PDA

View Full Version : Don't Look If You Have a weak Stomach : New York Cityís Gay Pride 2011



megimoo
06-28-2011, 12:36 AM
Traditionally, the last Sunday in June is reserved for Gay Pride in New York City. This year, there was a major reason to celebrate. On Friday night, New York State legislators voted to legalize same-sex marriage, allowing New York to become the sixth and largest state to pass such legislation. The news sent thousands of happy revelers into the streets throughout the weekend.

On Sunday, crowds once again returned to the streets of New York City for the 2011 Gay Pride Parade. With the marriage vote to celebrate, an aura of renewed vigor led the dayís festivities.

New York City based photographer Edward Keating photographed the weekend events for TIME. Documenting both the colorful (and flamboyant) parade and the partying afterward, Keating spent hours in the excited crowds and in packed bars and restaurants in the West Village.

Why Gay Marriage Still Isnít Marriage.

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/06/27/a-new-reason-to-celebrate-new-york-citys-gay-pride-2011/#1

lurkalot
06-28-2011, 01:18 AM
I think I should plan a heterosexual parade in Las Vegas next year. After all doesn't the world have just as much a right to know MY sexual preferences??:cool:

linda22003
06-28-2011, 08:11 AM
If the theme is "gay" and there are pictures, you know Megi will be all over it. ;)

Zafod
06-28-2011, 08:26 AM
Will they still hold these parades when they get everything they want?

megimoo
06-28-2011, 08:41 AM
If the theme is "gay" and there are pictures, you know Megi will be all over it. ;)
Just Looking For A Shot of You In Your 'High Goth Tiger Drag' Getup,...Sweetie...

linda22003
06-28-2011, 08:42 AM
Will they still hold these parades when they get everything they want?

The Irish still march on St. Patrick's Day, don't they?

Odysseus
06-28-2011, 09:25 AM
Will they still hold these parades when they get everything they want?
They will never get everything that they want, because they will never be satisfied with a lifestyle that glorifies the transient and disdains the permanent, and demands that we accept and glorify the cravings of a marginal group.

Rebel Yell
06-28-2011, 10:37 AM
I think we should just have a stereotypes parade in general. We could just combine the queers with these guys and knock 'em all out at once.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x122/garyjana/Flavor-Flav-cc08.jpg

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m239/Caindiddy/cable.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b78/ovargas/cheech.jpg

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 11:04 AM
Don't Look If You Have a weak Stomach

Oh, mah Gawd! People having a good time! It's disgraceful.

I live at the beach, and guess what? Most of the people going shirtless and wearing speedos/bikinis are not magazine quality.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 11:05 AM
I think I should plan a heterosexual parade in Las Vegas next year. After all doesn't the world have just as much a right to know MY sexual preferences??:cool:

Go for it. Or better yet, go to Mardi Gras and earn your beads.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 11:27 AM
If the theme is "gay" and there are pictures, you know Megi will be all over it. ;)

I was at St Pete Pride. It's the largest Pride parade and street festival in the South. The difference between it and the decidedly but not exclusively heterosexual Gasparilla parade in Tampa each year is visually minimal, except that it's usually cold for Gasparilla and 300 people don't get themselves arrested at Pride.

linda22003
06-28-2011, 12:21 PM
Here's a real Drama Queen thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2739679/posts?q=1&;page=1

It wishes everything on NY from another 9/11 to a nuclear strike, after the gay marriage vote. :rolleyes:

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 12:40 PM
Here's a real Drama Queen thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2739679/posts?q=1&;page=1

It wishes everything on NY from another 9/11 to a nuclear strike, after the gay marriage vote. :rolleyes:

That’s my point. If they want to find a pro-gay minister who wants to marry a gay couple in a state that’s passed this garbage then SO BE IT.

BUT..don’t FORCE those Clergy who DON’T believe in it to conduct it.


7 posted on June 24, 2011 11:10:40 PM EDT by CommieCutter

I'd attribute this to ignorance, but there were member of the assembly who demanded "religious protections" in the bill. Is there any state in the US which currently treats churches like public accommodations? Has any church been forced to perform a gay wedding? Or even a wedding of other Christian sects outside their doctrine? Has ONE single Catholic church been forced to marry a Jew or anyone who doesn't meet their criteria?

NO, they have not.

linda22003
06-28-2011, 01:06 PM
I'd attribute this to ignorance, but there were member of the assembly who demanded "religious protections" in the bill. Is there any state in the US which currently treats churches like public accommodations? Has any church been forced to perform a gay wedding? Or even a wedding of other Christian sects outside their doctrine? Has ONE single Catholic church been forced to marry a Jew or anyone who doesn't meet their criteria?

NO, they have not.

None of that matters when you're as overwrought as the gang over there. :p

Rebel Yell
06-28-2011, 01:15 PM
I'd attribute this to ignorance, but there were member of the assembly who demanded "religious protections" in the bill.

Attribute it to whatever you want to, but I agree with adding those types of provisions to the bill. I know the government hasn't forced any pastor to perform same sex marriage, but I'm all for any bill that will keep the governments tentacles out of the pulpit.

Bailey
06-28-2011, 01:27 PM
Thatís my point. If they want to find a pro-gay minister who wants to marry a gay couple in a state thatís passed this garbage then SO BE IT.

BUT..donít FORCE those Clergy who DONíT believe in it to conduct it.


7 posted on June 24, 2011 11:10:40 PM EDT by CommieCutter

I'd attribute this to ignorance, but there were member of the assembly who demanded "religious protections" in the bill. Is there any state in the US which currently treats churches like public accommodations? Has any church been forced to perform a gay wedding? Or even a wedding of other Christian sects outside their doctrine? Has ONE single Catholic church been forced to marry a Jew or anyone who doesn't meet their criteria?

NO, they have not.


Yet

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-28-2011, 02:00 PM
I actually think these parades hurt their cause. I've nothing against gay people but over extravagant parades like these only help to reinforce negative stereotypes. I've known some gay guys and some lesbians. Not every gay guy is a "queen", nor is every lesbian butch. But parading and acting like a "Queen" in public just reinforces the negative perception that this is how ALL gays are. Yeah, sure, there are good number of them who do this in public, but surely they realize they're hurting their cause? The cause of being viewed and treated the same as everybody else?

I've no problem with these parades, on a personal level the photos don't gross or skeeve me out. It's whatever to me, who cares. But it only hurts the cause of gays in their seeming desire to just be accepted and viewed as normal, regular people like everyone else.

Rebel Yell
06-28-2011, 02:16 PM
I've no problem with these parades, on a personal level the photos don't gross or skeeve me out. It's whatever to me, who cares. But it only hurts the cause of gays in their seeming desire to just be accepted and viewed as normal, regular people like everyone else.

Yeah, it's hard to say, "See we're just like everyone else." when you're in drag with a plunger stuck up your ass.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-28-2011, 02:21 PM
Yeah, it's hard to say, "See we're just like everyone else." when you're in drag with a plunger stuck up your ass.

My point exactly. And they make this stuff so public that this is what public eyes see, and as such, this is what the public thinks gays are. If I were gay, I'd be outspokenly against this kind of stuff, because if I'm a gay man, people will already have this sort of perception of me, that I must be a Queen who likes plungers up my ass, due to parades like this--even if I have nothing to do with it and I'm just a regular guy who happens to be gay. Indirectly, these people would be harming my reputation.

I'm surprised there isn't a movement on the part of more average Joe gays to stop this stuff. I mean if you want to party with a plunger up the butt, or in drag, or whatever--do it in your own home.

People say "But what about St. Patty's Day?! They can have their parade but we can't?" But I think there's a difference, a pretty big difference. Maybe it's because we live in an age where we're largely beyond anti-Irish stereotypes, I don't know, but I do know that (playful jokes aside) no one REALLY feels all Irishmen are red faced, Leprechaun-ish Drunks.

The same can't be said for gay men. These parades happen and in the eyes of many, gays as a whole group are viewed seriously as being creepy, effete, effeminate, kinky, abnormal Queens. And that hurts the reputation of those gays who act like civilized people. And they exist--I'm sure you and others here have known a few men who you were surprised to learn were gay. Or who one wouldn't think were gay if you had no clue about it.

Look at Ian McKellen--He played Gandalf in the LOTR movies. The man is as masculine, as vital and as classy and eloquent as could be. Yet he's also 100% gay. But if you didn't know it, you probably wouldn't guess it.

Even Freddie Mercury wasn't nearly as GAY as these people are acting. Freddie looked, at least in the 80s, like your average American blue collar worker. He didn't wear women's clothes or the like. He wore a Tank Top or T-Shirt and Jeans like the everyday male. And he was pretty damn gay for his time.

Articulate_Ape
06-28-2011, 02:22 PM
Yeah, it's hard to say, "See we're just like everyone else." when you're in drag with a plunger stuck up your ass.

Heh.

Zafod
06-28-2011, 03:02 PM
The Irish still march on St. Patrick's Day, don't they?

I mean will they still have these parades with penis costumes and dudes FUCKING IN PUBLIC all while yelling that they are here and queer and we need to get used to it.....


The day I see a St. Patrick's Day parade that is not appropriate for children due to sexual content then I will give credit to your retarded statement....

Odysseus
06-28-2011, 04:34 PM
I'd attribute this to ignorance, but there were member of the assembly who demanded "religious protections" in the bill. Is there any state in the US which currently treats churches like public accommodations? Has any church been forced to perform a gay wedding? Or even a wedding of other Christian sects outside their doctrine? Has ONE single Catholic church been forced to marry a Jew or anyone who doesn't meet their criteria?

NO, they have not.

Catholic hospitals are currently fighting to keep from having to provide abortions, and religiously oriented dating websites have been sued for not catering to gay couples. The only religion that is immune from PC attacks on its standards of conduct appears to be Islam, but I'm looking forward to seeing an imam forced to preside over a gay wedding in the Ground Zero Victory Mosque.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 04:38 PM
Attribute it to whatever you want to, but I agree with adding those types of provisions to the bill. I know the government hasn't forced any pastor to perform same sex marriage, but I'm all for any bill that will keep the governments tentacles out of the pulpit.

The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

Rebel Yell
06-28-2011, 04:40 PM
The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

When in doubt.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/SisterTanya/race_card.gif

Not just for blacks anymore.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 04:50 PM
Catholic hospitals are currently fighting to keep from having to provide abortions, and religiously oriented dating websites have been sued for not catering to gay couples.

Those aren't churches. Just because a religious person or even a church owns a McDonalds doesn't make it a hamburger ministry which is exempt from taxes and public accommodations laws.


The only religion that is immune from PC attacks on its standards of conduct appears to be Islam,....

Yeah, because DU defines the world. Hogwash.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 04:51 PM
When in doubt.......

.

The discussion of law is the discussion of precedents and similar issues.

megimoo
06-28-2011, 04:52 PM
When in doubt.......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/SisterTanya/race_card.gif

Not just for blacks anymore.Rcism isn't just for Blacks these days...Queers and Arabs are also protected .

Odysseus
06-28-2011, 07:25 PM
Those aren't churches. Just because a religious person or even a church owns a McDonalds doesn't make it a hamburger ministry which is exempt from taxes and public accommodations laws.

So if a Muslim owned a halal food stand, or an orthodox Jew owned a kosher deli, by your logic, they would be obligated to handle and serve pork if a customer demanded it, because a restaurant is a public accommodation. Whether or not you think that abortion ought to be legal, there is no statutory or Constitutional authority to demand that a doctor or hospital be compelled to provide it, and there is absolutely no authority to compel a dating service to match people whose lifestyles are not in accordance with the site's stated goals. The site, which sought to bring singles together for the purpose of marriage, also excluded persons who were only seeking casual sexual encounters or platonic friendships, because that wasn't the goal of the site. Why must the owners of that site be forced to acquiesce to your lifestyle but not the lifestyles of casual sex seekers or asexual people? What makes you special?


Yeah, because DU defines the world. Hogwash.
My entire quote was: The only religion that is immune from PC attacks on its standards of conduct appears to be Islam, but I'm looking forward to seeing an imam forced to preside over a gay wedding in the Ground Zero Victory Mosque. So, you're saying that an imam could be compelled to perform a gay wedding? As I said, can't wait to see the NYC Civil Rights Commission take up that case.

The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

The discussion of law is the discussion of precedents and similar issues.
But these are not similar issues. The redefinition of marriage to include gay couplings radically alters what marriage is, while interracial marriage does not. Racial differences are literally skin-deep. Gender differences are basic biological differences, running the gamut from chromosomal differences to primary and secondary sexual characteristics. A gay marriage is, by its very nature, sterile, while a male/female marriage is not (and every culture accepts that failure to reproduce is grounds for annulment, even the Catholic Church). To equate the two is disingenuous, but convenient for those who are more concerned with implementing their own agendas than with whether or not marriage survives as an institution for another generation.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 08:03 PM
.............

I'm not arguing this with you again. You've lost the argument where it counts.

Articulate_Ape
06-28-2011, 08:10 PM
I'm not arguing this with you again. You've lost the argument where it counts.

According to you maybe.

Odysseus
06-28-2011, 08:21 PM
I'm not arguing this with you again. You've lost the argument where it counts.

Don't pretend that you've won the argument. You've simply applied superior force in the form of money, political clout within a party that is committed to American decline in all areas (and this will accelerate it), and media noise. It doesn't make you right, just more powerful in the short run.

NJCardFan
06-28-2011, 08:30 PM
The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

Bullschtein. There is already precedent. There was a photographer in New Mexico (http://www.thealaskastandard.com/?q=content/christian-photographer-sued-same-sex-couple) who was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony because homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. They were sued and they lost. So, the photographer is forced to take part in something that they don't believe in. Is that religious freedom? Hardly. But the Constitution grants us the right to not only religious freedom but the free exercise thereof. However, the linked story grants someone's lifestyle choice over someone's Constitutionally protected rights. Now, I'm quite sure there are more than 1 photographer in New Mexico, especially in a big city like Albuquerque but IMO this lesbian purposely picked this photographer to stir the shit pot and they got what they want. I'm guessing you're happy about this.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 11:36 PM
There was a photographer in New Mexico who was brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony because homosexuality was against their religious beliefs. They were sued and they lost. So, the photographer is forced to take part in something that they don't believe in. Is that religious freedom? Hardly.

How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate. Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.


Here is the relevant language from New York. It would not protect a discriminatory public accommodation- that has already been settled, it's illegal.


"Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

Novaheart
06-28-2011, 11:53 PM
B But the Constitution grants us the right to not only religious freedom but the free exercise thereof.

The free exercise of religion does not include everything you say and do as long as you say , "In Jesus' name" after you do it.

jnkbortka
06-29-2011, 01:40 AM
Here's a real Drama Queen thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2739679/posts?q=1&;page=1

It wishes everything on NY from another 9/11 to a nuclear strike, after the gay marriage vote. :rolleyes:

well NYC can go to hell. i lived there for 7 years and all i got from it is how to act like a black guy lol. the cost of living is as high as the gang violence.

jnkbortka
06-29-2011, 01:43 AM
The First Amendment adequately addresses that, but if it makes some folks feel better, then who cares? One would note however, that when Loving v Virginia was decided, no one seemed to feel the need to protect the churches from marrying interracial couples, or members of other races. Moreover, unlike country clubs, churches can't even lose their tax exempt status for being blatantly racist.

because theres nothing in the good book against it DUH

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-29-2011, 02:07 AM
well NYC can go to hell. i lived there for 7 years and all i got from it is how to act like a black guy lol. the cost of living is as high as the gang violence.

NYC is a great place to live. I've lived here for 14 of my 20 years. I lived in another state and have visited several others and outside of some of the Southern states there's no place I'd rather be. The grandeur of the South is the only place that is, to my mind, comparable with NYC.

linda22003
06-29-2011, 07:54 AM
NYC is a great place to live. I've lived here for 14 of my 20 years. I lived in another state and have visited several others and outside of some of the Southern states there's no place I'd rather be.

As Fran Leibowitz memorably said, "When you leave New York, you are astonished at how clean the rest of the world is. Clean is not enough." :p

Rebel Yell
06-29-2011, 09:04 AM
Nova, if you had asked me 10 years ago if I thought the government would dictate what kind of light bulb I had to buy, I'd probably laughed at you. If you had asked the average American 100 years ago if the government would have it's filthy hands in as many aspects of our lives as it does now, you would have been committed. Don't think for a second that the government (notice I didn't just say Dems) wouldn't jump at the first chance to get into the church. That's the final frontier.


As far as reciting the 1st amendment, we are thought we were protected from being forced to purchase insurance.

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 09:51 AM
How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate. Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.


Here is the relevant language from New York. It would not protect a discriminatory public accommodation- that has already been settled, it's illegal.


"Notwithstanding any state, local or municipal law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or other provision of law to the contrary, a religious entity as defined under the education law or section two of the religious corporations law, or a corporation incorporated under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevolent orders law but formed under any other law of this state, or a not-for-profit corporation operated, supervised, or controlled by a religious corporation, or any employee thereof, being managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious corporation, benevolent order, or a not-for-profit corporation as described in this subdivision, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.
Thank you for opening this can of worms. Let me ask you: Does an exclusive restaurant have the right to deny service to someone who doesn't wear a jacket and tie or who doesn't dress appropriately? And in NY, aren't there clubs that the average person will not get in because they are not one of the beautiful people? Be careful how you answer.

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 11:23 AM
As far as reciting the 1st amendment, we are thought we were protected from being forced to purchase insurance.

I worked in the nightclub business a few times. I have seen a business destroyed by public accommodation nondiscrimination law. A nightclub is an entertainment venue and they need to be able to define their business in style and mood, which means they need to be able to cater to a certain clientele and discourage others. It's a fact. But the law does not permit this. I agree with Rand Paul (on this one point) that that is not right and appears to be a violation of the Constitutional protection for freedom of association.

My point has never been that businesses (large or small) shouldn't be able to discriminate. My point has always been that the law currently forbids discrimination by public accommodations, and that the nondiscrimination should be across the board, not just for everyone but gay people, or by everyone except those claiming a religious basis for their discrimination.

Churches are not public accommodations, they are houses of worship. Many functions of churches outside their actual worship services and buildings have also been protected under law and judicial precedent. This is a category of special protections that even some churches and fraternal organizations do not enjoy. But there are limits to this (and all) exceptions. A church or a fraternal organization cannot simply slap a cross on whatever they do and call it "religion". And neither can a business which advertises and is open to the public. Right now, that's the law in many places.

Odysseus
06-29-2011, 12:00 PM
How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate.
No, a photographer is an individual who has been compelled to attend an event that he does not endorse in order to document it for people that he did not seek to be employed by. Years ago, when I was freelancing, I was asked to do an illustration for an ad for PETA. I refused, because I emphatically disagreed with their agenda. Supposing that, instead of PETA that wanted my work, it was GLAAD? Would I have the right to refuse them, or would I have been accused of discrimination, hauled into court and forced to illustrate something that I found wrong and offensive? If the state can compel you to take a contract against your will, if it can order you to take jobs that you do not solicit or want, which denies you the right to seek out the work that you do want (having to photograph that "wedding" meant that he wasn't available for another event, and weddings tend to be clustered in June), then what freedom do you have? Would he have had the right to choose between the gay wedding and a traditional one, if there was a scheduling conflict, or would that be discrimination as well?


Walgreen's can't refuse to develop pictures of customers due to their religious beliefs, Howard Johnson's can't refuse to rent rooms due to their religious beliefs, and the Jesus Saves Waffle House in Florence South Carolina cannot refuse to serve gay people due to their religious beliefs.

No? What if a customer brought in explicit photos from a gay pride parade, and Walgreen's refused to process them because of the sexual content? Would that be discriminatory? Let's say that in 2010, a customer brought in his gay pride film, and upon processing it, Walgreen's discovered acts which it considered immoral or obscene. Would Walgreen's have the right to refuse that customer's 2001 pics? Would the Jesus Saves Waffle House have the right to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or can the state order them to start up the griddle and truck their wares out to the reception hall?

Do people who own businesses have any rights at all?

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 12:05 PM
Does an exclusive restaurant have the right to deny service to someone who doesn't wear a jacket and tie or who doesn't dress appropriately?

The answer to this depends somewhat on where you are. In some places the dress code has to be gender neutral. In DC for example, some straight guys took a Georgetown bar to court in the 1970's because their dress code forbid men from entering in jeans, shorts, or shirts with no collar. The same place routinely admitted females wearing jean skirts, t-shirts, and camisole type shirts. In checking dress codes for DC restaurants, I see that nicer restaurants list their dress code as "business casual". Since they live in fear of being sued, I have to assume it's a suggestion.


And in NY, aren't there clubs that the average person will not get in because they are not one of the beautiful people?

As I understand it, New York law permits retail liquor licenses to private clubs. I think they have fairly broad discretion in whom they admit, as long as it's not based in ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc... DC on the other hand, does not permit retail liquor licenses to private clubs unless they meet criteria which most clubs wouldn't qualify for. Years ago, while the DC gay bars were under scrutiny for racial discrimination, flying under the radar was a blacks-only dance club called "Andre's" which was technically a private club and did not serve or permit liquor. I say technically, because like the VFW or American Legion (I can't remember which it is) they offered instant or one night memberships; unlike the VFW and American Legion Hall, Andre's was a for-profit business and didn't sell alcohol.

The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.

Rebel Yell
06-29-2011, 12:26 PM
The answer to this depends somewhat on where you are. In some places the dress code has to be gender neutral. In DC for example, some straight guys took a Georgetown bar to court in the 1970's because their dress code forbid men from entering in jeans, shorts, or shirts with no collar. The same place routinely admitted females wearing jean skirts, t-shirts, and camisole type shirts. In checking dress codes for DC restaurants, I see that nicer restaurants list their dress code as "business casual". Since they live in fear of being sued, I have to assume it's a suggestion.



As I understand it, New York law permits retail liquor licenses to private clubs. I think they have fairly broad discretion in whom they admit, as long as it's not based in ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc... DC on the other hand, does not permit retail liquor licenses to private clubs unless they meet criteria which most clubs wouldn't qualify for. Years ago, while the DC gay bars were under scrutiny for racial discrimination, flying under the radar was a blacks-only dance club called "Andre's" which was technically a private club and did not serve or permit liquor. I say technically, because like the VFW or American Legion (I can't remember which it is) they offered instant or one night memberships; unlike the VFW and American Legion Hall, Andre's was a for-profit business and didn't sell alcohol.

The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.

So, was that just the long version of, "Gays are the most discriminatory people out there."?

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 12:31 PM
......then what freedom do you have? Would he have had the right to choose between the gay wedding and a traditional one, if there was a scheduling conflict, or would that be discrimination as well?

I didn't say that I agreed with the New Mexico case, I said that it wasn't the same issue as a church. As for choosing between customers, I think you are supposed to serve first come, first served. Restaurant, for example, can't be off the hook simply because they agree to serve people of all religions, they have to serve them equally, ie they can't seat a Jew and a Gentile but only offer the specials to the Gentiles or make the Jews wait until the Gentiles have their food before ordering. They can't routinely give Gentiles window seats while refusing to seat Jews at the window seats.




No? What if a customer brought in explicit photos from a gay pride parade, and Walgreen's refused to process them because of the sexual content?

As long as Walgreens has a consistent policy then they are covered. They cannot consider two men in swimsuits kissing "sexual content" but not an heterosexual couple in swimsuits kissing the same. They can refuse to print pictures of people in swimsuits, they cannot refuse to print only pictures of men in swimsuits or fat people in swim suits. They cannot print pics of women in g-strings, but refuse men in g-strings. They cannot refuse to print pics of Pride and print pics of Mardi Gras.




Let's say that in 2010, a customer brought in his gay pride film, and upon processing it, Walgreen's discovered acts which it considered immoral or obscene. Would Walgreen's have the right to refuse that customer's 2001 pics? Would the Jesus Saves Waffle House have the right to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or can the state order them to start up the griddle and truck their wares out to the reception hall?

Do people who own businesses have any rights at all?

Most nondiscrimination law is common sense. Like a lot of law, a reasonable person standard is applied. So a thinking person in business should ask himself if his policy is fair and consistent. If it is, then he won't run afoul of nondiscrimination laws. However, we live in a litigious society where anyone can attempt to sue anyone for almost anything. When dealing with the public, either at a hot dog stand or a photography studio you need to ask yourself if what you are doing is likely to get you sued and if it's worth your time, money, and perhaps your business.

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 12:34 PM
The answer to this depends somewhat on where you are. In some places the dress code has to be gender neutral. In DC for example, some straight guys took a Georgetown bar to court in the 1970's because their dress code forbid men from entering in jeans, shorts, or shirts with no collar. The same place routinely admitted females wearing jean skirts, t-shirts, and camisole type shirts. In checking dress codes for DC restaurants, I see that nicer restaurants list their dress code as "business casual". Since they live in fear of being sued, I have to assume it's a suggestion.



As I understand it, New York law permits retail liquor licenses to private clubs. I think they have fairly broad discretion in whom they admit, as long as it's not based in ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc... DC on the other hand, does not permit retail liquor licenses to private clubs unless they meet criteria which most clubs wouldn't qualify for. Years ago, while the DC gay bars were under scrutiny for racial discrimination, flying under the radar was a blacks-only dance club called "Andre's" which was technically a private club and did not serve or permit liquor. I say technically, because like the VFW or American Legion (I can't remember which it is) they offered instant or one night memberships; unlike the VFW and American Legion Hall, Andre's was a for-profit business and didn't sell alcohol.

The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.
Ah, so what you're saying is that it's perfectly OK for a club to exclude. Thanks. The double standard is alive and qwell. Discrimination in any form is discrimination. You either admit everyone or no one. You're saying a photographer cannot pick and choose their clientele but a night club can. Gotcha. And I like your wording; "private club". Um, a photographer is a private contractor, no? So, why can a private club discriminate but a private contractor cannot? Another question: can a white person take part in the Miss Black America pageant? Seems to me that the only group that it is ok to discriminate against with out fear of reprisal are straight white Christians.

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 12:37 PM
So, was that just the long version of, "Gays are the most discriminatory people out there."?

No, that was me anticipating his next move. However, you are somewhat correct that gay people do discriminate in ways I have objected to for sometime. It ill behooves gay people to fight for equal rights and nondiscrimination policies and then run ads that say, "Apartment for rent in all gay building." or " No newspaper in its right mind would accept an ad that said , "Apartment for rent in all white building." I stop donating to Equality Florida when they ran an employment ad for an office manager that said something like "..... racial minorities are encouraged to apply." I understand that Equality Florida doesn't want to be perceived as being exclusively white (because it's overwhelmingly white) , but that doesn't excuse advertising a racial preference in hiring if one accepts and supports nondiscrimination laws.

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 12:50 PM
Ah, so what you're saying is that it's perfectly OK for a club to exclude.

The Violet Crumble impression doesn't become you.


You're saying a photographer cannot pick and choose their clientele but a night club can.

No, I'm saying that in New Mexico a photography business is considered a public accommodation and that some places are consider "private clubs" while others are considered "retail establishments". These are legal terms. The American Legion or a Country Club is permitted to take in a certain amount of business from the outside while selling cocktails and without losing its private status, but if they take in too much outside business then they have crossed the line into a public accommodation. Is this too difficult to understand?

By the same token, Burning Tree Country Club was told that they had to admit women or stop getting the Maryland property tax break for golf courses under "open space preservation". They elected to forfeit their tax exemption. Money talks and bullshit walks.

Odysseus
06-29-2011, 03:49 PM
The poster child for arbitrary discrimination door policy was probably Studio 54 which was owned and operated largely by gay people and had a significant gay clientele. Studio 54 was a criminal enterprise operating under a series of temporary liquor licenses usually intended for special parties and functions rather than a standing nightclub operation. Studio 54 also operated with no liquor license at all at times, and the place was eventually shut down.
Yes, but for tax evasion, not the other issues.

I didn't say that I agreed with the New Mexico case, I said that it wasn't the same issue as a church.

Actually, you said that a photography business cannot discriminate, and you strongly implied approval of the decision. Your exact words were:



How many times do we have to do this? A photographic business is not a church and a photographer is not a priest. A photography business which offers its services to the public may not discriminate.
Sure sounds to me like you approved of that. Are you saying that the court was wrong and that he had the right to choose who he would enter into business with?



As for choosing between customers, I think you are supposed to serve first come, first served. Restaurant, for example, can't be off the hook simply because they agree to serve people of all religions, they have to serve them equally, ie they can't seat a Jew and a Gentile but only offer the specials to the Gentiles or make the Jews wait until the Gentiles have their food before ordering. They can't routinely give Gentiles window seats while refusing to seat Jews at the window seats.
But restaurants don't always serve first come. In fact, A-list restaurants pride themselves on being unavailable to many patrons, but will kick celebrities to the front of the line. If Ashton Kutcher shows up at Tavern on the Green after I do but gets seated before me, do I have a cause of action? If I'm in uniform, is it proof of anti-military bias? If I'm wearing a yarmulka, is it proof of antisemitism? (perhaps I should wear both and double the size of the class action suit).


As long as Walgreens has a consistent policy then they are covered. They cannot consider two men in swimsuits kissing "sexual content" but not an heterosexual couple in swimsuits kissing the same. They can refuse to print pictures of people in swimsuits, they cannot refuse to print only pictures of men in swimsuits or fat people in swim suits. They cannot print pics of women in g-strings, but refuse men in g-strings. They cannot refuse to print pics of Pride and print pics of Mardi Gras.

So, Walgreen's cannot object to pictures of two men kissing unless they also object to a heterosexual couple kissing? That sounds like the elementary school teacher who used to say that we couldn't chew gum unless we brought enough for everyone (it cost me two week's allowance to prove that even if I had enough gum, she just didn't want us chewing in her classroom, but that's another story). If a TV network accepted a condom ad with a male-female couple, but rejected one with a male-male couple out of concerns that the latter ad would cost them other advertisers, would you accuse them of discriminatory conduct? How would you resolve a conflict in which a network would keep the Trojans account, but lose other advertisers who don't want to be associated with gay sexual imagery? Would you sue the network, the advertisers or the viewers who wouldn't agree to the ensuing boycott?


Most nondiscrimination law is common sense. Like a lot of law, a reasonable person standard is applied.
And who decides who is reasonable and who isn't?



I'm sure that the photographer in New Mexico thought that he was being fair and consistent. He didn't want to lend his business to a political cause that he disagreed with. OTOH, it's hard to find someone who doesn't think that their positions or policies are fair and consistent. As a friend of mine used to say, "Everyone is the hero of their own life story." If everyone had the same idea of what was fair and consistent, we wouldn't need courts, now would we?


[QUOTE=Novaheart;429119However, we live in a litigious society where anyone can attempt to sue anyone for almost anything. When dealing with the public, either at a hot dog stand or a photography studio you need to ask yourself if what you are doing is likely to get you sued and if it's worth your time, money, and perhaps your business.
In other words, we must weigh whether we are willing to endure either lawsuits, boycotts or harassment, or support political causes that we disagree with, as the price of doing business? How about just not suing the photographer for not wanting to work for you? No, wait, that wouldn't satisfy the activists' agenda, would it? We cannot have any individual act of conscience that resists the advance of your pride, can we? No matter how much damage is done, or how little the slight, everyone must be made to knuckle under.


No, I'm saying that in New Mexico a photography business is considered a public accommodation and that some places are consider "private clubs" while others are considered "retail establishments". These are legal terms. The American Legion or a Country Club is permitted to take in a certain amount of business from the outside while selling cocktails and without losing its private status, but if they take in too much outside business then they have crossed the line into a public accommodation. Is this too difficult to understand?
It's difficult to understand because it's BS. A photography studio is not a public accommodation, it's a private business, and it is under no obligation to take work from any client who walks in the door, and when the state says otherwise, then it is indulging in tyrannical oppression.

Phillygirl
06-29-2011, 03:55 PM
The Violet Crumble impression doesn't become you.



No, I'm saying that in New Mexico a photography business is considered a public accommodation and that some places are consider "private clubs" while others are considered "retail establishments". These are legal terms. The American Legion or a Country Club is permitted to take in a certain amount of business from the outside while selling cocktails and without losing its private status, but if they take in too much outside business then they have crossed the line into a public accommodation. Is this too difficult to understand?

By the same token, Burning Tree Country Club was told that they had to admit women or stop getting the Maryland property tax break for golf courses under "open space preservation". They elected to forfeit their tax exemption. Money talks and bullshit walks.

I think all personal service type industries should be exempt from such anti-discrimination laws. If I'm a photographer and I don't feel comfortable around black people, gay people, wiccans, bikers, Irish Travelers, or obese people, I shouldn't have to perform my personal service for them.

Same goes for me as an attorney. Everyone has a right to an attorney. They don't have the right to me as an attorney.

Odysseus
06-29-2011, 04:35 PM
I think all personal service type industries should be exempt from such anti-discrimination laws. If I'm a photographer and I don't feel comfortable around black people, gay people, wiccans, bikers, Irish Travelers, or obese people, I shouldn't have to perform my personal service for them.

Same goes for me as an attorney. Everyone has a right to an attorney. They don't have the right to me as an attorney.

You wouldn't represent a black, gay, obese, wiccan biker from Ireland? You cad, you! :D

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 05:45 PM
My contention with the photographer incident is that those lesbians purposely chose that photographer just to get a rise out of them. They were free to choose from one of at least 127(Internet Yellow Pages search) photographers but IMO they purposely chose this particular one because IIRC, in their phone book ad they had the Jesus fish openly promoting themselves as Christians. Of course Nova finds the behavior of the lesbian couple completely acceptable because when it comes to gays, they can do no wrong and any slight toward them in the least is a crime against humanity.

megimoo
06-29-2011, 05:48 PM
My contention with the photographer incident is that those lesbians purposely chose that photographer just to get a rise out of them. They were free to choose from one of at least 127(Internet Yellow Pages search) photographers but IMO they purposely chose this particular one because IIRC, in their phone book ad they had the Jesus fish openly promoting themselves as Christians. Of course Nova finds the behavior of the lesbian couple completely acceptable because when it comes to gays, they can do no wrong and any slight toward them in the least is a crime against humanity.

Didn't he admit that he was queer...oh excuses me ..strange.. ?

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 05:53 PM
Didn't he admit that he was queer...oh excuses me ..strange.. ?

IMO Nova is to gays and their causes the same way Al Sharpton is to blacks and black causes. Complete tunnel vision.

megimoo
06-29-2011, 06:00 PM
IMO Nova is to gays and their causes the same way Al Sharpton is to blacks and black causes. Complete tunnel vision.

So if he's Queer/Homosexual why would we expect him to be object when it comes to any Homosexual issues .He'll always 'come down' on the side of the Homosexual cause ...

hai
06-29-2011, 06:25 PM
My point exactly. And they make this stuff so public that this is what public eyes see, and as such, this is what the public thinks gays are. If I were gay, I'd be outspokenly against this kind of stuff, because if I'm a gay man, people will already have this sort of perception of me, that I must be a Queen who likes plungers up my ass, due to parades like this--even if I have nothing to do with it and I'm just a regular guy who happens to be gay. Indirectly, these people would be harming my reputation.

I'm surprised there isn't a movement on the part of more average Joe gays to stop this stuff. I mean if you want to party with a plunger up the butt, or in drag, or whatever--do it in your own home.

People say "But what about St. Patty's Day?! They can have their parade but we can't?" But I think there's a difference, a pretty big difference. Maybe it's because we live in an age where we're largely beyond anti-Irish stereotypes, I don't know, but I do know that (playful jokes aside) no one REALLY feels all Irishmen are red faced, Leprechaun-ish Drunks.

The same can't be said for gay men. These parades happen and in the eyes of many, gays as a whole group are viewed seriously as being creepy, effete, effeminate, kinky, abnormal Queens. And that hurts the reputation of those gays who act like civilized people. And they exist--I'm sure you and others here have known a few men who you were surprised to learn were gay. Or who one wouldn't think were gay if you had no clue about it.

Look at Ian McKellen--He played Gandalf in the LOTR movies. The man is as masculine, as vital and as classy and eloquent as could be. Yet he's also 100% gay. But if you didn't know it, you probably wouldn't guess it.

Even Freddie Mercury wasn't nearly as GAY as these people are acting. Freddie looked, at least in the 80s, like your average American blue collar worker. He didn't wear women's clothes or the like. He wore a Tank Top or T-Shirt and Jeans like the everyday male. And he was pretty damn gay for his time.

This.

I'm mad by that too.

Because the keyboardist for Faith No More wasn't flamoyant at all either,Plus Rob Halford acted very macho.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-29-2011, 06:34 PM
This.

I'm mad by that too.

Because the keyboardist for Faith No More wasn't flamoyant at all either,Plus Rob Halford acted very macho.

I was just using Freddie as an example, since he was a gay icon--A rarity for his time, a pretty much openly gay man in the music world. Even Elton hid being gay until later in his career. Liberace was a HUGE icon in general yet hid the fact he was gay and even sued those who insinuated it.

Freddie was a brave guy in that he played Heavy Metal music--a traditionally masculine, somewhat homophobic genre--and was openly gay.

I'm not saying he should be the gold standard for a gay guy should act, I was just using him as a notable example.

The point being...Why do some of these people feel the need to perpetuate stereotypes? They're only pepertuating stereotypes that make them look bad to mainstream Americans, and in doing so, they defame homosexuals as a whole group. That was my point.

I just think the whole "Queen" kind of gay man is a total fraud. Being gay doesn't automatically mean you develop a lispy voice and prance around. That's an ugly stereotype--that gay = not manly. And these people with their parades keep it going by their own actions. They don't represent all gay people and probably not even the majority of gay people. But they're a very vocal minority whose actions shape the opinions of others.

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 06:48 PM
I work with several people who are gay. One is in uniform. He makes gay jokes with the best of them. He can't stand flamers. As far as inmates go, the flamers are the most annoying inmates to have on your tier. I had one in the special needs unit(as well as on a regular house when I had one) who was the most annoying human being I ever saw. Thankfully his cellmate took matters into his own hand and cold cocked him.

megimoo
06-29-2011, 07:04 PM
I work with several people who are gay. One is in uniform. He makes gay jokes with the best of them. He can't stand flamers. As far as inmates go, the flamers are the most annoying inmates to have on your tier. I had one in the special needs unit(as well as on a regular house when I had one) who was the most annoying human being I ever saw. Thankfully his cellmate took matters into his own hand and cold cocked him.

How do you Deal with the HIV positive inmates ? Are they isolated from general population and Do you wear padding and face shields to prevent bites and fluids being thrown in your faces .

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 07:11 PM
How do you Deal with the HIV positive inmates ? Are they isolated from general population and Do you wear padding and face shields to prevent bites and fluids being thrown in your faces .

Ready for this? We're not allowed to know. HIPPA and all. And to answer the 2nd part of your question, no. The only thing we wear is rubber gloves when doing pat downs or cell searches. We don't even use spit masks. Believe you me, I've had piss and shit thrown at me(he missed) and had an inmate try to spit on my though a locked door. Go figure.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-29-2011, 07:12 PM
How do you Deal with the HIV positive inmates ? Are they isolated from general population and Do you wear padding and face shields to prevent bites and fluids being thrown in your faces .

My dad worked in the medical field and during the '80s AIDs positive guys--like ones nearing the end, with the AIDs induced dementia-- would come into the hospital and try and spit on the nurses and doctors. They simply restrained them, wore gloves and placed them in the Psych unit.

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 07:15 PM
My dad worked in the medical field and during the '80s AIDs positive guys--like ones nearing the end, with the AIDs induced dementia-- would come into the hospital and try and spit on the nurses and doctors. They simply restrained them, wore gloves and placed them in the Psych unit.

You can't get HIV through spit. However, Hep-C you can I believe.

hai
06-29-2011, 07:32 PM
I work with several people who are gay. One is in uniform. He makes gay jokes with the best of them. He can't stand flamers. As far as inmates go, the flamers are the most annoying inmates to have on your tier. I had one in the special needs unit(as well as on a regular house when I had one) who was the most annoying human being I ever saw. Thankfully his cellmate took matters into his own hand and cold cocked him.

Dude,you work in Corrections?

I use to work in the Healthcare office at a deskjob,as a volunteer who was hired by Goodwill helping me.

Of course since the economy fell,i got downsized from my job.

NJCardFan
06-29-2011, 07:35 PM
Dude,you work in Corrections?

I use to work in the Healthcare office at a deskjob,as a volunteer who was hired by Goodwill helping me.

Of course since the economy fell,i got downsized from my job.

You know of a good way to record a guitar and make it into mp3?

Because i know i can put songs on Soundcloud.
Um, huh?

hai
06-29-2011, 07:37 PM
Um, huh?

Like dude,i used to work in Corrections in the health office with a bunch of nurses at a desk job.

BadCat
06-29-2011, 08:14 PM
I pity the poor people who have to clean up after that affront to nature.

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 09:40 PM
I think all personal service type industries should be exempt from such anti-discrimination laws. If I'm a photographer and I don't feel comfortable around black people, gay people, wiccans, bikers, Irish Travelers, or obese people, I shouldn't have to perform my personal service for them.

Same goes for me as an attorney. Everyone has a right to an attorney. They don't have the right to me as an attorney.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see why there is an exception the the Fair Housing laws for small property owners and the "intimacy" of owner occupied small buildings, an exception to the EEO laws for small businesses with fewer than X employees, and yet no exemption in most places for one client at a time type businesses. I'm not sure how you would distinguish a photographer from an owner operated dress shop, and I'm not sure the exemption should extend to a business done in a fixed premises.

Do we really think that a corner store should be able to refuse entry to people on arbitrary preferences or prejudices?

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 09:44 PM
My contention with the photographer incident is that those lesbians purposely chose that photographer just to get a rise out of them.....


Most discrimination stings of all kinds are conducted against persons about whom a complaint has been made. Fair Housing does do some experiments on random targets, but most of the time they know that a place is discriminating before they send the tester in.

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 09:46 PM
IMO Nova is to gays and their causes the same way Al Sharpton is to blacks and black causes. Complete tunnel vision.

Actually your complaint about me is that I make a conscious effort to be objective.

Phillygirl
06-29-2011, 09:50 PM
I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't see why there is an exception the the Fair Housing laws for small property owners and the "intimacy" of owner occupied small buildings, an exception to the EEO laws for small businesses with fewer than X employees, and yet no exemption in most places for one client at a time type businesses. I'm not sure how you would distinguish a photographer from an owner operated dress shop, and I'm not sure the exemption should extend to a business done in a fixed premises.

Do we really think that a corner store should be able to refuse entry to people on arbitrary preferences or prejudices?

I see a difference between selling widgets and selling your personal time and services. If someone has to spend 5 hours at an event that they find morally repugnant, simply because they choose to sell their services for other events doesn't mean that they have to sell them for yours.

Novaheart
06-29-2011, 09:52 PM
However, Hep-C you can I believe.

The internet says it's theoretically possible but unlikely.