In Australia, lesbians are neither gay nor people?

From the department of "Things that make you go hmmmm" comes this doozie :

Gay Aussie hotel wins right to ban heterosexuals, lesbians
The Peel Hotel in Melbourne won an exemption from the Equal Opportunity Act to prevent insults and abuse directed toward gays in its bars and nightclubs, owner Tom McFeely told AFP.

"The hotel predominantly markets itself towards homosexual males, towards gay men and we want to protect the integrity of the venue as well as continue to make the men feel comfortable," McFeely said.

"When large numbers of heterosexuals or even lesbians are in the hotel that changes the atmosphere and many gay men can feel uncomfortable."

I would love it if this where a joke given the owner's last name is one McFeely and all I think of him being the insensitive evil twin of Grey Anatomy's McDreamy, but no ... 'tis true.

Goes to show women end up being second class citizens even within marginalized communities.


liza's picture

| | | | | | |

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
JJ Ross's picture

Going All "Mom" on You

because after all these years home with children, I can't relate to sex clubs and steamy, throbbing hospital elevator or linen closet action! To me McFeely is Mr. Rogers' middle name, thus the moniker he bestowed on the beloved mailman character in his PBS Neighborhood. Smiling


liza's picture

SNORT

I get what you mean.

What I have trouble with is how the piece of news was framed --that lesbians are as bad as straight men and that now under the judgement they are not 'gay people' but a subclass of them.

I still think that the logic behind the judgement is dangerously prejudiced.


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 1158 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...?"


— -- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies" unpublished until 1946, cited in Brant, Irving, The Bill of Rights, 1965, from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify