A Denver [gay bar catering to Bears] has been cited by the state’s Division of Civil Rights for discrimination because it refused to let a gay man dressed in drag enter. …
You know what gay people love? Having the government tell them how their various subcultures work and think on the basis of talking to a bunch of people at a bar and looking at pictures. … And to the extent that there are social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic, nobody should want the state government policing how they should be interacting with each other.
The report concludes:
This case is a good demonstration as to why it’s so important to hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association. The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar.
Agreed.
More. “Alvie” comments, perceptively:
The most sought-after clubs in NYC and other big cities have a guy outside who selects who gets past the rope and is allowed to enter, based on how they’re dressed and how they look. The only reason this jerk can sue the Wrangler is because he’s claiming sexual orientation/gender identity discrimination, which is a protected class under local statute. But as the story notes, he’s not actually transgendered—just a jerk who wants to sue and use the state to make others do his bidding.
Yes, these laws can be and are abused.
24 Comments for “Bear Bar Targeted for Discrimination”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Reason article is typical of the breed — stereotyping, generalizing (“You know what gay people love?“), hyperventilating … That kind of rhetoric is as unsavory coming from true believers on the right as it is coming from true believers on the left. That’s a quibble, though.
The core problem with the article is that there is no logical connection between its polemic (“The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar.“) and that facts.
Nothing in the law is stopping The Wrangler from “pursu[ing] whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar”. The Wrangler can advertise to its desired demographic. The law doesn’t prevent it. The Wrangler can design its decor to appeal its desired demographic. The law doesn’t prevent it. The Wrangler can promote to its demographic (“Furry Sunday”, “440 Underwear Night”, “54/50 or Bust Discounts”, “Hair Shirt Contests” and so on) to its hearts content. The law doesn’t prevent it. The Wrangler can offer $1 off discounts to anyone with a waistline over 50 inches. The law doesn’t prevent it. The Wrangler can even exercise its artistic expression and serve Cubcakes along with Bearmosas. The law doesn’t prevent it.
What the law prevents, and all that the law prevents, is The Wrangler holding itself out as a business serving the public-at-large and then refusing to provide its services to the public at large. If a nelly or a twink or a drag queen — or hell, even a straight guy (shudder) — wants to come in and have a drink, and The Wrangler has no objective reason for refusing service (e.g. dram shop liability), then the law requires The Wrangler serve up a drink. That’s all there is to the law.
The Wrangler is no different than any of the other 1,005,894 bars in the United States. Most of them “promote to a demographic”. All of them operate under government regulation. Many of them operate in states with anti-discrimination laws.
So why and how has this turned into yet another right-wing, ill-Reasoned diatribe about “the gays”? Listen to the right wing long enough, and you’d think that “the gays” were The Evil Camilla Parker-Bowles.
posted by Jorge on
Freedom of association has little to do with it. This is about a violation of equal protection–against the bar.
I have little first hand knowledge of bars, but my understanding is that straight bars regularly discriminate against patrons on the basis of sex, and explicitly. They do this by holding events in which patrons of one sex get preferential treatment about whether and when they are let in, and whether they have discounts. They do this when their bouncers scrutinizing people on the basis of the physical appearance and the male-female ratio of the parties that present to their doors to determine when they are let in. And when I say appearance, it has an interaction with sex, as there is a double standard that states women, more than men, are expected to be good-looking (men get a pass if they look rich and successful, which does not depend on a youthful appearance).
Sex is a protected class everywhere.
There is no reason why a bar should be given greater scrutiny by the straight because it is a gay bar than it would if it were a straight bar.
posted by Jorge on
There is no reason why a bar should be given greater scrutiny by the straight…
By the state.
posted by houndentenor on
My understanding is that “ladies night” is a way to get women to come out to bars so that men will want to come too. Discounts are often a way to get people to buy something or do something they want to do but might think is too expensive. It must work in the case of the bars since they still seem to be doing it. It’s also usually on a weeknight that would otherwise be slow.
You are right about a whole class of marketing and exclusionary tactics involving restaurants and bars. Is requiring men to wear jackets exclusionary? Probably. Is it acceptable? It would seem so. I know there are lawyers here so their knowledge of case law might be useful.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is a dress code issue. Are dress codes discriminatory? To a degree, but if the issue with getting in is going home and changing into something more appropriate, I don’t see a problem. It’s also not unusual for trendy clubs (not that this is one of those) to decide who gets in and who doesn’t based on what they are wearing. Is that illegal too? I’m just asking. I don’t see a problem with people of similar interests congregating. I don’t like it when it’s simply about rejecting other people based on something irrelevant to the organization’s or club’s purpose. Is this anti-drag? Or is it about keeping the original purpose of the bar intact so it doesn’t become yet another gay bar?
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Again, I think that the own owner of the bar was being an idiot, because of reasons already stated about how easy it is to getaway with all sorts of discrimination.
Reason magazine – who I generally look to as providing a solid, right-libertarian perspective – ‘phoned it in’ on this one. They wanted to reiterate their opposition to private sector labor and civil rights laws by saying ” see, we oppose civil rights because they can be misused, not because we condone prejudice”
A certain Hollywood actor got into some trouble in the 1990s when he opened up a restaurant that was not handicapped accessible. It was waaay before my time, but I saw it mentioned in a book I reading by Bruce Bawer (edited by).
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. “Freedom of association” is an important human right, although it is not actually listed in the United States Constitution and I don’t think it made its way into many state Constitutions either.
Now, I do not reject the idea that freedom of association exists and I have spoken about it quite a bit in the context of baked goods and birth control (interesting to see those two things in the same sentence)
The question then becomes;
(a) does the bar really want to argue in a court of law that it has a right to discriminate against segments of the gay community? I know that some on the right-libertarian side of things are ready to jump up on the proverbial Tom Cruise-Oprah- furniture, but is the bar going to make that argument in court?
(b) I am somewhat skeptical that the bar owner really wants to go down that road. Why? I doubt that it would sit well with public opinion of the LGBT community. Even libertarians would not argue against the fact that the public has a right to respond negatively to ‘freedom of association’ and well, most of the bears (and twinks) I know — that regularly go to gay bars — like to at least pretend to have a social conscious.
(c) Personally, I rarely go to designated ‘gay bars’ — unless their is a charity event or something of that sort.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Houndentenor
OK, am I the only person here who is tempted to make some sort of “un-bear-able” joke? cough, cough.
I do sort of get what you are saying about the dress code issue. I think that certain ‘trendy’ or wannabee trendy night spots in the cities do tend to have someone at the front door who makes snap judgements about who gets in and out based on a quick visual look.
However, those nightclubs that do so, can at least pretend to argue that they do not have enough space for everyone who wants to come in, to come in. Or that lots of ‘important’ people want to come inside (celebrities, politicians, etc). Safety issues — i.e. fire codes — being what they are (although, libertarians would probably want to dump those as well).
I am not sure how busy this particular nightclub is on a regular basis (which, again, is not passing itself off as a private membership club) but I would be surprised if that sort of trendy-bouncer-at-the-door issue would actually apply.
posted by Tim on
“The Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer demographic it wants for its bar.”
Really? A place of public accommodation? Not, mind you, someone’s living room. So, let’s say that the “customer demographic” a bar (not a private club) wants is exclusively white people? That, in 2014, should be OK? This shall be defended as “freedom of association?”
Well, goodbye all civil rights gains for the last 50 years. This, of course, is hard-line libertarianism, which no serious person accepts any more.
You want to be in commerce, ya gotta play by the rules. Your “freedom of association” is for your own house, or private club. You open your doors to the public, you must abide by whatever nondiscrimination law is in place where you do business. Not happy? Don’t go into business there.
posted by AG on
You don’t seem to believe that civil rights made any gains in the last 50 years if you expect that white-only bars would be a serious issue in 2014 if bar owners were legally allowed to discriminate against blacks. I know that you progressives are racists — you support racial discrimination (aka affirmative action) — that’s why you project your racism on the rest of the public. That’s why you’re so convinced that without a federal law everyone would be discriminating based on the skin color. This is what you would do yourselves, left to your own devices.
posted by Jimmy on
“That’s why you’re so convinced that without a federal law everyone would be discriminating based on the skin color.”
No. Actual history, and the realities of systemic racial discrimination is what precipitated the law. No one needed convincing except those that were OK with it.
posted by Alvie on
The most sought-after clubs in NYC and other big cities have a guy outside who selects who gets past the rope and is allowed to enter, based on how they’re dressed and how they look. The only reason this jerk can sue the Wrangler is because he’s claiming sexual orientation/gender identity discrimination, which is a protected class under local statute. But as the story notes, he’s not actually transgendered – just a jerk who wants to sue and use the state to make others do his bidding (no wonder all the lefties on this board love him).
posted by tom Jefferson on
1. The Libertarian party’s platform used to be open about wanting to gut all civil rights laws in order to respect what it preceived as the freedom of association. It’s less so today. Important progress has certainly been made, but to suggest that racism is no longer a serious problem is absurd.
2. Trendy hot spots in the cities can probably get away with “gate keepers” as long as they aren’t engaging in illegal discrimination in such a way as to get noticed by the mainstream press. This particular bar could have probably done likewise….or been a private club situation.
If sexual orientation and gender identity are covered in the applicable civil rights code, then the bar can probably still get away with it, as their are ways around many laws….
I have no love or hate for the bar or the excluded customer. It looks like the bar was being stupid about its policies and is suddenly shocked that they got caught.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Got caught” doing what? Having a dress code–like hundreds and hundreds of other bars across the country?
This is absolutely insane. Nor does it have a thing in the world to do with race, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Perhaps there would be less antipathy toward public accommodations laws if more of those advocating them had been born with a common sense gene.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Perhaps there would be less antipathy toward public accommodations laws if more of those advocating them had been born with a common sense gene.
The common sense gene seems to have “gone missing” in most humans — universally, it would seem, among young males — in yet another example of “intelligent design”, no doubt.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
If you (as a bar owner) have a dress code or a “must be at least this attractive to gain entry”, that is not illegal, unless it’s used as a pretext for illegal discrimination.
It comes down to how the dress code or hotness policy is enforced, I.e. consistently, clearly and the like.
A policy that seemed to prevent black or white customers, would raise flags. But, most owners or hired doorman – gatekeeper – probably have enough sense to not be so obvious about their illegal discrimination, should they want to engage in it.
I heard that some gay bars would, selectively, ask for two or more of ID. The goal was, probably, to keep out the working class or people of color.
If asked, they probably wouldn’t say that they were engaging in racial or ethnic discrimination. They would say that they were just really concerned about security and appealing to their customers…..
do
posted by Jorge on
However, those nightclubs that do so, can at least pretend to argue that they do not have enough space for everyone who wants to come in, to come in.
Boooo! All right, you win.
Trendy hot spots in the cities can probably get away with “gate keepers” as long as they aren’t engaging in illegal discrimination in such a way as to get noticed by the mainstream press.
I’ve seen stories on a sex discrimination lawsuit in New York. It got dismissed.
Anyway, actually reading the story makes it sound even sillier.
posted by Houndentenor on
On a lighter note, I’m imagining a “Pines Invasion” style protest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Pines
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
Yes, a night club can have a dress code, but it cannot be a code that amounts to illegal discrimination.
Again, claims of illegal discrimination against a nightclub or bar are difficult to win – in terms of excluding paying customers. Unless an establishment is owned by an utter moron.
The owner or the front door “gate keeper” is probably not going to admit to illegal discrimination. If they have half a brain they know how to justify exclusion and avoid violating civil rights laws.
Again, running a private club is different then running an open to the public business. It does seem interesting that the bar wants to be classified as open to the public, but also be able to run like a private club. HMM.
Sexual orientation inclusion in the code, would not preclude a dress code, although when bear’s start saying that other people look or act odd or funny….
Gender identity might raise issues, depending on the actual text and legalese involved . I would be curious if their are open to the public bars or nightclubs that insist on cross dress or gender-queer fashion sensibility.
Nude resorts – never been to one – generally say that clothing is “optional”, not forbidden. Granted, they probably don’t run as an open to the public business.
Civil rights laws may be abused, but abuse of the is actually not the norm.
posted by JohnInCA on
I get all the references to night clubs with bouncers/gate keepers and dress codes and so on but…
Has this bar actually claimed to e a private club? Are their acts of exclusion (legal, acceptable, or otherwise) regular or did they appear to make an exception for this dude? Is their dress code actually posted/regularly enforced/known?
’cause if they claim to be an open-to-the-public bar, this case of exclusion is an exception, and their supposed dress-code isn’t normally enforced, then I’m not sure I see them being in the right (either legally or ethically).
But if they regularly keep out people based on dress, if they present themselves as a private club, then they’re fine (both legally and ethically).
I’m not sure why people are acting like all bars/clubs work by the same rules and how a place enforces their rules don’t matter.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, these laws can be and are abused.
And?
I can’t imagine a law that can’t be abused, and isn’t. I don’t suppose you can either, Stephen. So what’s your point?
posted by Mike in Houston on
Late to the conversation here, but have been hip deep in the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) efforts…
One of the harder parts of “equal means equal” is for groups that have been traditionally disadvantaged to understand that achieving equality will often mean that even what is seen as beneficial segregation gets tossed.
In the case of gay bars (or bear bars), places that were once seen as refuges are now bars that largely cater to a niche audience — but have to be open to anyone coming in… and yes, straight people can be real assh*les in their behavior — as can drag queens. And while a gay leather bar can legitimately keep its all-male decor and ambience – and the clientele can cold-shoulder the ‘outsiders’ — the establishment, itself, cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation any more than a straight bar or restaurant can deny service to a gay couple.
This is a hard lesson to take for folks that want to 1) be able to assert non-discrimination laws in their favor at places that previously were less than accepting and 2) want to still maintain segregated spaces where they can engage in reverse discrimination (without going through the process of becoming a private club).
It’s also another key difference between the LGBT community and the African-American community with regards to ending economic / legal segregation & discrimination. With few exceptions, the LGBT community has never — outside of a few colonies — been completely cut off from the larger economy the same way that blacks were. (Gays could still own flower shops or antique stores or be employed in retail, whereas blacks were segregated in both ownership and employment.) — and the destruction of the black middle class can be laid as much at the feet of desegregation as the great society.
posted by Jorge on
I get all the references to night clubs with bouncers/gate keepers and dress codes and so on but…
…I’m not sure why people are acting like all bars/clubs work by the same rules and how a place enforces their rules don’t matter.
It could all be settled in a lawsuit.
Late to the conversation here, but have been hip deep in the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) efforts…
You mean the anti-employment discrimination one you’ve talked about?
I read somewhere that the petition to put a repeal of that law to a referendum didn’t get enough signatures, and there are some who do not accept that outcome, alleging some kind scheme controlled by the mayor. Of course looking it up yields even better and more reliable gossip. Perhaps if your opponents were smarter than they were self-important, they’d have done better.
What do gay activists usually do when they lose a legislative battle? They try again the next year. Sometimes they file a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law. I see neither of these actions being taken by the opposition here, and there’s a certain stink to it.
I think the rest of your observations are astute.
posted by Mark F. on
This is a clear example of a bar simply enforcing a dress code. Now, if they turned away a transsexual woman wearing jeans and a plaid shirt, she might have a case.