Am I wrong for supporting this night club managers decision?

[Ophelia23]

‘These people’?

“THESE PEOPLE”?

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that gay people are somehow objectively worthy of being discriminated against, as though by their very nature they are to be reviled and rejected, as if they were another species even and not human.

If you believe that a business owner has the moral right to refuse service to “these people” he knows to be homosexual (since it is not possible to tell just by looking at two persons of the same gender who are not acting in a sexual fashion what their sexual orientation is, then he must have either had more knowledge or made an unfounded assumption), then in a small town, as this appears to have been, would the food store owner be within his moral rights to refuse to sell food to “these people”?

Is the water company within its rights to refuse to supply water and sanitation services to “these people”?

Is the bus company within its rights to refuse to carry “these people” on their vehicles? Or make them sit only in specific types of seat?

Is the car dealer within its rights to refuse to sell them an automobile?

Is everyone who dislikes homosexual sexual activity within their rights to refuse to conduct business with anyone whom they believe to be homosexual, regardless of the outcome?

Your position can only logically lend itself to the proposition that you wouldn’t lift a finger to object to discrimination on those bases… and that if it meant that a homosexual starved to death or died of thirst or was hounded out of town then that would be a-ok by you. Obviously nobody would be physically laying hands on such people or personally assaulting them. No individual would be causing an injury. But where would you stop? At what point would you tell someone that their prejudice and discrimination was actually going too far and was causing harm? When the person was homeless? Hungry? Thirsty? Sick? Clothed in rags? Ostracised?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The club is a public place, and the owners must abide by laws pertaining to public places. Generally, public places may not discriminate, with some very limited exceptions. Also, as someone noted, they are licenses involved in running a night club, meaning the club owners must be aware of license law which include knowledge of laws pertaining to non-discrimination.

This is to be distinguished from discrimination on private property, which is a different matter altogether.

 

[Corki]

The club is a public place, and the owners must abide by laws pertaining to public places. Generally, public places may not discriminate, with some very limited exceptions. Also, as someone noted, they are licenses involved in running a night club, meaning the club owners must be aware of license law which include knowledge of laws pertaining to non-discrimination.

This is to be distinguished from discrimination on private property, which is a different matter altogether.

The owners didn’t decline to serve these men, just limit certain activities. The laws on public accommodation don’t require a business owner to allow all kinds of activity on premises. Sexual orientation is not a protected class in Texas and while there is limited coverage for public accommodation, it is very limited.

But it’s beside the point. The OP was asking if it was wrong to support the club owner. Even if he acted in a way that was illegal (which I don’t think it is), he was acting in a way that is morally correct and it is not wrong to support that Nor is it wrong to resist an unjust law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The owners didn’t decline to serve these men, just limit certain activities. The laws on public accommodation don’t require a business owner to allow all kinds of activity on premises.

If the activity is the issue, the question comes down to “What were the men doing?”. If they were touching each other in a sexually suggestive manner, the manager might rightly refuse to allow it to continue. But if the men were just dancing, in the same manner as other couples there, the only unique thing being the gender of the partner, then one could argue that this is not a different kind of activity. I don’t know which description best fits the facts, but wouldn’t it be important to know?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If the activity is the issue, the question comes down to “What were the men doing?”. If they were touching each other in a sexually suggestive manner, the manager might rightly refuse to allow it to continue. But if the men were just dancing, in the same manner as other couples there, the only unique thing being the gender of the partner, then one could argue that this is not a different kind of activity. I don’t know which description best fits the facts, but wouldn’t it be important to know?

Exactly. As I’ve learned over the years, what gets reported in the news isn’t necessarily what actually happened. If these men were just dancing like everyone else, they have a case. If they were acting in an obscene manner, then they don’t. That will be settled in the courts.

 

[Lasting_faith]

What you say is very true. I was in Europe once and watched a man and a woman urinate in public on the curb in Paris. As an American, I found that disgusting…but I was not offended because, apparently, that is accepted behavior in France…also I did not want to be judgmental about a foreign culture.

To be sure, I have witnessed worse behavior in Asian and Muslim countries…and never judged.

BUT I reserve the right to be VERY judgmental about inappropriate behavior in my own culture.

As you should, it is your homeland, BTW, urinating on a public place in Finland cost about thirty euros, if you get caught.

 

[Corki]

If the activity is the issue, the question comes down to “What were the men doing?”. If they were touching each other in a sexually suggestive manner, the manager might rightly refuse to allow it to continue. But if the men were just dancing, in the same manner as other couples there, the only unique thing being the gender of the partner, then one could argue that this is not a different kind of activity. I don’t know which description best fits the facts, but wouldn’t it be important to know?

All dance clubs place certain restrictions on what dancing is appropriate. If you go into a country club and try to slam dance, you will be asked to stop or leave. The type of dancing is part of the environment of the club. This club does not want “gay” dancing as part of it’s environment. That should be the club owners right. It doesn’t have to be sexually explicit to be inappropriate for that particular club.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

All dance clubs place certain restrictions on what dancing is appropriate. If you go into a country club and try to slam dance, you will be asked to stop or leave. The type of dancing is part of the environment of the club. This club does not want “gay” dancing as part of it’s environment.

So what constitutes “gay dancing”? Is it anything more than the gender of your dance partner? What if the club does not want “black” dancing as part of its environment?

 

[Corki]

So what constitutes “gay dancing”? Is it anything more than the gender of your dance partner?

We already discussed this earlier in the thread. “Gay” dancing would be two people of the same sex dancing together as a couple. It is different that guys dancing together as a joke or girls dancing together just for fun. If you don’t know the difference, you haven’t spent much time in dance clubs. It’s immediately obvious.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This club does not want “gay” dancing as part of it’s environment. That should be the club owners right.

I assume you mean the club owner with various state-issued licenses for his public venue. This club owner’s “right,” i.e., personal wishes, are trumped by the laws pertaining to his license and various nondiscriminatory laws that pertain to public venues.

 

[Corki]

I assume you mean the club owner with various state-issued licenses for his public venue. This club owner’s “right,” i.e., personal wishes, are trumped by the laws pertaining to his license and various nondiscriminatory laws that pertain to public venues.

And once again :banghead::banghead: this thread isn’t about whether what the club owner did was legal. It’s Texas so it probably was legal. There is nothing in a club license that mandates that a club owner allow any and all behavior in his establishment.] It’s about whether it was moral or more specifically if there was a moral imperative to object to his action.

 

[SMGS127]

And once again :banghead::banghead: this thread isn’t about whether what the club owner did was legal. It’s Texas so it probably was legal. There is nothing in a club license that mandates that a club owner allow any and all behavior in his establishment.] It’s about whether it was moral or more specifically if there was a moral imperative to object to his action.

I would say there was no moral imperative for his action. The two men weren’t doing anything immoral, so there’s no reason to remove them. On the other hand, it’s not a clear-cut case whether it was morally neutral or morally wrong. If it’s morally neutral, you can support it fine. If it’s morally wrong, you can’t.

 

[Corki]

I would say there was no moral imperative for his action. The two men weren’t doing anything immoral, so there’s no reason to remove them. On the other hand, it’s not a clear-cut case whether it was morally neutral or morally wrong. If it’s morally neutral, you can support it fine. If it’s morally wrong, you can’t.

The men** were** doing something immoral according to Catholic moral teaching. We don’t know if the bar owner was Catholic but it seems he felt they were doing something that, if not immoral, was inappropriate at least. It is perfectly moral to support his actions. It is not moral to support the couples actions.

 

[SMGS127]

The men** were** doing something immoral according to Catholic moral teaching. We don’t know if the bar owner was Catholic but it seems he felt they were doing something that, if not immoral, was inappropriate at least. It is perfectly moral to support his actions. It is not moral to support the couples actions.

Dancing with a member of the same sex is not immoral via Catholic teachings. You may be thinking about super-conservative Protestant religions, but dancing is not immoral unless done for a sexual reason. Considering they were dancing modestly to a country song, they were doing nothing immoral. You’d only have a point if they were grinding or something.

 

[Corki]

Dancing with a member of the same sex is not immoral via Catholic teachings. You may be thinking about super-conservative Protestant religions, but dancing is not immoral unless done for a sexual reason. Considering they were dancing modestly to a country song, they were doing nothing immoral. You’d only have a point if they were grinding or something.

Two homosexual men going out on a date and dancing is immoral according to Catholic teaching. It is objectively wrong to act on homosexual attractions. That doesn’t mean “anything goes” as long as you don’t hop into bed. These men were acting like a couple and were immodest enough to draw the attention of the club owner and other patrons.

 

[SMGS127]

Two homosexual men going out on a date and dancing is immoral according to Catholic teaching. It is objectively wrong to act on homosexual attractions. That doesn’t mean “anything goes” as long as you don’t hop into bed. These men were acting like a couple and were immodest enough to draw the attention of the club owner and other patrons.

Please. A guy could say hi to another dude and people would freak out about whether they’re gay. Regardless of whether the couple is gay, there is hypersensitivity over how guys act towards each other that shouldn’t exist. The date may have been immoral, but from an external perspective, all they were doing is dancing together. They were not immodest at all, but people are way too sensitive about guys dancing together at all. In fact, the club owner himself told them he would be fine with them if they were grinding to a rap or hip hop song, but he didn’t want them dancing to country music in a modest way.

So no, the reason they were kicked out (dancing with each other modestly) was NOT immoral. The date may have been, but the owner had no way to know they were actually a couple except via the crazy bravado environment guys have.

I’ve danced with my straight girl friends all the time in my life. No one questions it. If it’s moral for me to do that, it’s moral for a guy to do it too. There are no double standards when it comes to same-sex behavior religiously, only culturally. And cultural norms do NOT determine moral law.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

And once again :banghead::banghead: this thread isn’t about whether what the club owner did was legal. It’s Texas so it probably was legal. There is nothing in a club license that mandates that a club owner allow any and all behavior in his establishment.]

It is unlikely that what this club owner did was legal, if these two men were simply dancing.

It’s about whether it was moral or more specifically if there was a moral imperative to object to his action.

Fact is, neither of us know what actually happened. If it simply dancing, the club owner may have broken the law. If they were dancing in lewd manner not consistent with what heterosexual couples were doing, then the club owner may be justified in his actions.

 

[Lasting_faith]

We already discussed this earlier in the thread. “Gay” dancing would be two people of the same sex dancing together as a couple. It is different that guys dancing together as a joke or girls dancing together just for fun. If you don’t know the difference, you haven’t spent much time in dance clubs. It’s immediately obvious.

Happy New Year!

Why is it different when two men dance together and two women? Make no sense to me. I wish that nobody will understand this wrong, I do NOT support homosexual behavior, I see it, still, that they are called to a life in chastity, but dancing together is not a sin, unless they kiss or make out or something we don’t talk about eating lunch. Dancing is ABSOLUTELY not a sin, and it is more then likely that when a “straight” couple dance they are not married and they will spend the night in the same bed, but nobody get offended by that? (I do not approve that either but life is life and this world is not perfect yet.)

I think that we seem to be more offended by gay-men then gay-women, why I don’t understand but there must be a reason for that also.

So, should there be clubs “only for married people”? Or a big sign on the wall, “dancing is prohibited for not-married couples”? Would that be good? What can we do? Try to accept that there is a world outside The RCC and move on, why spoil our life with a constant search for things to be offended by? All we can do is what Christ did, He did love the sinners more because they needed Him. Why can’t we do the same? We must be able to live and understand that this is the world we live in and it does not help anyone to walk around and find things what may offend us, that is impossible, and deep down, we all understand that, we can do a lot but not all, and we should really not think we are better people because we are not, far from it. If we our whole life try to do what Christ did teach us and His Church continue that work, we maybe make it Heaven, but seeing a sin lurking around every corner will not make that possible, and if The Church love gays so should we. We can of course disapprove almost everything but it will not help us at all. It is about what we do, and what we do, other see it, and maybe our example will help them, but if not, God do love then anyway and are ready to forgive them, and He will not ask us if it is OK, so we are really not to judge.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

When is the gay community going to learn and practice propriety?

In the culture of the good ole’ U.S A., guys don’t dance with guys. It is “sort of” OK for girls to dance with girls but not exactly proper. In other cultures it may be acceptable for men to dance with men but…Texas??? come on.

Now, when I picture two gay guys dancing with each other in a Texas red-neck nightclub, I ask myself the question…what sort of suicide mission are these guys on?

Maybe the manager saved their lives…we don’t know how many of the "good-ole’-boys were on their way out to the parking lot to get shotguns from their trucks…do we? It could have gotten real ugly.

If Texas **really **is as you say it is… that is, it’s quite possible that two men dancing with each other will lead to strangers getting shotguns out of their trucks and making a lynching party out of the incident, then why in the heck are we talking about the two men dancing? Maybe we should be talking about the kind of sick culture that promotes physical violence against those presumed to be homosexual?

 

[kozlosap]

If Texas **really **is as you say it is… that is, it’s quite possible that two men dancing with each other will lead to strangers getting shotguns out of their trucks and making a lynching party out of the incident, then why in the heck are we talking about the two men dancing? Maybe we should be talking about the kind of sick culture that promotes physical violence against those presumed to be homosexual?

:

Putting up with listening to ignorant rednecks spew their hate about everything from people of different races and religions to whether or not gay individuals should be tarred and feathered is disgusting to me, but I don’t think they should be kicked out of public establishments.