Mad bar owner
February 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am by David FarrarThere must be something in the tap water down in Christchurch. A local bar, well named the Grumpy Mole Saloon, kicked out two teenage girls for kissing on the dance floor.
What is the bar owner thinking? Rather than ban it she should pay them to come back everynight. I’m sure their takings will increase.
Finally an opportunity for the Human Rights Commission to be useful.
UPDATE: Stuff has more info, plus a photo!
Related posts:
- A good speech by Cullen
- The Electoral Finance Bill and the Bill of Rights
- The battle against the Electoral Finance Bill goes legal
- Another great UN move
February 7th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
These girls, despite their kinky practices, would not be admitted to bars in Moscow, as they would clearly fail “face control”.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Maybe if they were hot, David, but these girls are clearly not. Just because they are lesbians doesn’t mean they fit into the typical 15-year-old boy’s sexual fantasy about 2 girls having sex, or perhaps that fantasy can be extended to middle-aged men as well.
There’s a common misconception that being a lesbian makes you automatically hot and thus attractive to hetrosexual men. These lovely but besotten ladies are perfect examples of how wrong those beliefs can be.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I think the photo says it all.
$5 on booted for being pissed and unable to stand properly whilst indulging.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
If homosexuals want to kiss on the dance floor then they should join the Labour Party and go to their social functions where such behaviour is considered acceptable.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Why is the bar owner the bad guy for not wanting these women is HIS bar? Im all for hot smooching Lesbians as much as the next perv but its a matter of property rights….the bar owner has them …no one else does, unless we live in a fascist state
oh wait….
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Clearly Zutroy and Hoolian have different ideas to me (and it seems, you David) as to what constitutes attractiveness. They’re not alone, however – just recently I had to remind a lesbian friend that not all lesbians look like they’re the cast of “The L Word” (slightly NSFW).
In fact, the girl on the left looks a little like Kathryn Moennig anyway.
But more to the point, much as most heterosexual males wouldn’t mind turning round on the dance floor and seeing two lesbians kissing (whether or not we found them particularly attractive) would we feel quite so comfortable if it were two blokes?
Thank goodness I never face these moral mazes, through the simple expedient of never dancing.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
OMG, super… *boring* looking “lesbians”.
Bisexual 18-year old, eh? My money is on her being straight by 30.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
If homosexuals want to kiss on the dance floor then they should join the Labour Party and go to their social functions where such behaviour is considered acceptable.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
If they’d been hot, no problem…
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
A young couple got married, and in their family, it was tradition that the best man dance with the bride for the first song. Well, this happened…but then they danced for the second song too. And the third. By the time the fourth song came on, the groom ran up and kicked the bride between the legs. A riot broke out, and all the invited guests were hauled off to jail.
In court the next week, the judge asked the best man what happened.
”Your honor, we were just dancing, and the groom ran up and kicked the bride between the legs.”
”That must have hurt,” said the judge.
”No kidding,” said the best man. ”I broke three of my fingers.”
Some one explain this to sonic.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
What James said.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Are you sure they weren’t Iranian refugees insuring against being repatriated to Iran.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
“Right of Admission Reserved” will cover it.
Brings up a potential promotion idea for Grumpy Mole though: “Rainbow Night with Happy Hour starting at 7pm”
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Aw c’mon guys, I definitely wouldn’t say no to the chick on the left.
Vote:February 7th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Well said Chuck -lol – I suppose Tim will help them fill out the form for the complaint to the Human Rights Commission .
Maybe they could sign it altogether in the good old “green room ” -lol
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Well some of us say girls kissing is not in the least off putting but a couple of guys does nothing for us. The bottom line is that none of us get to decide one is ok and one isn’t.
If heterosexuals kissing is ok then its fair game for everyone.
If thats the case and you see something you don’t like chances are you can look somewhere for something that doesn’t bother you.
Alternately these the rapidly failing concept of minding your own damn business and not being a Pat Bartlet wannabe.
For an account of what actually happend Lydia Boyd as commented here
Vote:http://hittingmetalwithahammer.wordpress.com/2007/02/07/marketing-disasters-3957/#comment-5124
February 8th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Murray, following your logic or lack of I suppose if some guy gets turned on by these two girls kissing and decide to jerk off you and your partner can look the other way.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 11:00 am
That would equate to indecent exposure according to NZ law wouldn’t it Cpt Homophobe?
Until such time as public kissing is outlawed you’re in the tough shit, deal with it area.
Are you claiming it’s ok for heterosexuals to kiss in a night club but not people of the same sex?
More to the point why am I trying to reason with someone who’s against sex while standing up because he’s afeard it will lead to dancing.
Sorry Chucky, your time has passed, we don’t burn witches anymore.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Murray, how do you know such an act would against the law? Are you a lawyer? I have not bothered looking up the act but I have heard on the radio that a night club is considered a private and not a public place.
If that is the case then the grumpy mole who runs it should be able to say what dress and behaviour is acceptable on the premises.
If the HRC finds against the Grumpy Mole it would be a travesty considering Air NZ is being allowed to discriminate against men. A person cannot change their sex but they have control over their dress and actions. Mind you the HRC is stacked with homosexual activists so one could hardly expect a fair ruling.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Travesty of what, Chuck?
If you believe the management of the Grumpy Mole have the right to regulate behaviour on their own private property, then surely you also believe Air New Zealand has the same right in their aircraft.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
What Murray said.. Chuck by your logic it would be totally ok for a bar on the strip in ChCh to only allow white people in. Says a lot about you and your very outdated bigoted mindset.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Your logic is not like our earth logic Chucky.
Wait guys not allowed to wack off in place that has public admission is a “travesty” but two girls kissing is the end of civilisation as we know it.
Does Ian know that you’re a member of Southern Kinx as well?
Chap you have some serious issues, a gross failure to grasp some fundamental laws being in the top ten.
It is not illegal to kiss in a public place, it is illegal to expose yourself and masterbat. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference. You don’t have to spend 5 years in funny wig wearing school to know this.
You starting to see why your spending so much time in the holding cell now George Michael.
Now if you bothered to go read what one of the participants has to say you will be FULLY aware – possibly a new experience for you – that the management do not have any policy against girls kissing. So any claim you might want to put forward that its a private place and the management can do what they like is just shit.
The guard did it off his on initiative. It is discrimination based on his own prejudice. That would be the thing you see in the mirror.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
What Murray said.. Chuck by your logic it would be totally ok for a bar on the strip in ChCh to only allow white people in. Says a lot about you and your very outdated bigoted mindset.”
Actually Chuck would be in the right if thats what He advocates….the owner of a property has the Right to discriminate for WHATEVER reason he/she chooses and the law should protect his right to do so.Unfortunately we live in a quasi fascist country where the state thinks it can tell you what to do with your property.
When the law prevents the owner of a property from setting the conditions of entry and conduct for said property then its time to rebel and replace the Government with a better one…
The rest of Chucks anti gay insecurity is just pathetic however…grow some balls man!
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
If homosexuals want to kiss on the dance floor then they should join the Labour Party and go to their social functions where such behaviour is considered acceptable.
Why on earth would you suggest that I’d want to join the Labour Party?
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Because he’s an emotionally crippled homophobe desperately insecure about his sexuality.
Jesus its virtually stamped on his forehead. Not the un-invited reference to guys flopping out their dicks.
Old Closet George Michael there needs some more couch time.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
James, what you suggest was what happened 40 years ago in New Zealand. Newspaper, adverts for flats used to read “No Maori need apply”. This apparently was not against the law at the time. There is no chance of this ever being allowed to happen in New Zealand in the 21st century. Is that what you are advocating? If so I think you could be fairly labelled as a racist.
Vote:February 8th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
“Chap you have some serious issues, a gross failure to grasp some fundamental laws being in the top ten.”
Murray, I asked you if you were a lawyer. You talk in one way as if you are. However, I doubt if you could talk rationally in court without being abusive for more than a couple of minutes.
If you are capable of reading my post I pointed out that a representative from the hospitality industry stated on radio that a pub is not a public place and a person can be told to leave without a reason being given. Now if the owner refused to allow anyone in who was not white he or she could obviously be prosecuted. If the owner refused entry to anyone known to be homosexual like Tim Barnett or refused entry to anyone suspected of being homosexual like Peter Davis he could no doubt be prosecuted.
However, the point you seen to have great difficulty understanding is there is a difference between a persons dress and behaviour and the colour of their skin.
I have had a drink with Lindsay Perigo. If he had been kicked out solely because the bartender knew he was a homosexual that would be quite wrong.
If you and James have an attention span of more than 30 seconds try reading what an intelligent homosexual has to say.
http://www.gayconspiracy.co.uk/page20.html
I just get very sick of individuals whether they are homosexuals or Muslims playing the victim role to try and proof a point.
Vote:February 9th, 2007 at 3:35 am
Chuck old chap – did you by any chance notice the domain name of that site?
The ‘Nazis, Gays and Holocaust” page was interesting. The introduction paragraph:
“The Nazi phenomenon in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s is still in the forefront of many people’s minds today.”
Eh?
Vote:February 9th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Chuck, legally speaking a bar is a *public* place. You can see the definition of public place in section 2 of the Summary Offences Act.
Vote: