Gay bar cited for discrimination

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,100
245
Against gays.

Tell me again how public accommodation laws are good for everyone, I need a laugh.

A Denver bar 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. The bar is the Denver Wrangler, and despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person. What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano, dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn't because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn't match his driver's license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.
Marzano is not transgender and has made no claims that he is. Nevertheless, the State of Colorado has determined that the Wrangler has likely violated Marzano's right to public accommodation on the basis of his appearance.
The state's report notes that the bar has a dress code forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes. While the report states there's nothing wrong with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or transgender people. The Wrangler is a "bear" bar, whose target demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What's alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:

You?ll Never Guess the Latest Business to Be Cited for Not Serving an LGBT Person - Hit & Run : Reason.com
 
"Born that way!"...

:lmao:

Their acquired-deviant sexuality is so obvious that they even have sub-sub-categories that they can't even agree on... ie, you can train a horse to become sexually aroused to anything. Just get him young enough...
 
Last edited:
Against gays.

Tell me again how public accommodation laws are good for everyone, I need a laugh.

A Denver bar 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. The bar is the Denver Wrangler, and despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person. What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano, dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn't because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn't match his driver's license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.
Marzano is not transgender and has made no claims that he is. Nevertheless, the State of Colorado has determined that the Wrangler has likely violated Marzano's right to public accommodation on the basis of his appearance.
The state's report notes that the bar has a dress code forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes. While the report states there's nothing wrong with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or transgender people. The Wrangler is a "bear" bar, whose target demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What's alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:

You?ll Never Guess the Latest Business to Be Cited for Not Serving an LGBT Person - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Time to get the popcorn out. This isn't as much fun as the rad fem-transgender divide, but its close. :popcorn:
 
Cuz he's dressed in woman's clothes, he's gay? Since when?

Screen-Shot-2014-05-09-at-11.43.44-AM.png


GIULIANIdragqueen2.jpg


george_bush_male_chearleader_in_drag.jpg


I can think of a few Republicans it might be news to.
 
These laws are ridiculous. A business should be allowed to deny businessto anybody they want. And yes I am aware that sword cuts both ways.
 
These laws are ridiculous. A business should be allowed to deny businessto anybody they want. And yes I am aware that sword cuts both ways.

Well no, they should not. Based on your statement, businesses should then also be permitted to refuse Blacks, Native Americans, and Asians if they so choose. I think not.
 
Against gays.

Tell me again how public accommodation laws are good for everyone, I need a laugh.

A Denver bar 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. The bar is the Denver Wrangler, and despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person. What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano, dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn't because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn't match his driver's license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.
Marzano is not transgender and has made no claims that he is. Nevertheless, the State of Colorado has determined that the Wrangler has likely violated Marzano's right to public accommodation on the basis of his appearance.
The state's report notes that the bar has a dress code forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes. While the report states there's nothing wrong with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or transgender people. The Wrangler is a "bear" bar, whose target demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What's alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:

You?ll Never Guess the Latest Business to Be Cited for Not Serving an LGBT Person - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Always nice when would-be gay-bahsers discredit themselves if the process of bashing,

"He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn't because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn't match his driver's license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious."
 
Cuz he's dressed in woman's clothes, he's gay? Since when?


I can think of a few Republicans it might be news to.

No, he is gay because he said he is gay.

I do appreciate your admittance that reading is not something you do though, it will make dismissing your arguments in the future so much easier than it already is.
 
Against gays.

Tell me again how public accommodation laws are good for everyone, I need a laugh.

A Denver bar 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. The bar is the Denver Wrangler, and despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person. What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano, dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn't because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn't match his driver's license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the know, gay bars have a history of being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to raid them and shut them down.
Marzano is not transgender and has made no claims that he is. Nevertheless, the State of Colorado has determined that the Wrangler has likely violated Marzano's right to public accommodation on the basis of his appearance.
The state's report notes that the bar has a dress code forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up or strong perfumes. While the report states there's nothing wrong with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or transgender people. The Wrangler is a "bear" bar, whose target demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What's alarming about the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of discriminating against others:
You?ll Never Guess the Latest Business to Be Cited for Not Serving an LGBT Person - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Always nice when would-be gay-bahsers discredit themselves if the process of bashing,

"He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn't because he was cross-dressing but because his image didn't match his driver's license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody underage and were now being extra cautious."

It is even nicer when idiots out themselves.

I have never bashed gays on this forum, or anywhere else. This post was deliberate aimed at public accommodation laws, not gays.

By they way, since I actually read the article, and actually posted the quote you think proves I am a stupid, even though it actually reinforces my point, what does that say about your ability to actually think?
 
These laws are ridiculous. A business should be allowed to deny businessto anybody they want. And yes I am aware that sword cuts both ways.

Well no, they should not. Based on your statement, businesses should then also be permitted to refuse Blacks, Native Americans, and Asians if they so choose. I think not.
Race is a different story, a black man can't dress white. But a drag queen can dress like a man. This is a behavior issue and if a bar first want drag queens in their bar they should beallowed to make that rule. McDonald's won't let me in with out a shirt on.
 

Forum List

Back
Top