Gay pub kiss

[AnthonyGerrard]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/14/gay-claim-ejected-pub-kissing


Intersting case this one - the publicans right to refuse to serve who he pleases, and gay rights to have a drink quite rightly with everyone else.


All I would say is publicans have the right to the final word - and no questions asked for very good and obvious reasons, and people are frequently thrown out or asked to leave pubs where they themselves have done nothing wrong, but a disturbance may be caused.

The two points in this case seem to be - the couple disobeyed the landlord - a big no no - ie they weren't thrown out for being gay , but then it was only the landlord seamingly who had a problem with a gay kiss in the first place.

 

[Alc]

I figure if he's in that area and wants to lose business, he should be allowed to do so. Did he, at any point, say that he had something against gay people? If not, then leave him to his 'straight' pub and drink elsewhere. If one of the couple involved wasn't a journalist, I doubt this would have received quite as much publicity, Twitter or not.

I found this part intriguing

"The case is intriguing legally. The Licensing Act 2003 gives a landlord the right to eject customers. But the Equality Act 2010 says everyone must be treated equally in the provision of goods and services. For a successful defence against any legal action under the act, the landlord would have to prove he had ejected heterosexual couples for similiarly overt displays of intimacy."

So, what happens if he would have done so, but has never come across it? How do you prove that he has or hasn't? Even if straight people were all over eahc other in the pub, who says he knew about it? Bearing that in mind, does it mean he has no legal defence? Seems a little harsh given that, as you pointed out, it's his pub.

 

[Vassago]

It also depends on exactly how racy the kiss was too. Some people find very racy kisses very inappropriate in a public setting, regardless of the sexual identity and preference of the patrons involved. If it was a very long or racy kiss, would the pub owner be in the right? If it was a quick peck, would it have been something he would have done with heterosexual couples? Were the patrons involved actually trying to cause a scene with it so they could play this card? Many factors come into play that will have to be determined and I believe we don't have enough facts or eye-witness statements to make a determination on the legal grounds they have. If an eye-witness came forward and said they were being obnoxious about their kiss and very rudely flaunting it in people's faces, it would be different than if no one came forward because no one noticed but the owner, which would then look bad on the owner.

 

[Alc]

True, however - looking bad or not - it's his place. If he politely asked them to stop, they should have stopped or left. It's his place and he can set whatever arbitrary rules he likes.

He's only hurting himself if he doesn't want certain actions on the premises, as he's going to lose certain customers. There's not shortage of pubs in that area who would welcome the couple with open arms, so why would they want to drink somewhere they feel unwelcome?

'It's the principal of the thing' will no doubt be the response they come up with, but why bother? Leave him to his business and his chosen clientele and go enjoy your drinks elsewhere, surely?

 

[stopher]

As the article says, the pub is situated a stones throw from the gay area (Old Compton St) and Carnaby St (famous for the fashion - think of a mini version of the Haight in San Francisco with a British sixties/seventies twist). And the whole area is Soho has traditionally been synonymos with the sex industry (prostitution and sex shop) although more recently edged towards up market restaurants. The area is also an easily accessible tourist stop being very close to all the main London attractions. Such is the area I would expect it to be visited by business people and locals and tourists. What I'm saying is this is a very "accomodating" district of London i.e. tradionally cosmopolitan and tolerrant of sexual orientation. So I'm suprised to hear that the pub reacted in this way.

The Soho area has changed a lot since its seedier times and I wonder if businesses in the area are deliberately trying to keep up the pressure on "inappropriate" behaviour to uplift the reputation of the area.

I am not a Londoner, so if I had been in a pub in Soho (or many areas of London), I would not have been offended by extensive kissing. I've been to plenty of places in Europe where such bahaviour is quite normal and London is far more cosmo than where I live. However, if I were in my local pub and a couple were snogging frequently for more than say 15 seconds at a time then,like Vas, I would consider it inappropriate behaviour (regardless of sexual orientation).

I think the pub could have turn this situation around had they reacted quickly enough and turned it around into a publicity stunt. Instead they seemed to have taken the defencive route:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/15/john-snow-kiss-in-london

 

[Vassago]

Yeah, closing their doors was definitely not the right stance to take. It definitely makes them look more homophobic when they react so defensively.

 

[Thales750]

Yeah, closing their doors was definitely not the right stance to take. It definitely makes them look more homophobic when they react so defensively.

What is homophobic? Obviously it is a term without any real meaning. I imagine it was first thought of by a woman, hell bent on marginalizing some man's position.

 

[stopher]

What is homophobic? Obviously it is a term without any real meaning. I imagine it was first thought of by a woman, hell bent on marginalizing some man's position.

This is my understanding:

"Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people and behaviour"

Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

To me the meaning is quite clear. I don't see why a woman necessary would have thought it up.

 

[dan-cat]

From what I can gather, the couple were asked politely to stop "snogging" and they refused. Perhaps a little over-sensitivity from a patron compounded by a lack of reciprocation from the pair.

Personally I find it a little uncomfortable being near a couple sticking their tongues down each others throats regardless of their sexuality. You don't necessarily have to be gay to attract such criticism.

To feel "physically sick" over the confrontation after ignoring a polite request in the first place is hamming it up a little.

 

[Vassago]

From what I can gather, the couple were asked politely to stop "snogging" and they refused. Perhaps a little over-sensitivity from a patron compounded by a lack of reciprocation from the pair.

Personally I find it a little uncomfortable being near a couple sticking their tongues down each others throats regardless of their sexuality. You don't necessarily have to be gay to attract such criticism.

To feel "physically sick" over the confrontation after ignoring a polite request in the first place is hamming it up a little.

That's one side of it, but from what I understand based on third party reports from witnesses, the kiss was nothing more than a quick peck and not the "5 second Frencher" type. That sounds a far cry different than "a couple sticking their tongues down each others throats."

 

[dan-cat]

That's one side of it, but from what I understand based on third party reports from witnesses, the kiss was nothing more than a quick peck and not the "5 second Frencher" type. That sounds a far cry different than "a couple sticking their tongues down each others throats."

I'm not sure how you can refuse a request to refrain from a "quick peck". Whatever they were doing it was prolonged enough to refuse the polite request to stop.

The "tongues down each others throats." came from the second link to the article. That's what the supporters were intending to do at the "kiss-in" and what the supporters were saying should be allowed. I suspect that's what the pair were up to in the first place and came unstuck when someone confronted them with their lack of manners.

 

[Simon_MT]

If we talk about manners, there is a lot worse than a kiss in public. I remember coming out of Euston Station and there was a young lady swatting and relieving herself.

There was also the story, some years back, about the couple who were having sex in a railway carriage and complaints were only made when they lit up afterwards having a post-coital cigarette.

I do have gay friends and to me it doesn't matter how many times I go to a gay bar, it is not going to change my sexuality so it you can tolerate PDAs get used to seeing men kissing. Is it doing any harm or are you frightened of your own sexuality?

Simon

 

[dan-cat]

Is it doing any harm or are you frightened of your own sexuality?

Simon

As I keep saying, the sexuality of the pair or myself doesn't concern me.

It's the individuals who champion the cause that we should all be treated the same who keep focusing on the "sexuality" aspect of it all.

Perhaps one day when a group of PDA'ers demonstrate outside a pub after a single complaint you'll realize that it's the demonstrators themselves that are making themselves look "special". People complain about other people's behavior all the time, there's no need to hold a rally or question people's prejudices whenever it happens.

People are not immune to criticism because they are a member of a "minority". They were asked politely to stop with no homophobic insult at all. They didn't and it escalated and they got kicked out. Big deal. It's people like yourself and the twits who are stirring up this fictitious sense of "homophobia".

 

[Simon_MT]

With all respect, my point was not directed at either gender, more the astonishment of PDAs than anything else. Although a couple having sex on a railway carriage does take it a bit far.

Simon

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

With all respect, my point was not directed at either gender, more the astonishment of PDAs than anything else. Although a couple having sex on a railway carriage does take it a bit far.

Simon

I dont see "PDAs" in pubs very often at all - even less get involved in them sadly.

In fact in my many years of pub going, I think it fairly unusual - the pub is for - a good game of dominos, watching the match, talking , drinking , the pub quiz, lunch, the philosophy group etc etc.

It depends on the pub a little, obviously.

 

[Access_guy49]

What I find funny, is that if I were in a bar, and was kissing a woman, and was asked to stop. (Which has happened to me) I wouldn't throw a friggin hissy fit stating that my rights as a straight person have been violated!
On top of that, as has been stated, the owners rules and wishes are the owners rules and wishes.. Who's to say that full on sex should be offensive to everyone and kissing should be offensive to no one! That's ludacris!
The owner has a right to religion and his religious beliefs... perhaps.. as in the bible he feels the ACT of homosexuality is a sin. Many people are of that nature... they have nothing against gay people, but the act they consider a sin. (Others have problems with gay people)
the OWNER has a right to his or her religious beliefs. They were asked politly to stop... which is not much different than asking someone to abide by a dress code... or perhaps a no hat policy.. You don't see Hat wearers screaming for justice, or poor people demanding to be let into high end establishments wearing rags....

I know lots of gay people who are not like this.. so don't think i'm saying this applies to ALL gay people, but there are a loud bunch.. that really, in my opinion look like there were not huged enough as a child or something because they turn everything into a pitty party about them, and there are a group of gay people who seem to think anything against a gay person MUST be 100% because they are gay.. and if that's the case then they MUST make that person pay for their beliefs... Which is almost like Terrorist mentality.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

What I find funny, is that if I were in a bar, and was kissing a woman, and was asked to stop. (Which has happened to me) I wouldn't throw a friggin hissy fit stating that my rights as a straight person have been violated!

You should have asked her first?

 

[Access_guy49]

You should have asked her first?

It is easier to ask for forgivness than permission.... also
I find if i just yell "surprise" my harassment cases get dismissed.

Good catch...
What I find funny, is that if I were in a bar, and was kissing a woman, and was asked to stop.....BY SOMEONE ELSE. (does that make me look slightly less pervy???)

 

[Simon_MT]

Perhaps PDAs a forgottable art?

I was in NZ and my father was dying, and in the next bed was a man who had just had a liver transplant, his wife had died previously from kidney failure. He had his daughter with him, and at times it become too much for me and his daughter came over and gave me a hug so I could old howl. That meant so much to me from a complete stranger who understood exactly what I was going through.

So my vote is for showing people we care about them and a kiss, in this instance, is as good as any, even in public. Perhaps we have lost the ability to show and appreciate some emotion.

Simon

 

[Adam Caramon]

On top of that, as has been stated, the owners rules and wishes are the owners rules and wishes

And the government's rules and wishes are the government's rules and wishes. This same argument came up when they banned smoking in bars in my area. Owner's rights versus government's rights.

The owner has a right to religion and his religious beliefs... perhaps.. as in the bible he feels the ACT of homosexuality is a sin.

Any individual's right to religious beliefs end on themself. Discriminating against a person or group of people based on what an old book says is illegal in most cases.

the OWNER has a right to his or her religious beliefs.

The law supercedes religious beliefs.

...they turn everything into a pitty party about them, and there are a group of gay people who seem to think anything against a gay person MUST be 100% because they are gay.. and if that's the case then they MUST make that person pay for their beliefs

Gay people tend to be defensive, but keep in mind that there are millions of people being taught everyday that gay people are bad people. These thoughts and ideas are being taught to children of very young ages.

Can you imagine how defensive you would be if there were millions of people who were taught to hate you because of some genetic aspect of yourself?