -- PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE -- ARE THE LUCKIEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!'

i'm gonna have to get a barbara wig.

wigs -- show tunes -- and irritating the shit out of some on you love.

'PEOPLE -- PEOPLE WHO NEED PEOPLE -- ARE THE LUCKIEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!'

i'm gonna have to get a barbara wig.

"I don't expect my love affairs to last for long.
Never fool myself that my dreams will come true.
Being used to trouble, I anticipate it,
But all the same, I hate it...
Wouldn't you?"

and i will personally buy haruka all the booze she needs to make it through.

i. am. in. heaven.

You don't keep books." I could help being that I too, know all the songs

:cry: i'm so happy

insert your personal favorite intonation.

&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbarefoot.provocateuse.com%2Fshow%2Fcary_grant&size=32k&name=cary+grant+01+jp...&p=Cary+Grant&oid=9783562bee1d30bc&fr2=&no=3&tt=37232&sigr=11gj5o4sj&sigi=11p53a6bh&sigb=12nsnqbde

( in case the pic doesn't load: http://thm-a03.yimg.com/image/9783562bee1d30bc )

:evilgrin:

i need a grrr smiley. and i don't mean mad face.

The place was popular with women because they could go there without being propositioned or subjected to unwanted attention. If gay people started going to a regular old fashioned bar to get away from the sexualized atmosphere in their regular bar, and the management took offense at that, would you still think that that was okay?

If the gay people showed up with for the express purpose of having a wet t-shirt contest or arm wrestling tournament without the management's approval then, YES, they can be stopped at the door.

If they wanted to go somewhere where they wouldn't be propositioned, they would stay at home.

to get away from our pets and slow danced I bet we would be asked to leave - or worse.

This is a tempest in a tea pot - there are true inequalities to worry about in this nation - but this is not one of them and it will be sorted out one way or the other, it's one lousy bar and what we we think makes no difference, while, what many peple think does make a difference about gay civil rights.

ALL bachelorette parties are banned. I suppose it never occurs to straight people, but we gay people have those things before OUR weddings and commitment ceremonies too. But we couldn't have them at that particular bar, because the proprietor does not wish to permit bachelorette parties, period. It's no different than banning birthday parties, stag parties, or anything else of that nature.

It has NOTHING TO DO with sexual orientation. The raucous, risque parties disturb the regular customers and that's why they're banned.

It disgusts me that people are trying to make this into something that it's not.

decisions and not bias and group accomodations capability and room capacity, whether or not advanced booking is required, drink and/or food minimum are common in the food and beverage industry.

They do not allow large parties - that seems pretty simple - no need for folks to turn it into wounded privileged, dominant majority Tea Party here. boo- freaking - hoo. :cry:

The pseudo-intellectual claptrap about fairness and tolerance is all the more insulting--

"I'm going to get married to the person I love. Let's go celebrate with my friends!" "Where should we go?" "Let's go party in a place where the majority of the clientele don't have that right!"

It's called empathy--look it the fuck up.

The batchlorettes have others bars they can go to, per the original article, these kids have no life they can just escape out from to safety.

Same source, same website, both in Illinois, totaly different meaning of harrassment. Outrage?

for not being able to wear bridal headgear into a gay bar and flaunt their right to get married in front of people for whom marriage and military service is not federally recognized.

I just want to dick slap them in the face.