Should bar/restaurant owners be allowed to eject persons because of their sexuality?

[M-50]

Participants: Affe, rohil.
Judge: Nathan

This debate is on whether or not people should be removed from the premises because of them being homosexual.

I believe that homosexuals should not be ejected because of their sexuality.

Nathan: I'll be judging this one :)

[M-50]

Homosexuals should not be sent out just becauase they are homosexual. It is like saying that straight people are not allowed in gay joints. It is just not the way the world works. Most gay people will not even seem gay until they tell you or you find out. I know because I know someone who is gay, but I did not know he was gay until he told me. You cannot tell gay people from straight people just by looking most of the time. Therefore I cannot see a reason as to why gay people should be ejected from the building. If they were behaving incorrectly in public, then the owner has a reason to, but just for being gay, no way.
If gay people are ejected for being gay then not only does it mean that the business is loosing revenue but also that the gay person is limited as to where he can and cannot go.
Allowing that to happen is the apartheid all over again. It is the segregation of homosexuals being prevented from entering shops. Like in america, when black people were not allowed in shops because they were black. I though we had risen above such lowliness, but it seems evident that we have not.
Allowing homosexuals to be segregated from straights in certain places will then follow on to people preventing gays from entering certain areas. e.g. if a major shop in london prevented gays from being allowed in, gays would not be around that shop thereby leading to no gays there.
A human being has the right to choose if he wants to visit a shop or not, he should not be told whether or not he can, it is not right.
Sorry for taking so long, Affe and Nathan.

[renniw]

However why shouldn't private buisness owners have the right to deny service to whoever they wish? They provide a service for a compensation, so if they don't provide the service they simply don't recieve the compensation.

Catholic churches don't provide, and don't have to provide, service to Muslims or anyone else of different beliefs for that matter. So what if that bar owners' religion doesn't agree with homosexuality or sees it as a sin? Shouldn't he/she have the same right as that catholic church to not provide his services to something against his/her beliefs?

An example closer to the situation on hand - Why should bars deny service to "average" people but serve celebrities and other prominent figures? And if thats fine for you why isn't not allowing homosexuals into bars etc.. wrong? They are both, in the end, discrimination if thats where your case lyes.

Also don't think that establishments run by homosexuals don't deny services to heterosexuals as well. There are plenty of gay bars that dislike and don't want heterosexuals to be there, for whatever reason. And saying that gays have no where to go is wrong. They can also open they're own establishments can they not? Its not like homosexuals are poor or uneducated.

Phew. Its hard to write stuff contrary to your real beliefs... Anyways rohil no worries, if your busy your busy can't be helped (wasn't to long anyways) ;)

[Vampyrelord]

Strong starting posts people, love it :)

One more post each. Remember to tie up your arguments.

@rohil: no worries :)
@Affe: Debating against your own beliefs is hard, but it's part of debating I guess

[M-50]

However why shouldn't private buisness owners have the right to deny service to whoever they wish? They provide a service for a compensation, so if they don't provide the service they simply don't recieve the compensation.
Catholic churches don't provide, and don't have to provide, service to Muslims or anyone else of different beliefs for that matter. So what if that bar owners' religion doesn't agree with homosexuality or sees it as a sin? Shouldn't he/she have the same right as that catholic church to not provide his services to something against his/her beliefs?
An example closer to the situation on hand - Why should bars deny service to "average" people but serve celebrities and other prominent figures? And if thats fine for you why isn't not allowing homosexuals into bars etc.. wrong? They are both, in the end, discrimination if thats where your case lyes.
Also don't think that establishments run by homosexuals don't deny services to heterosexuals as well. There are plenty of gay bars that dislike and don't want heterosexuals to be there, for whatever reason. And saying that gays have no where to go is wrong. They can also open they're own establishments can they not? Its not like homosexuals are poor or uneducated.
Phew. Its hard to write stuff contrary to your real beliefs... Anyways rohil no worries, if your busy your busy can't be helped (wasn't to long anyways) ;)
One because it is discrimination to prevent a person from entering against their wishes unless it infringes upon a person privacy, like B&E.
Are you saying that muslims are not allowed into a catholic church because they are muslims? Or for that matter any religion? That any religion cept catholics are not allowed into catholic owned shop/restaurants/bars etc? How will they know if the other person is not a catholic? Do they ask them their religion before entering? Or are they blantant about it, posting a sign saying 'everyone except catholics can go away' not in those words probably.
If your religion does not agree with homosexuality and you are a shop/bar owner are you telling me that you would be asking every single person to enter if they are gay and then deciding if they are gay?
'Shouldnt he/she have the same right...'
Two wrongs dont make a right. If you are to discriminate against people because of their sexuality we may as well have segregation again. We might as well as have slaves again.
Bars that do that I presume only do that when celebrities are actually around. Why would they only have a celebrity only bar for celebrities when it will be empty most of the time? They do not do that. Instead they have the bar open to only celebrities when they are around. Like in the apprentice sir alan sugar two weeks ago sent the winning team to star bowling in london somewhere which is a haunt for major celebrities. obviously they were not there at the time otherwise they would not have been allowed in.
Not allowing homosexuals in bars is wrong. My whole argument is about that.
There may well be lots of homosexual run bars that dislike straights for whatever reason but it does not mean that they deny them service. Many, many gay bars in london allow straight people in.
If gays are not allowed in homo/hetero bars then their choice is limited, that is what I am saying. also remember that most gays cannot afford to open a bar if they are kicked out of one. And no it is not like gays are uneducated and poor. But most will not have enough money to open a shop.
Homosexuals should not be prevented from entering a premises on the grounds of their private sexuality.
Like I have said before you cannot tell a gay person just by looking. You can speculate but you cannot be definite. Just like I could speculate that you are gay, no offense, and say that you are not allowed to come to england. It does not mean that you are gay. Only if you told me you where gay would I actually know you were gay. I have a gay friend who I did not know was gay until he told me. He smoked, he drank he acted like a straight guy and still does. My point, you cannot tell gays. This leads me to my next point, if you cannot tell gays 99% of the time, then how can you prevent your premises from being gay free? By going around and asking every single person are you gay? If you can't tell gays unless they partake in homosexual behaviour, you will gain a bad reputation for the premises as heterosexuals will be annoyed. This will lead to the premises becoming less and less vibrant.
Being able to eject homosexuals will lead to less trading as there will be less persons buying goods.

[renniw]

Are you saying that muslims are not allowed into a catholic church because they are muslims? Or for that matter any religion? That any religion cept catholics are not allowed into catholic owned shop/restaurants/bars etc?
No I said that catholic churches do not cater to other religions simply because they view their religion as the "right" one and their beliefs do not follow other religions. Its like catholic churches will not hold marriage ceremony's for gays. why? Because it goes against their religions teachings which, to them, is a way of life. So if they are permitted to do so, which it is in the majority of the world, why can't bar/shop/restaurant owners who are religious and see homosexuality as a sin ,and in Muslim countries such as Iran can be even punishable by the death penalty, deny them service? It may be wrong to deny service through your perspective but to them providing service to homosexuality's is wrong.

How will they know if the other person is not a catholic? Do they ask them their religion before entering? Or are they blantant about it, posting a sign saying 'everyone except catholics can go away' not in those words probably.
Well if a Muslim wearing a turban walks through the door I would say it is pretty obvious that he/she is not a catholic, but anyways, if they don't say anything no one will know but then again if we wouldn't know who were homosexuals and who were not then this law wouldn't be made in the first place since there would be no problem surrounding this situation.

If your religion does not agree with homosexuality and you are a shop/bar owner are you telling me that you would be asking every single person to enter if they are gay and then deciding if they are gay?
"What you don't know can't hurt you" - Ever heard of it before? If those owners didn't know that those who he/she was serving were homosexuals obviously the owner wouldn't have a problem providing them service. The reality is that homosexuals usually have a different demeanor or style than heterosexuals which is pretty easy to distinguish.


'Shouldnt he/she have the same right...'
Two wrongs dont make a right. If you are to discriminate against people because of their sexuality we may as well have segregation again. We might as well as have slaves again.
I can take what you said and tell you it applies to the homosexual community as well. So is it ok for homosexual bars to deny service to heterosexuals but not the other way around?


Bars that do that I presume only do that when celebrities are actually around. Why would they only have a celebrity only bar for celebrities when it will be empty most of the time? They do not do that. Instead they have the bar open to only celebrities when they are around. Like in the apprentice sir alan sugar two weeks ago sent the winning team to star bowling in london somewhere which is a haunt for major celebrities. obviously they were not there at the time otherwise they would not have been allowed in.


Ya, sorry but there are is a pretty big list of celebrity only night clubs and restaurants. Here (http://search.cityguide.aol.com/losangeles/restaurants/spider-club/v-133801/reviews) is one night club.



"Every club needs a bit of normalcy, and nice places should not just be for the rich. C'mon you guys can't the average joes and jo-anns have a little fun too?"
another loss... 08/19/2004


"here's another place in hollywood that has been lost for the locals and has joined an ever-growing list of celebrity-only clubs and restaurants... this is a great space and now people who don't even live in hollywood are the only ones allowed to go there... what a waste.... "


These are 2/6 comments, the ones that add to my point, also read the authors description to get a better idea. Keep in mind that most of the Celebirty only clubs are membership clubs so is it ok then to only allow people with a certain amount of money or prestige?

Not allowing homosexuals in bars is wrong. My whole argument is about that.
There may well be lots of homosexual run bars that dislike straights for whatever reason but it does not mean that they deny them service. Many, many gay bars in london allow straight people in.
Are you sure? I can swear they do the same thing, or is "The law makes it a crime for hotels and other businesses to refuse to rent rooms to homosexuals and for churches to deny use of their halls for civil union ceremonies for gay couples. Gay business owners are barred from deny services to heterosexual couples." just for equality? I don't believe they make laws with no basis.

Quote came from here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901279.html).

If gays are not allowed in homo/hetero bars then their choice is limited, that is what I am saying. also remember that most gays cannot afford to open a bar if they are kicked out of one. And no it is not like gays are uneducated and poor. But most will not have enough money to open a shop.
Yes it does limit where they go but that doesn't mean they don't have anywhere to go. Why should heterosexuals be forced to accept homosexuality? This goes back to my point about religious beliefs etc..

Homosexuals should not be prevented from entering a premises on the grounds of their private sexuality.
Like I have said before you cannot tell a gay person just by looking. You can speculate but you cannot be definite. Just like I could speculate that you are gay, no offense, and say that you are not allowed to come to england. It does not mean that you are gay. Only if you told me you where gay would I actually know you were gay. I have a gay friend who I did not know was gay until he told me. He smoked, he drank he acted like a straight guy and still does. My point, you cannot tell gays. This leads me to my next point, if you cannot tell gays 99% of the time, then how can you prevent your premises from being gay free? By going around and asking every single person are you gay?

Once again, if 99% of the time store owners could not determine that someone is a homosexual why is this law being made? It would mean that there are hardly no cases of people being denied service because of their sexual orientation, however since there is we can safely assume that we can usually distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Being able to eject homosexuals will lead to less trading as there will be less persons buying goods.
And in the end its the owners choice as to wether he wants the money or uphold his belief. It doesn't harm or cost the homosexual who was denied service anything, if anything it hurts the buisness.



To sum this up I give you a Quote from a Washington post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901279.html)


"The regulations will force Christians to facilitate and encourage the practice of homosexual relationships and will force them to support the view that homosexual relationships are equivalent in worth and moral standing to heterosexual relationships,"
If a owner of a bar/resturant/shop denys service to a homosexual, the homosexual can simply go to another bar/resturant/shop and spend their money there. The owner decided to uphold his beliefs and sacrificed income and if he/she wants to do that he/she should have that right.

[Vampyrelord]

Well, it was a tough one, but the winner is...rohil.

Two wrongs dont make a right. If you are to discriminate against people because of their sexuality we may as well have segregation again.

This is, I think, a sound argument. Throwing people out for being "distinguishably homosexual", which I interpret as "looking gay" is hardly different to having a "white only" bar or beach, etc.

Catholic churches don't provide, and don't have to provide, service to Muslims or anyone else of different beliefs for that matter. So what if that bar owners' religion doesn't agree with homosexuality or sees it as a sin? Shouldn't he/she have the same right as that catholic church to not provide his services to something against his/her beliefs?

Affe, this didn't really work for me. You see, a Muslim, Catholic or Jew etc CHOOSES to be a Muslim, Catholic or Jew, and cannot complain if some people choose to believe something different. But you don't choose to be gay, you can't help it. Thus, it's unfair for people to discriminate against you over something you have no control over.

You have a point that the person who really loses out it the shopkeeper, but it would probably be humiliating for a homosexual (who justs wants to lead a normal life) to be thrown out for "looking queer", and is not the sort of intolerance a civilized society should accept.

rohil: Your arguments were thoughtful and focussed. My advice in future would be to continually emphasise your main points, especially ones your opponent has trouble rebutting, and summarise your arguments concisely. I felt your rebuttals were not really aggressive enough.

Affe: You have a good debating style, and you definetly had the harder view to defend. I felt that your arguments could be a little unfocussed, and that you needed to summarise and emphasise them a bit more. I felt you also focussed a bit too much on identifying homosexuals, and perhaps not enough on the individual rights of the owner of the bar/restaurant etc.

Again, well done both of you. It was very close, and you both did well :)