WeHo Bar To ‘Deny Entry’ To Lawmakers Who Back Anti-Gay Legislation


#1

WEST HOLLYWOOD (CBSLA.com) — Southern California lawmakers who support legislation to discriminate against gays and lesbians now have one less hotspot to visit in West Hollywood.

… In a statement, Cooley said The Abbey will also display headshots of each state representative who support bills on the security list, including Kansas House Bill 2453, Arizona Senate Bill 1062, Idaho House Bill 426, Ohio House Bill 82 and other similar proposals.

… The move isn’t the first time The Abbey has waded into state politics: when gay marriage was still illegal in California in May 2012, the bar announced a ban on all bachelorette parties, which it called an “offensive heterosexual tradition” that flaunts marriage inequality.

losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/02/25/weho-bar-to-ban-lawmakers-who-support-anti-gay-legislation


#2

Maybe we should make “Southern California lawmakers who support legislation to discriminate against gays and lesbians” a protected class. :slight_smile:


#3

Sort of like: “If you judge our actions, we’ll judge your actions.”

Fine. I support the right of establishments to regulate who they serve, within reason. I won’t kick the anarchists out of my coffee shop, but if they decide to protest capitalism in front of my register, I certainly will.

That’s a stretch. I don’t own a coffee shop.

If this bar doesn’t want to serve politicians who vote for laws that the owners of the bar deem harmful to gays, fine, don’t let them in. By the same token, if another bar wants to keep out drag queens, it should be allowed to do so. Both bar owners are showing tolerance for certain actions and intolerance for others. I think that’s very fair.

There’s a fine line between “I have a right to be served anywhere and everywhere” and “I have the right to expect service provided I behave in a certain way”.


#4

They should have the right to serve whomever they choose to serve.

Peace

Tim


#5

True.

So, why are bakers, photographers, caterers, and innkeepers being denied that right?


#6

Because they are haters, bigots, homophobes, etc…

Obviously.:rolleyes:

Peace

Tim


#7

Nobody seems to mind what they’re doing. :shrug:


#8

Who are they trying to keep out, Dana Rorhrabacher? Its a safe bet he wasn’t planning on visiting their establishment anytime soon. No threat to losing any of their usual clientele. Just more showboating. (I hope no one looking for a real Abbey winds up there by mistake!)


#9

This has long been coming, and I think its motivating the legislation in Arizona. I think Arizona legislators don’t want to see wedding photographers kicked out of business because they don’t want to film a gay wedding.

Let’s not forget the Wildflower Inn in Vermont, which for a decade had a policy that was approved by the Vermont Commission on Human Rights to tell gay couples that they disagree with gay weddings but will host the wedding if they would like it there. An employee of the Wildflower, attempting to steal business for her own wedding planning business, told the mother of a lesbian woman that the Inn wouldn’t host the wedding (in violation of the Inn’s own policy) but that she could recommend a site (one of her own clients). The lesbian couple sued, the Human Rights Commission struck down its own earlier ruling, and the Wildflower Inn settled in mediation to pay $20,000 in fines and agree never to host another wedding. That’s rotten - they complied with the government, the government changed their mind and punished the Inn for it anyway. And two lesbians got married somewhere other than the Inn regardless.

Or Arlene’s Flowers in Washington, and the 70-year-old florist who is bearing the full weight of the State government and the ACLU coming after her.

Or the baker in Colorado. Or the adoption agencies in Illinois. Or the food pantries in Washington D.C. It just goes on and on.

If you want to talk about actual violations of civil liberties - right to drive, to vote, to get a job or have a place to live, or even lodging - we can have that discussion. But no one has a fundamental, legally-enforceable, right not to be offended by someone’s actions, or not to have their feelings hurt. You don’t have the right to your dream wedding, or to have a certain band or music playing, or to compel a florist to do your arrangements. You don’t have a right to tell the Bosnian t-shirt maker down the street from my house to make a t-shirt that makes fun of Muhammed (the family that owns the shop is Muslim, by the way), or to compel the local coffeehouse to host an event for the Freedom From Religion Foundation even though it is happy to host events for the local church to which the proprietors belong.

There’s also a very big difference between refusing to put up a black family for a night in a hotel, or refusing a lesbian couple a table at a restaurant … and refusing to participate in a gay wedding, or refusing to contribute to a religious ceremony. One is providing a service, the other arguably goes beyond to express support. I don’t think that my Catholic faith compels me not to provide services to gay people (or Muslims for that matter, or even to vehement anti-Catholics). Nor does my refusal to do so necessarily justify legal recourse. If there’s actual harm, there’s reason for the law. I just don’t buy that not being able to hold an event at a particular location constitutes harm. Offense? Certainly. Immoral judgment? Likely. But not harm.


#10

Like it or not, in the United States, we have a Constitutional Right to be a hater, bigot, homophobe, atheist, anti-Catholic, anti-Semite, etc. It is called the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This is the Amendments that guarentees not just Religion, but Freedom of Speech.
I agree, that to be any of the above may be morally and socially abhorant, but none of these people should be ever forced to associate or do business with those they disagree with.


#11

Yeah, I wasn’t sure at first glance if that was sarcasm or not -so I left it alone. I think it may have been though.


#12

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

This has long been my belief. Let the business owners decide. So long as they are not a provider of one of the basic life necessities, they should be allowed to deny service to whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish.


#13

Gee…big news.

A gay bar bans people who support legislation they don’t like.

Why would any of them want to go to a gay watering hole in West Hollywood anyway?


#14

Well, they would have to be able to recognize the law makers in order for them to make this work, I have a feeling they could not do this though.


#15

If they refuse to allow entry to someone they don’t agree with, can they be sued for discrimination?

Peace

Tim


#16

I was wondering the same thing. People are being sued for not providing a service to a ceremony they don’t agree with and are losing the lawsuits. Here, you have a business providing service to the public, refusing to allow admittance to people who are following their conscience. And, they are getting away with it?

I suspect those not allowed in the bar won’t sue, because they have no vendetta against anyone, no malicious agenda to force upon everyone. They just wish to follow their conscience and/or be faithful to their religion.


#17

This may symbolize the breaking point where Humanism has progressed beyond its original guise of Humanitarianism, in which it’s true anti-religious (especially anti-Catholic) nature morphes into its purest form -an Ideology.

Should hatred for Catholicism become a protected right, we shall see the dismantling of law between two opposing forces. While this issue has, in the meantime, become an intercontinental movement, the persecution of Catholics is inevitable… And I can back this up with history! If the Church fails here, which it will, we can only look to Israel for any future hope in regards to religious freedom. Otherwise, pockets of religious freedom may be found sparatically, but they will be kept weak and will remain under constant attack by the ‘progressiveness’ of Humanist ideology.

Catholics should begin to prepare for the “shakening” of their faith… Which is why I consider myself a post-modern tribal Catholic. I’m prepared.


#18

How will the Church fail, TEPO?


#19

Good music and superior mixologists.

There are certain grounds on which discrimination suits can be validly brought. Sexual orientation is one, political affiliation is not. Technically you can be fired for being a Democrat or Republican; whether the EEOC would see that as unjust termination is uncertain.

I think there’s a lesser standard for bars, but it depends on whether they’re considered places of public accomodation (like, if they’re not open til 11 pm and don’t serve food, just liquor, vs they’re open for dinner and serve food as well) or simply services.

I’m inclined to think the bar is allowed to restrict based on stated political actions; if a council member tried to use eminent domain to force your bar to close, and then took a seat at the bar, could you justifiably tell him to take a hike?

There, I think, is a careful distinction. Every business provides some kind of service, true, but participation in a ceremony is something different.

I give full credence to the concept that a minister should be protected from performing something against his or her conscience in the exercise of official duties. This was the content of a Tennessee law, not sure if it passed. A rabbi may refuse to perform a wedding between a Muslim woman and a Christian man, on the very honest basis that neither of them are Jewish. A priest may refuse to perform a wedding for a couple with one spouse whose prior marriage was not annulled, on the basis of priority of Canon Law. So clergy may justifiably discriminate - and, even as detestable as it sounds, a denomination that believes racial intermarriage to be a sin cannot be compelled to perform a mixed-race wedding. So I think that fundamentally the consciences of clergy are protected from being forced to perform gay marriages - and likewise their respective institutions are free to penalize them for performing or refusing to perform, whichever goes against the stated duties and expectations of the church.

But houses of religion are distinct from businesses in that they’re not truly bound by the idea of being “public” places. You can walk into a shop and just browse around, walking between aisles, flipping through magazines, but a priest is allowed to ask you to leave or at least sit down once Mass begins. If someone takes offense at what a pastor says in a sermon, they don’t have grounds to sue her over it. There may not be legal precedent or term for it - and Lord help us if we get to the point that churches are told they can’t act like churches - but I think the expectation is that attending church services, or attending classes, or attending a movie, elicits different behavior than going to a bar or a hotel or a restaurant or a strip club. And the proprietor reserves the right to enforce expected behavior.

Again, that’s behavior, not belief. Can I ban a known pedophile (say I know him from the sex offender registry) from sitting in the Playland by himself at the McDonald’s I franchise? Absolutely, because he makes me and everyone else in there uncomfortable. I’d have less of a case if he sat with his wife in a booth away from that area.

I will defend freedom of conscience in other areas, but I think the provider’s right needs to have a reasonable limitation. Not serving a gay couple in a restaurant is odd and stupid - from my own experience waiting tables, one of my favorite regulars was a lesbian couple who told me that ours was the only restaurant in town they felt welcome. My duty is to take their order, make them feel welcome, and let them otherwise be. But they didn’t ask me to officiate their wedding. Can I serve this table without violating my conscience? Absolutely. I’m of the mind that even pedophiles and serial killers have the right to eat. That said, I did ask a family who insisted on sitting their kids at my bar to leave - I didn’t like them putting a 2-year-old in a bar stool tall enough that I couldn’t reach the floor, nor talking to their 5 and 8-year-olds about how good certain liquors were. They complained, the manager offered them a table, expressing the same concern. I followed up with the local police department, asking whether it was legal for a restaurant to ask kids not to sit at the bar. I was told that our conscience was respected in this, so long as safety concerns were satisfied.

The problem with arguing conscience is, as some have pointed out, its openness for abuse. That makes it hard to set limits.

Say you run a small community bank, catering to local small businesses and families primarily. Can you turn down a loan to a gun store? To a smut store? Unfortunately, it seems that your personal opposition to firearms or pornography being honored would depend upon who is looking at your case, which abrogates an objective decision.

Consider a convenience store owner who has an obviously young girl (say 10 years old) come in to buy a condom. Must the owner sell this, knowing that its to be used in the commission of what is objectively a crime (since the girl can’t give consent) and, by any decent moral calculus, the abuse of a child? I suppose the “easy” way out is to call the police and ask for protection for the child, but otherwise there is no required age for the prophylactic so no legitimate reason to not sell it (nor, really, does the clerk have the legal right to ask for ID to verify age).


#20

The Church cannot fail. Her priests and faithful may fail by not calling out evil for what it is. It is objectively and gravely sinful for two men to have sex, or for two women to have sex, or for a man and a woman to have sex outside of marriage. We must not shy away from that teaching. Nor may we allow that teaching to inculcate fear, hatred, or dishumanization in others.

The moral imperative of the Church’s teaching is, before anything else, a call to each believer to be Holy and Loving. Holiness means not giving in to temptation. We are given desires, some good, many evil, and we are not to delve in to them, nor be mastered by them. Every single one of us has had a sexual desire that is not from the Lord. We all carry that burden which tests us. For some it is for others of the same gender. For some it is for another’s wife or husband. For many it is for a faceless stranger who may be wealthy from exploiting their own body, or may be suffering in shackles at the whims of human traffickers, a modern slave being moved from hotel to hotel along the nation’s interstates.

I have spoken elsewhere on this board about my struggles against the desire for indecency. Part of my call is to love only my wife in a sexual manner, not myself or others, and to perpetuate that calling to all who listen. You must subjugate your desires to the Lord’s call in order to find His Joy.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.