Life isn’t fair: Why it’s OK for G-A-Y to discriminate but not for homophobic B&B owners
It’s safe to say I would rather saw my own arm off than spend an evening at a One Direction gig. So my sympathy for the ‘hordes’ of teenage girls who not only have to struggle on a daily basis with their crippling lack of musical taste but who were also reportedly denied entry to the performance by said boy ‘band’ at G-A-Y on Saturday night (on the grounds that said girls were, y’know, straight) was always going to be somewhat limited, regardless of the actual rights and wrongs of the issue. But even putting my musical prejudices aside, G-A-Y promoter Jeremy Joseph is in the right on this.
Image: purpaboo/flickr
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against the law, of course, as duly reinforced by yesterday’s court judgement against the B&B owners who got all hot and bothered (interpret that as you choose) at the thought of all the sinful things two men who were sharing a bed could get up to. And it has to be admitted that this might put gay clubs in a slightly tricky position, since their whole raison d’être is to be places where LGBT people go to meet one another (and let’s be frank, probably hook up, since that seems to be the point of most clubs).
I’m not really interested in focusing on the law on this as it currently exists; gay clubs seem to have functioned perfectly well thus far without attracting any Equality and Human Rights Commission-sponsored lawsuits, and I doubt that’s going to change any time soon. True, there are vast legions of assorted morons who love to point to the isolated and insignificant instances of discrimination against straight middle-class white men as evidence that they’re victims too (and equality’s all very well but these days it’s all gone too far and did you hear about that terrible Winterval business?), but they’re probably too busy working themselves into a lather over whatever the Express is telling them to hate this week to be a problem. Nor am I getting into the vexed question of precisely how the door staff at gay clubs judge would-be revellers’ sexual orientation – though admittedly it does seem like that can be a pretty unpleasant experience, as Jack Cullen’s Guardian post above makes clear. No, it’s the ethics of the act of discrimination itself that interest me. How is Jeremy Joseph’s decision to exclude non-LGBT One Direction fans from G-A-Y different from Peter and Hazel Bull’s aversion to man-love in their B&B?
I don’t think it’s sufficient just to argue that being barred from a club for being straight is a trivial sort of discrimination. Aside from anything else, not being allowed to share a bed with your partner for a night or two isn’t that terrible an ordeal in itself either. The relevant point, I think, is pretty simple. Straight devotees of One Direction aren’t a particularly marginalised or oppressed group in society, while homophobia, despite the massive improvement in attitudes and legal rights over the past decade and a half or so, is still very much with us. It’s easy to see why cases like the killings of Jody Dobrowski and Ian Baynham could make some LGBT people wary of being open about their sexuality in their day-to-day lives, and gay clubs can to some extent act as safe spaces to allow them to be themselves.
But even if you’re convinced by that, surely (I hear you cry) you couldn’t have anti-discrimination laws which allow some clubs to refuse entrance to straight people, but not B&B owners to refuse a double room to gay people? But why not? It’s already perfectly legal for rape crisis centres and women’s refuges to specify in recruitment ads that their support workers have to be female. Sure, gay clubs aren’t offering quite as vital a service as rape crisis centres do, but the principle’s pretty similar. Society is better off with gay clubs than without them, and without some means of ensuring that their clientele is mainly LGBT, they would cease to function as gay clubs. B&Bs, on the other hand, don’t cease to function as B&Bs if same-sex couples patronise them and choose to share beds, and any Christians who run those B&Bs don’t cease to be Christians if they permit it.
It’s important to emphasise that this categorically isn’t a libertarian argument; I don’t think gay clubs should be allowed to have discriminatory admissions policies just because they’re private businesses, I think they should be allowed to do so because it’s beneficial for society to have safe spaces for LGBT people. And the right to a place where you can associate with like-minded people and be yourself certainly needn’t just apply to the LGBT community; if the Bulls wanted to exclude gay couples from a prayer meeting they were holding, they’d be perfectly entitled to do so. But that’s a very different proposition from running a B&B. If B&Bs ever start to be considered safe spaces for minorities, that would be a different matter.
Reader Comments
Life isn’t fair – need to use that phrase more often around here…
Anyway, I do not think an army of One Direction fans can be legitimately painted as a threat to LGBT people’s “safe space”… in fact, I put forward that being around people in a place they feel they can be open about their sexuality would be a very liberating experience for them.
Not convinced by this ‘safe spaces’ argument. It’s unlikely that a group of violent, homophobic straight men are going to want to come to a club that advertises itself as a gay club. Teenage girls might because there is a crossover in the type of artists they might be into, but they aren’t a threat, as Captn Tripps explains.
In the Guardian article, one of the interviewees refused entry says:
“We were turned away because it was too busy to go in and that it was members only, but then the door staff continued to let less ‘femme’ lesbians in. We spoke to some and they weren’t members.”
She adds “We’re not very sceney lesbians, so it’s usually a fun treat when we go out. I just felt so embarrassed, with everyone laughing at us.”
So if she is telling the truth about what happened, then it is specifically the people who want such a ‘safe space’ who were turned away, effectively for not flaunting their sexuality enough.
Given these kinds of complexities and discrimination between gay people, if you want to argue this I think it’s going to have to come back to some form of the libertarian argument that you don’t want to make.
There are so many logical fallacies in this I don’t know where to begin.
Life isn’t fair, good point. So the budget cuts that will burden the poorest the hardest are justified because the wealthy need to be encouraged to generate more wealth because it will benefit all of us, in my noble and wonderful opinion.
A dozen clubs will have twelve dozen different reasons for refusing someone entry, LGBT or otherwise, and many of them arbitrary. This will stay the same with or without discrimnation legislation applying to them. I’m not particularly bothered about these clubs’ policies either way, but don’t defend it by claiming that marginalised groups can be excused from discrimination, unless you want homophobic Christians to start defining themselves as such.
The “safe spaces” aren’t only about not getting beaten up. There is also the fact that yes, gay clubs are very much a venue for ‘hooking up’ for gay people, who (have perfectly good reasons to) feel that in any other club they would not be safe to hit on a person of the same gender. Sure, teenage girls might not be a massive threat, but if other girls in the club want to hit on them it can become extremely uncomfortable for both persons, which is what gay people want to get away from by going to those clubs.
Anyway I agree with you Owen. Though I dunno, I also feel that the owners of the B&B can make certain rules about who they let into their home (just as many clubs – not just LGBT ones – have rules about who they let in), as long as they make those rules very clear. After all, I would certainly not want to stay in the same house as them, so I’d like fair warning..
@Mark Anthony: Did you even read the conclusion?
I think Majeed makes a pretty good point about inter-scene discrimination.
I look like your stereotypical queer woman, so I have no problem getting into G-A-Y (on the rare occasion I go there), or most other gay venues, even with my heterosexual male partner. It’s not the same for many more ‘femme’ (urgh) looking queer women, who get turned away as a matter of routine. Door policies can back up stereotypes and reinforce ‘acceptable’ ways of expressing sexuality and identity.
So it’s not ‘fair discrimination’ (although I think that is what’s needed, to preserve gay-majority space) versus ‘unfair discrimination’ when comparing door policies to B&B owners. The gay side has some serious thinking to do about how it’s *not* currently fair, under its own standards.
I think (and I speak as someone who’s bendier than a number 73 bus, but loathes a lot of the commercial scene) that while safe spaces are tremendously important, the way that G-A-Y seems to go about trying to ensure that is a problem in itself.
As others have commented, it’s not that people were turned away specifically for being straight; it’s that there’s a door policy that seems to focus primarily on allowing a certain stereotypical sort of gay person in, and is just as happy to exclude those as to exclude straight people. It’s an organisation that’s happy to sell wristbands in the associated bar, and then still tell people later they can’t come into the club.
In this particular instance, it’s achieved a higher degree of prominence because of the Guardian article and the ill-judged tweets from Jeremy Joseph.
I’ve been in the Joiners Arms in Shoreditch when ‘trendy’ straight people have made disparaging comments when they see gay guys kissing, and in Bournemouth a few weeks ago a straight girl was shrieking at people “Are you gay? There’s too many gays in here,” neither of which makes you feel like the space is being respected.
I would rather see a door policy at places like G-A-Y that is managed properly, including a rational membership/pre-sale policy, and allows both gay and straight in, with staff inside who ensure that those who cause problems ejected.
Doormen that only let in people who look like the right sort of gay, and ask people what other gay bars they know, are discriminating not just against straight people, but against those from out of town, and those who don’t want to look like every other twink.
The fact that some straight people didn’t get in is doubtless annoying to them; what irks me more is the idea that all gay people have to conform to some London-centric idea of what they should be.
The LGBT politicio are very schizophrenic about discrimination- militant, rightfully, when their rights are threatned. In contrast, when the tables are turned, they do not show any solidarity to their straight brothers or sisters.
Ian, who’s ‘they’?
I’m not sure who the “they” Ian refers to are either.
I certainly don’t think it’s right to discriminate against straight people – but equally, I’m not convinced (despite the tweets from Jeremy Joseph) that this particular instance is as simple and clear-cut as that.
And, equally, I’m hard pushed to think of any other high profile cases where straight people are being discriminated against; if such a case were to arise, I think you would find a lot of people willing to stand up for freedom from discrimination.
@Alda It’s as uncomfortable for a straight woman to be hit on by a straight man she isn’t interested in.
I accept the reasoning that gay clubs are necessary to allow LGBT folks to feel ‘safer’ about making advances without the fear of being violently rejected, but in this specific instance I would disagree with the door staff turning away One Direction fans. Whatever the specifics of the venue, this surely was a One Direction show for fans of that band. Any fans willing to attend the show at G-A-Y are implicitly acknowledging and accepting it as an LGBT venue. Therefore the only reason to turn them away is essentially discrimination – we don’t want straight people in our club.
This is an incredibly tricky issue simply because there is no way of second guessing a person’s sexual orientation by looking at or even talking to them. What a person does in bed only occupies around 2% of their time, after all. So doorstaff are either forced to discriminate, i.e. only let in stereotypically gay people, or let everybody in, which, as Owen said above, stops G-A-Y and other clubs from being LGBT, as a percentage of straight people would inevitably attend. Honestly, I don’t know which option I would choose as a general policy.
But in this specific instance, it just feels a bit mean to deny teenage girls the chance to see a cute lil boy band. There is a crossover in terms of musical taste and promoters/booking agents must realise this.
A very good piece and some very interesting comments.
It is worth I think putting G-A-Y’s policy in the context of the general london night life. Across central london you will encounter all forms of discrimination based on age, appearance, wealth (west london clubs have prohibitively high prices for a reason) etc. In fact one of the reasons why I tend to stick to rock/metal nights is you don’t encounter any of that shit (perhaps because rock fans don’t need the emotional crutch of “getting in” where others can’t).
The chaacter of a club is determined – perhaps predominantly – by its clientelle , and as such it is right that we *generally* recognise the right of establishments to set their own door policies. At the same time anti-discrimination legisaltion is necessary – not from the perspective of policing individual institutions, but in the sense that certain groups would otherwise find it far harder to enjoy the typical features of civic life. In other words, outlawing *certain* kinds of discrimination should be seen most as a pragmatic necessity rather than a moral absolute.
Sofie, from what you say there is alot that is currently unfair about gay bar door policies, in terms of their effect on others gays/lesbians. I would say though that it is reasonable, at least in theory, that a bar or club should want to serve aprticular “scene”, just as is the case with straight bars. The problem seems to arise when this is presented and treated as a distinction between bona fide gays/lesbians and those who are not.
Why not just admit that you support discrimination in circumstances where it suits the prevailing political agenda? It would be more honest. Trying to reconcile the right of this night-club owner to discriminate while opposing the right of the B&B owners to discriminate is absurd. “We are all equal, but some are more equal than others” – apparently.
I accept the reasoning that gay clubs are necessary to allow LGBT folks to feel ’safer’ about making advances without the fear of being violently rejected, but in this specific instance I would disagree with the door staff turning away One Direction fans. Whatever the specifics of the venue, this surely was a One Direction show for fans of that band. Any fans willing to attend the show at G-A-Y are implicitly acknowledging and accepting it as an LGBT venue.
An irony is that the turning away of fans is likely to foster a resentment amongst them, who otherwise had demonstrated an admirable open-mindedness towards “gay” culture.
@Connie, as uncomfortable maybe, but the guy doesn’t have to fear violence or death threats for daring to muster up the courage to talk to the girl.
I don’t agree with G-A-Y enforcing this silly gay stereotype either, but if that’s the clientele they want, they should still be able to choose that. There are more ‘alternative’ gay clubs around, I don’t see a problem with the super trendy gay people going to G-A-Y and leaving the other clubs alone..
OK, a lot to respond to here, so I won’t attempt to cover anything like all of it:
First, the headline is ironic; the use of the term ‘life isn’t fair’ was a reflection of the fact that I’m arguing for legal principles which do something to *redress* the unfairness, not because I’m accepting it.
Second, I’m defending the principle of gay clubs being able to exclude people on the grounds of sexuality, not G-A-Y’s admissions policy as it currently exists. I do state in the article that I acknowledge there are a lot of problems with the latter, but I accept that I could – and should – have made my position on this clearer in the post. (This was a criticism made on facebook rather than here, but I think it’s a fair comment so it seemed worth acknowledging here too.)
Third, I agree entirely with Alda’s point (in response to Majeed) about safe spaces being more than simply refuges from the threat of violence, and with everything in Reuben’s comment. I’d also add that the fact that gay clubs do knowingly let in straight people a lot of the time isn’t really relevant – my point was that gay clubs should have the *right* not to do so, not that they should always exercise that right.
I understand the principle you’re trying to defend, but as has been pointed out above, it is obviously impossible to discriminate purely on grounds of sexuality, as it’s not (necessarily) a visible trait. A club can decide that they want to discriminate on the basis of style and image, and whether or not the customer fulfills some stereotype of a gay person, but that in no way directly corresponds to whether or not the person is actually gay. And as your argument is based on LGBT clubs being safe spaces for people who might otherwise be marginalised, I don’t think it holds in exactly the way you’ve said. It’s impossible for gay clubs to discriminate against straight people, only against people who dress like they’re straight.
True, but the same could be said of gender (self-identifying as a woman doesn’t require you to possess either a handbag or a pair of X chromosomes) and yet female-only spaces and roles (being a women’s officer on a student union, say) both exist. Of course it’s always going to be possible to get round a policy like that – for anything of this kind to work requires some goodwill on the part of those being excluded, which I concede can’t always be relied on.
Scooby: Your point is reasonable in that we generally prefer laws to have as few discretionary aspects as possible. I would be uncomfortable if the law involved taking a decision on whether a paticular section of a protected catagory is or is not the subject of oppression. Where I think it is reasonable to let the law make a distinction is between providing a supposedly general service and then discriminating against a specific group, and providing a service tailored towards a specific group and discriminating against the out group. So if someone wanted to set up a christian meeting space and exclude non christians, I wouldn’t support any legal complaint.
I’m not sure I buy this.
You seem to be arguing evangelical Christians are different because they’re not a group that suffers discrimination – while I see the appeal of that reasoning, it leaves a very uncertain value judgement to the courts. Besides, what if the B&B were Islamic? I think it would be fairly easy to argue that Muslims are discriminated against.
I’m also surprised G.A.Y. even wants to discriminate in this way: do overwhelming numbers of straight people really wish to go to the club? Does it really ruin everything if there are some straight people in the building? Can they not simply be thrown out if they cause trouble?
As it happens, as a straight male I’ve actually been in G.A.Y. once a few years ago – a gay friend took his entire birthday party in, including quite a few straight people. He’d only arrived months previously from a very homophobic country and was clearly overjoyed to find that in London his new (straight) friends would willingly go to a gay club and celebrate his birthday with him. He also wanted to demonstrate that his lifestyle was nothing to be scared of. He’d have been more than a bit miffed, I imagine, if he’d found that the gay club wouldn’t allow half of them in.