Straight couples say they were ejected from gay hotel in Key West

[ringmastery]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/16/national1811EDT0697.DTL

Three heterosexual couples said they were turned away from a hotel in this gay-friendly tourist spot because of their sexual orientation.

The six were vacationing with a gay couple and had reservations at a hotel called Big Ruby's when the three straight couples were turned away.

"The manager literally said, 'We don't want you here,"' said Jim Pirih, who was vacationing with his partner and straight friends.

The group was already settled in their rooms Wednesday when the manager told the straight couples they would have to leave, citing a policy of not allowing heterosexuals on the property, Pirih said.

"He said he had to appeal to the majority, and the majority of guests wouldn't want straight people there," Pirih said.

[LeftCoast]

1. I love it.

Straight folks get discriminated against ONE TIME and it's national fucking news. Hey guys...how's it like in my shoes for a change?

[slinkerwink]

4. ROTFLMAO.....poor breeders!

:-p

[gottaB]

12. "breeders"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1285095

[Selwynn]

46. Bet if I say "poor fags" it will get deleted, but breeders is ok....

[LoZoccolo]

47. Or "poor bitches".

Or if I say that the straight couple got "bitch-slapped".

[AP]

5. Seriously. What if every time something like this happened to women,

minorities, etc. it was in the papers?

There'd be no time to whore it up for Republicans.

Hmm. Maybe making a big deal about this is another example of whoring it up for Republicans.

[Tredge]

76. I can only say...

...that's the liberal media for you.

[Touchdown]

2. Big Ruby's website...nice place

http://www.bigrubys.com/english/kw/index.htm

Some gay guesthouses in Key West and Palm Springs have a clothing optional policy, and are usually segregated by sex (lesbians usually don't wish to see peni, and gay men usually like their vacations cooch free) which would cause problems for straight couples who wouldn't "approve" of such liberal house rules. This one doesn't seem to be that kind of GH. Who knows what the motivations of the owners of this place are.

[SemperEadem]

10. The question is

did the couple know that this was an exclusive gay/lesbian only facility before they made their reservations? Did the establishment tell them when they made the reservation that they cater only to GLBT clientele? If they were going there with other gay couples, I can't see how this bit of information could have slipped past them, unless they were looking for a fight to begin with.

Interestingly, it's not until you get to the amenities page that you find out anything about them catering to the GLBT's---if I was looking for a vacation destination and happened upon their site, I would expect that this disclaimer wouldn't be buried on a web page. I would expect to read something on the reservation's page.

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. excuse me but..."an exclusive gay/lesbian only facility "

this is not a good thing. If it is permissible for there to be gay/lesbian only facilities then that knocks the socks off any argument against banning gays from other facilities on the grounds of sexual orientation.

not a good thing imho.

[Touchdown]

27. Hey, that's fine with me.

If you want to leave your wife at home, and come out to an exclusive gay men's resort, wear no clothes, and try to ignore the flirting, cruising, fondling, and outdoor sex that goes on...then knock yourself out, just don't get offended when some dude walks up to you at the pool and says..."Hey, wanna go to my cabana and fuck?". We like bears, and they're very welcome at these places!;-)

[bearfartinthewoods]

35. it wouldn't be the first time i've been asked.

i have a lot of gay friends and i've been to more than a few gay clubs
with them. i know how to say no.

i also went to disneyworld with them to celebrate the fact that ole' walt's world was newly gay friendly. it wasn't always that way. i'd hate to trade an all gay big rudy's for an all straight disneyworld.

it would be different if it was a private club but this sounds more like a hotel. maybe the gay guys made the reservations?

dunno...i like that gay and straight couples felt they wanted to vacation together. we do it every couple years. it's just a shame it worked out this way. to me, it doesn't feel like progress.

[Brian_Expat]

36. It's not progress. . .

. . . it's activities by the "queer radical" contingent of our community who are angry that they're not running the show they way they used to think they were. By doing this, they hope to break off gays' connections with the larger world and re-assert control.

You have to understand, a truly accepting world where sexual orientation is no big deal is threatening to these folks. They use their sexuality as a career, as something to dominate all discourse to the exclusion of everything else, and they try to define what it is to be "gay." They're horrendously critical of those of us who don't go for anonymous sex with strangers, and ESPECIALLY for the groundswell of gays seeking marriage equality.

Once GLBT people are accepted in society like anyone else, the whole "queer radical" leadership is out of business. It's the oppression and separation of gay people that keeps them in business. . . not the liberation of gay people.

[gayrebel83]

51. Demonizing radical contingents

merely puts you on par with the likes of Andrew Sullivan or (God forbid!) Tammy Bruce, and your particular assertions about queer radicals are exactly that--demonization. Radicals are the ones who critique the fabric of society instead of merely trying to weave themselves into it. We radicals are who we are because we see things that normally go unnoticed. People who are unprepared to engage the ideas that radicals offer have to employ reactionary flanking maneuvers, such as ascribing false motives.

You should read this Tammy Bruce column because your own rhetoric regarding those to the left of yourself was disturbingly similar:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/25/93416.shtml

I, personally, am not threatened by "a truly accepting world where sexual orientation is no big deal." What I find threatening is the refusal to acknowledge today's unaccepting world where sexuality IS a big deal, and it's very annoying when others, especially fellow GLBTs, play down the cold, hard reality. What you call "using their sexuality as a career," I call "being honest about the huge role their sexuality plays in shaping the course of their life." The fact is, same-sex attracted people have been oppressed as long as civilization has existed, whether it has been through criminal codes, religion, medicine, or whatever, and it persists to this day. Even if we escape gay bashings, come out of the closet, and attain marriage itself, there will still be problems. To be sure, all of these will facilitate social change, but even if marriage is legal in all 50 states plus territories, GLBTs will still be oppressed by the "inner homophobe." Radicals simply see this as part of a broad, sociohistorical context.

If you disagree with radicals, fine, but please engage the arguments themselves and refrain from ascribing false motives. The point is, we all are united by a desire to end GLBT oppression; the difference is that some of us see different problems as important and different phenomena as oppressive. So just give others a chance. :)

[Brian_Expat]

53. I don't demonize

I simply make it very clear that I don't agree with "radicals" who think that discrimination is OK if it's against straights, or that epithets like "breeder" are acceptable.

Even if we escape gay bashings, come out of the closet, and attain marriage itself, there will still be problems.

Sure, but the answer is NOT bigotry on the part of gay people to "counter" bigotry on the part of some straights.

[gayrebel83]

66. Yes, you do...

You do, indeed, demonize because that is precisely what you spent the previous post doing. Accusing radicals of "wanting control" or whatever is precisely that.

Sure, but the answer is NOT bigotry on the part of gay people to "counter" bigotry on the part of some straights.
It is not bigotry.

[Fescue4u]

73. Are you serious????

Outdoor sex?

Sounds pretty disgusting.

[kaos]

3. I smell a lawsuit.

The idiot that wrote this article needs to get fired for using the word "ejected" out of context...

[xultar]

6. I'm not a fan of Discrimination...but I have to say I like this one!

Good for them!!

[ACK]

7. Come on it is not worthy of national news but it ain't right

At least in my opinion.

Too bad this will be hit on a zillion times everywhere.

[MrSlayer]

8. Way to champion equal rights. I hope they sue their asses off.

Discrimination is discrimination. Doesn't this defeat the whole principle they are trying to fight for? There are idiots in all walks of life I guess.

[Deja Q]

9. Why don't they go back to...

Why don't these jerkoffs go back to SANDALS - they're a confirmed breeders-only beach/hotel.

The way we've been treated... this should only be the beginning.

It's about time we go on the offensive.

Incidentially, sometimes the ONLY way to show others about the principles we want is to show them how it feels when THEY are on the receiving end. And I have few ethical qualms about doing unto others for what they've done to GLBT people/couples onethousandfold.

[bloom]

11. doesn't sound like very good Karma to me...n/t

[gottaB]

13. Fortunately for gay business owners

most straights who patronize gay-owned, gay-friendly lodgings will take the statemets of Scott Fraser to be representative of popular sentiment in the gay community: "Whether it's a couple turned away from a place of business because they're gay, or a straight couple refused admittance because it's a gay facility, socially and legally that's discrimination and equally as unacceptable."

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. maybe because one couple out of the four was gay

or are you saying that heterosexual and homosexual couples shouldn't associate?

Do you take the 'B' in GLBT seriously?

[Deja Q]

25. What I feel is irrelevant:

I'd love to see everybody get along.

I'm just saying that a way to open up more of their eyes is to (initialiy) treat them as they've treated us. Once everybody sees how it feels to be so hurt, then everybody understands and we can build a new golden age, yadda yadda.

But as it stands:

GLBTs are discriminated against, taunted, maimed, even slaughtered. Even if the hate is caused by somebody who merely PERCEIVES them to be that way. And that's what disgusts me the most. And I don't believe for one attosecond that such jerks will change just because we're nice.

GLBT folk have to live in a constant closet. We can't talk about our personal lives openly. While others can wear their rings, talk of their spouses, put up pictures of them at work, go to social events with them, and dozens of things that hets take freely for granted, we DARE NOT.

Hell, I've chatted with other gay men in restaurants. You wouldn't believe how edgy they get when I introduce subjects that heteros can freely do. So I quickly change the subject back to something "socially acceptable". x( Free speech my ass. x( x( x(

These things do not happen to heteros because they are merely PERCEIVED to be hetero.

And don't forget: If it weren't for the Stonewall riots in 1969, NOBODY in the GLBT community would be nearly as well off today.

As for the "B", yes I do. I can see where people would be attracted to both sexes.

But what I feel is irrelevant.

[Brian_Expat]

31. Ugh

Great. Let's have all gays turn into bigoted judgmental assholes who exclude. That'll show all the straights! Woo hoo! :puke:

[Turanga Leela]

64. Thank you for labeling all gay-supportive heteros as "jerkoffs."

That's so destructive.

...After my best friend in college came out in public, people like you encouraged her to cut me out of her life because she shouldn't be seen spending so much time with a 'breeder.' Broke my heart. She tried to make up later, but the damage had already been done and the friendship didn't survive.

You'd probably also like to hang out with my downstairs neighbor when I lived in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. A delightful, funny 6'4 TG from Harlem, we used to spend hours together shopping, going to the movies, just hanging out. Guess how it made me feel when I discovered he was calling me "Queen Fag Hag" and "Breeder Bitch" to his gay friends when I wasn't around.

MOST of my gay friends/family (and I have both) have been mature and loving enough to accept me at face value, as I am with them. But the exceptions...the nastiness and ostracization...I ask you, as much satisfation as you get from seeing "the shoe on the other foot," how do adding to the great wrongs already committed help make anything right?

I understand there are many, many reasons why some GLBTs are bitter and angry. But alienating and denigrating the hets that are supportive and totally accepting of all they encounter (and it sounds as if these folks are pretty damn accepting, if they are vacationing with gay friends) only adds to the hurt, and helps nobody.

It makes me so sad to see such bigotry and vitriol towards strangers on this board, because of who they choose to sleep with...no matter WHO that may be.

[American liberal]

65. I'm with you

discrimination is discrimination.

[pschoeb]

14. Well 3 couples that's three rooms. Rubies doesn't look that big

So 3 rooms of straight couples, out of the 17 total rooms, especially since it's not neccasarily booked, could be bad for their business. I mean it's not like gay couples can stay in any hotel, without either discrimination, harassment or feeling unsafe, it would really suck to go to a private gay guesthouse that has mostly straight couples.

On the other hand Key West does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. If this was in some area that had no such law, I would say all is fair, but since it's Key West, I say the owner could have handled if better, and they should not have had to leave.

Though Big Ruby's is a clothing optional guesthouse, which under Florida law can discriminate by gender and children. It does allow Lesbians, so it can't really bar women.

All in all, I think it was inconsiderate of the group to book here though - or at least ask in advance if there would be issues. There are many many great resorts that accept all in Key West, but they aren't usually clothing optional.

Patrick Scheob

[JohnKleeb]

15. whoa reserse psych

interesting.

[trumad]

18. The front desk clerk fucked up

You ever get into a room after a long travel and feel relief that you're finally in and ready to party? To let these folks settle in only to then kick them out is wrong.... They should have bitten the bullet and let these folks stay for thier visit.... The clerk was wrong for tossing them the keys....

[Speed8098]

17. As a regular traveler

I find this kind of behavior appalling. I stay at Marriott's, Hilton's, Radisson's, & Hyatt's for the most part and I've seen many gay couples at these hotels.

Which hotels discriminate against homosexuals?

Discrimination is WRONG in any form.

Those of you who applaud this kind of thing need to step back and think about what you are cheering for.

Oppression is oppression regardless of sexual orientation.

[Ms. Toad]

28. There is a difference.

There are precious few places I can go and engage in any public display of affection with my spouse of many years without risking my physical or emotional well being. By public displays of affection I am talking about the kind of affection I see straights display virtually every day - holding hands while walking down the street, walking arm in arm, brief kisses hello/goodbye - not explicit sexual activity.

It is emotionally draining to have to pretend you are "just friends" with your spouse the moment you walk across the threshold of your hotel room door into the hallway. I think it is certainly appropriate to provide a place we can go, say to celebrate our anniversary, where we can be free to engage in the normal kind of behavior many heterosexual couples engage in in the lobby and restaurant without even thinking about it.

Unfortunately, since the heterosexual bigots don't come branded with a scarlet B so they can easily be identified, that is most reliably accomplished by limiting guests to those who are similarly situated.

Wanting a place where it is physically and emotionally safe to celebrate your family is not the same as wanting a place free of people you consider to be sinners or beneath you.

[Brian_Expat]

32. Self-ghettofication ultimate hurts us all

The more we insist on separating ourselves from society, the more we will be excluded from society.

[arcos]

34. that's true, but right now nothing can be done about it...

When I go on vacation with my boyfriend we usually choose a gay hotel, because we don't like to pretend. In a gay hotel I can hold his hand and we can kiss if we want to. It IS tiresome to pretend to be just friends.

[Brian_Expat]

39. It's your choice as to how you act in public. . .

. . . me, I don't choose to "pretend." I'll take his hand and kiss whereever I am. :)

[arcos]

48. well, in Europe it is easier...

I'm not even in the US... but as far as I know, unless you are in a major US city, the public reaction won't be too positive...

[Brian_Expat]

54. It's not any easier in the UK than in most of the USA. . .

. . . the point is, it does take some backbone, but that's what you've gotta have.

[Puglover]

70. Brian you are soooo naive....

Do me a favor mate....you go to Montgomery Alabama and have a romantic lunch with your partner...and when the mood strikes you kiss his hand....and do whatever you want to do. Id be interested to see how far your "backbone" takes you down there.
:eyes:

[Touchdown]

37. Why, if it's...

a greek restaurant, an indian turquoise street bazaar, a swedish spa, a japanese garden, an african drum dance, a brazillian carnival, an afghani rug dealer, an irish pub, a french perfumerie, yada, yada...it's culture, but if it's a gay resort, it's "ghetto"?:eyes:

[Brian_Expat]

40. Because the other events don't exclude non-Irish, for instance. . .

. . . an Irish pub is open to non-Irish.

Further, it's well-nigh impossible to live an "Irish-only" life in the USA -- have an Irish job, an Irish car, an Irish-only group of friends, etc.

I love gay venues, they're great. I'm not arguing that gay-oriented venues are a bad thing. I am arguing that gay "walling off from society at large" is, however.

[Touchdown]

59. You do realize that most of these cultural icons...

sprang up because of discrimination, and they were discriminating in the same, don't you? Remember "Irish need not apply", manifest destiny, greektown because of housing discrimination, etc.?

I don't think gay venues are "walling off" the rest of society, but when it comes to venues that offer places for gay sex, I think there's a line that is appropriate.

[Brian_Expat]

60. If it's "a venue that offers a place for gay sex," it should advertise. .

. . . itself as such. Don't show the pool and talk about how "gay friendly" you are. Say that you're basically a nasty spawning ground for STDs and a place to have anonymous sex. That's not a "resort," it's a whorehouse and there are plenty of gay and lesbian people who aren't interested in that sort of thing either and would be horrified to discover it upon arrival.

Banning hetero couples from a sex club is also a stupid idea, since they might be bisexual swingers looking for some fun, right? :eyes:

[Touchdown]

61. How about answering the original question...

Whay is those others "culture" and if it's gay it's "Ghetto"? "exclusivity, or "gay only" is a dodge...try again.

Once again, you make the broad brush statement that sex clubs are havens of disease. I don't know where you've been hanging out, but you must've been to the wrong places. You have such a high horse...Is your last name Sullivan by any chance?;-)

If it's a gay club, then would gay people REALLY be looking for bi-sexual fun?

[Brian_Expat]

62. I answered the original question. . .

Whay is those others "culture" and if it's gay it's "Ghetto"? "exclusivity, or "gay only" is a dodge...try again.

First of all, it's not "gay" since it also excludes other gays.

you make the broad brush statement that sex clubs are havens of disease

Most cases of STDs in the USA are transmitted by unprotected anonymous sex. It's well known that sex clubs and bathhouses are havens of STD transmission. It got so bad in San Francisco that they had to close them down.

My primary point is, where in the advertising does it say "we're a skanky sticky-floored sex club?" Nowhere. They talk about what a nice gay-friendly resort they are, with a nice pool and friendly people. Nowhere is the word "sex club" used or even suggested.

Probably because sex clubs are so irresponsible and have such a strong role in spreading STDs.

You have such a high horse...Is your last name Sullivan by any chance?

Actually, from what I recall, Sullivan loves anonymous sex. You need to brush up on your "gay culture." :)

If it's a gay club, then would gay people REALLY be looking for bi-sexual fun?

Last time I looked, GLBT stood for "gay, lesbian, BISEXUAL and transgendered." Something tells me the last two wouldn't be welcome at the club either, and something else tells me that you'll rationalize that whilst simultaneously railing against other discrimination later.

This situation is pretty simple. This is a case of an irresponsible sex club not advertising itself truthfully and then wrapping itself in the rainbow flag when getting called on it. Shame on them.

[Touchdown]

63. No you didn't and I'm done with your loopy circumlocutions.

and you broad brush judgmentalism. I hope your truly happy being better than the rest of us. Bye!

[Ms. Toad]

38. There is a difference between self-ghettofication...

And occasionally wanting a place where, for a brief period, I can interact act as I always do with my spouse, without the constant nagging fear that someone will want to, or will, do harm to me because of it.

I am completely out, in my neighborhood (in a very conservative community), in my child's school (in a very conservative community), at work (in a very straight setting) , and at church (in a mainstream church), and to my extended family. We were the first couple in our religious community to have our same gender marriage celebrated after several years of struggle about it, and the first case in our state to test the adoption law at the appellate level. I hardly think I any brief seclusion I indulge myself in makes me guilty of separating myself from society.

Regardless of how out I am, and how integrated I am into 'mainstream society' I still always have to come out to each new acquaintance at some point. When I do - to a stranger who sees me holding hands with my spouse, or to a new acquaintance when I refer to her by name or gender - it takes energy and is done with some apprehension as to the response. Every once in a while, for brief periods, I would prefer not to have to experience that apprehension. I do not believe that is either wrong, or "self-ghettofication."

[Brian_Expat]

41. Your fear is often created by you

I know the apprehension you have -- I used to have it all the time. But the most liberating thing you can do is not give a shit. Live your life openly and without fear. You'll find that those who would oppress you are shocked into silence and/or retreat if you are very matter-of-fact, nonchalant and non-hesitating about who you are.

After a little while your apprehension will vanish and you'll be free. :)

[Ms. Toad]

43. Perhaps you might want to reread my post...

I have been living my life precisely that way for years. I didn't state how long in my previous post, but it has been well over 20 years.

Although, in my experience, living in an open, self-confident manner does minimize the hostility and discrimination. It does not eliminate it completely. Regardless of how self-confident I am, there are still individuals who choose to physically harm gays and lesbians, (or a variety of less dangerous expressions of hostility).

As a victim of violence, I can assure you that it is asinine and self-destructive to fail to listen for and react to the little warning bells that indicate someone hostile is casing you out. Doing so takes energy.

Being integrated into society is not inconsistent with also occasionally taking time out for a breather where I do not have to constantly be listening for warning bells.

[Brian_Expat]

44. And I haven't said that safe havens are bad. . .

. . . but banning heterosexuals doesn't create safe havens. Banning disruptive people creates safe havens.

[Ms. Toad]

45. Actually, ...

that was certainly the gist of your responses to my initial and subsequent posts: If I live my life "properly," all my fear will dissipate, and I won't need one. That all intentional isolation is self-ghettoization, and harmful to the ultimate goal of full integration into society.

The reason I have continued this discussion was the hope (apparently vain) that you would come to realize that there is room for both. I do live my life exactly the way you suggest, for basically the same reasons you live your life that way. Even so, I still find it appropriate and desirable to occasionally take a break in places where I am supported unconditionally and without hesitation and where I do not constantly have to look over my shoulder. These are generally are exclusively GLBT.

If disruptors are welcome until they disrupt, the haven is not safe. I have had the experience of places very dear to me now feeling unsafe because disruptors who had not yet proven they were disruptors were permitted to attend because they had not yet disrupted. Now, instead of feeling safe I actually feel less safe there than in the general population because the disruption occurred while I was most vulnerable, with my guard almost completely down.

Unfortunately, because disruptors do not wear visible labels, the most reliable way to make someplace safe from homophobic disruptors is to limit participation to the group least likely to be homophobic - GLBT folks. It is not ideal, and I hope someday we move past it. It is, for now, unfortunately the reality.

Since it appears that my point is not getting across, I am done for now.

[Brian_Expat]

55. The thing that makes a disruptor a disruptor is disruption :)

Assuming that anyone who is straight MUST be a disruptor is different from assuming that everyone who is gay wants to seduce men and have quick anonymous sex. . . how?

Gay couples aren't banned from sports bars, straight ones who don't disrupt shouldn't be banned from gay ones. Anything else based on sexual orientation is just plain bigotry. Reverse bigotry, yes, but just as bigoted as making assumptions about people based on being gay.

[Speed8098]

49. Apples & Oranges

It is emotionally draining to have to pretend you are "just friends" with your spouse the moment you walk across the threshold of your hotel room door into the hallway.

I agree, it must be horrible to have to hide your affection, but is it the hotel that hinders you, or are you afraid of the reaction of other guests?

My point was that I've never seen any of the hotel chains that I mentioned ban anyone because of their sexual orientation.
The hotel in question did.

In my opinion, the manager should've told the hetero couples that this was a hotel that catered to the GLBT crowd and that they will not tolerate any discrimination. That would've given them the option to stay and behave themselves accordingly, or find another hotel.

But to just arbitrarily deny them a room is WRONG.

[doni_georgia]

20. discrimination breeds discrimination

By discriminating against heterosexual couples, this hotel is perpetuating discrimination. Now, conservatives can use the argument when a hotel discriminates against homosexuals that there are hotels and resorts out there that discriminate against heterosexuals, so what's the big deal? I abhor discrimination and bigotry in any guise. As a heterosexual, I find the term "breeders" highly offensive, just as I find the term, "nigger," "fag," "pollack," "gook," etc. highly offensive.

I am very pro homosexual rights. I support gay marriage, gay/lesbian rights to adopt children, same sex benefits in employment, and a constitutional amendment guaranteeing homosexuals civil rights. Just because I am heterosexual and a married mom does not make me the enemy. The tone of some of these posts is unbelievably bigotted. I can only imagine during the Civil Rights movement if white freedom riders had been greeted with "Go home Honky" when they arrived in the south to march with Dr. King.

[gator_in_Ontario]

21. Discrimination sucks, don't it?

Legally, considering the anti-discrimination laws in KW, I think the hotel messed up. But it doesn't hurt for the breeders to get a feel of the sting of prejudice...the same sting we feel as a matter of our lives.
My wife and I have never been booted from a motel because we are gay, we are welcomed almost everywhere because our money spends just as well as anyone else's.
We HAVE been forced to pay for 2 beds, in which case we make sure to leave one of them conspicuously unused.

[mainer]

24. Hey, THIS breeder has always been a gay rights activist!

Just because I'm a breeder doesn't mean I don't support gay rights. To lump all breeders into one category and say "they should get a taste of discrimination" is outrageous. I've marched on behalf of my bisexual son, and I would do ANYTHING to defend his rights.

The point is, those three "breeder" couples were clearly comfortable around gays -- they chose to be there, didn't they?

Why must we separate into "us" and "them"? Shouldn't we all feel free and comfortable mingling together? Otherwise it's the Balkanization of society -- gays in their corner, straights in theirs.

We have two lesbians in our family as well -- why should we all have to vacation in different hotels if we want to be together?

[malachibk]

22. I stayed at Big Ruby's in Costa Rica

Great place. And frankly, I think straight folks would feel a bit uncomfortable there -- I sure as hell would't want to stay at a place where a bunch of naked/semi-naked straight people were making out by the pool.

[Puglover]

71. He he....I would...

I LOVE watching straight porn and Im as gay as hell....LOL

[mainer]

23. uh oh -- we're headed to Key West next week...

My husband and I booked our hotel there online -- and we did it through a gay travel website because we figured that gays have very discriminating taste, and that whichever hotels they rated highly would probably be nice places! I hope they don't kick out this straight couple...

(Will it help that our son is bi?)

[KeyWestGayman]

26. Big Ruby's Reputation for Discrimination

As a gay male resident of Key West who has lived here more than the average 3 of 4 year range than most people hear have, I have to say that Big Ruby's has been known to outright tell people (straight)that they don't want them there.

Big Ruby's also has an unwritten policy to not allow more that 3 rooms at a time be rented to lesbian visitors, so it is not just discrimination against gay friendly straight folks but also against gay women as well. Of course there are two sides to every story but the fact is that the gay couple that the 3 straight couples were there with are repeat guest and they more than likely did inform their friends about the place which does not advertise as men only or gay and lesbian only.

The fact that the manager got on the phone to call another guest house is an implication that they were not welcome at Big Ruby's. I do not like the fact that this practice is accepted especially here in Key West. Even though we as gay people do get that type of discrimination from some straight folks and places we visit we should be better than that and not condone or allow this type of discrimination by one of our own on our visitors whether they be straight or not.

[tedzbear]

29. That's because they would be shocked...

...when they saw the hanky-panky in the pool (or jacuzzi). The manager was just protecting them from having to leave in a huff when they witnessed some naughty behavior. The mgr. also doesn't want his queer clientèle to feel they are in a hetero-controlled environment where they can't be themselves.

Lot's of single queers (including moi) vacation in Key West and they want to get laid. The gay motels and bed & breakfasts are a good starting point before venturing out to the bars etc.

:bounce:

[Brian_Expat]

33. Oh nonsense

Most straight people who vacation with their gay friends at a gay resort aren't "shocked and horrified" by gay affection. That's an outdated stereotype that's just as bigoted as anything Jerry Falwell would come up with.

[Brian_Expat]

30. Crap like this pisses me off

So many radicals in the gay community think that tit-for-tat is fair play. Let me assure you that resorts like Sandals that ban gay couples are blasted (and rightfully so). Resorts that ban straights are just as bigoted, especially when they're tolerant straights vacationing with their gay friends. :puke:

[gayrebel83]

52. That is so reductionist!

It's not about "tit-for-tat." :eyes: It's about having GLBT space, what little exists in this society, and denying that right is very reactionary. It is so hard to find such space, what with schools banning GLBT clubs, police raiding bars, and now disrespect for GLBT people's boundaries. Where GLBT space differs from ghettos is that the former is by and for GLBTs while the latter is a colonized space, surveyed and ruled over by the oppressor; the two are as different as night and day.

The fact is, heterosexuals (including the supportive ones) do indeed pose a threat to the comfort and sense of security of GLBTs because we've grown up under the notion that our sexuality is to be suppressed around heterosexuals, either for their comfort or for our own personal safety. Furthermore, GLBTs pose no threat whatsoever to heterosexuals, who generally don't have to ask whether their public display of affection is making gays uncomfortable or whether they are going to get straight-bashed (in fact, I've never heard of such a thing).

So, there's still that nagging doubt when they are present; it should not be that way, but it is. One way to deal with that is to maintain some GLBT-only spaces, and I don't believe that is too much to ask. True prejudice toward heterosexuals as people is negligible at best; they are generally welcome in our establishments, activist organizations, clubs, pride parades, etc. Those GLBT-only spaces are rare and precious, and any true ally will understand and respect these boundaries.

[Brian_Expat]

56. GLBT space

GLBT space is wherever GLBT people are.

It's possible to have a gay-friendly space without banning people based on their sexual orientation.

heterosexuals (including the supportive ones) do indeed pose a threat to the comfort and sense of security of GLBTs because we've grown up under the notion that our sexuality is to be suppressed around heterosexuals

That's more an issue for you to deal with a psychologist on, rather than exercise active bigotry. Your notion that all straights are expecting you to suppress yourself grows out of internalized homophobia rather than any reality.

Are there jerks in straight society that will make nasty comments about a gay couple in public? Yes. But there are also plenty of jerks in gay bars who will make nasty comments about your clothes, weight, height, or penis size (if it's one of the racier places). That's not exactly complimentary to the gay ego either -- and fosters such self-destructive behaviours as anorexia, depression and suicidal tendencies.

Too bad nobody takes aim at THAT oppression. Self-oppression within the gay community is truly our biggest enemy these days.

GLBT-only spaces are rare and precious, and any true ally will understand and respect these boundaries

Then you cannot get upset when heterosexuals actively exclude gays. What would you say to the homophobe who says, for instance, that "marriage is a straight-only space you should respect?" How about in employment? Who decides who is "gay enough" to enter GLBT spaces?

What about bisexual men or women who are in a heterosexual relationship? Are they "banned" as well?

God, this recipe for exclusion just makes me want to :barf:

[gayrebel83]

68. Actually...

GLBT space is wherever GLBT people are.
Not necessarily. True "GLBT space" is characterized by minimal threats to person or self within that setting.

That's more an issue for you to deal with a psychologist on, rather than exercise active bigotry.

Bigotry entails having something against the person him/herself due to whatever characteristic, which is entirely different from what I'm talking about.

Do you also consider it "bigotry" when government officials have closed security meetings? I should hope not. When people are excluded from top-secret security meetings, it is not for the sake of exclusion; it is because the meeting's purposes require it. Same way here.

Your notion that all straights are expecting you to suppress yourself grows out of internalized homophobia rather than any reality.

I never said anything of the sort; what I said was that GLBTs are trained by society to suppress themselves. It becomes almost instinctual.

Too bad nobody takes aim at THAT oppression. Self-oppression within the gay community is truly our biggest enemy these days.

I am well aware of this problem, and I do think it needs to be addressed. That does not, however, minimize the problem of threats from without.

Then you cannot get upset when heterosexuals actively exclude gays.

That all depends on whether the exclusion is from a public/private setting. State-sanctioned denial of public resources to gays is an issue completely different from the private level. State resources rightfully belong to everyone, private resources to the owner.

What would you say to the homophobe who says, for instance, that "marriage is a straight-only space you should respect?"

I would tell them that they are not required to perform same-sex marriages in their churches.

How about in employment?

I do not think anti-discrimination laws should apply to private employers.

Who decides who is "gay enough" to enter GLBT spaces?

It depends on the space. Some lesbians may desire to create a "lesbian-only" space. Likewise for gay men, transgendered people (which may be MTF- or FTM- only), or bisexuals. Other times, the goal may be a space that caters to all GLBTs. It all depends on the space and the needs of the individuals creating it.

What about bisexual men or women who are in a heterosexual relationship? Are they "banned" as well?

Yet again, it depends on the space. If a group of bisexuals wish to create bi space, they can decide whether it is open to all bi's or only a specific subset.

Like any oppressed group, GLBTs have unique circumstances and unique experiences that only they can every truly understand in its entirety, and sometimes, they require special spaces in which they can move and act with minimal fear of consequences for being who they are and daring to speak and act for themselves. One of the very first steps in being an ally to any oppressed group is respecting their boundaries. I, for example, understand that lesbians have faced sexism by gay men within the GLBT movement (and men in general within the larger society), so when they create a lesbian-only space, I respect that; I do not accuse them of bigotry or demand admittance. For me to do otherwise, would be a sexist attempt to colonize their space, just like it is homophobic (and just downright disrespectful in general) to demand that GLBTs open up their spaces.

For the record, I have no desire for straight-free spaces, provide that heterosexuals who enter are respectful of GLBTs and do not expect them to accommodate any lingering homophobia they possess. At the same time, I believe that, if a group of GLBTs feel the need to remain exclusively such, as a matter of personal security, they should respect that.

[clonebot]

75. gays and my property value

all I know is that when I got my house in the hillcrest district of san diego it wasn't very expensive years ago. the more gay guys and gals that come to hillcrest the more of them shop and shop and shop and shop and usually don't have to provide for any children and from all their spending the local businesses grow and the community flourishes and everything gets upscale and somehow we get a starbucks on every freakin corner and my house is worth twice as much now.

go figure. the homosexual agenda gave me equity ;)

[terrya]

42. And I can point out how some travel agencies,,,let's take Sandals...

routinely discriminate against gay couples.

Why isn't discrimination against gay people in the travel business addressed as well?

Terry

[fujiyama]

50. I don't see

how this can be justified. It's not right when gay people are discriminated against...and it's not right when straight people are either. There's no evidence that the couple was homophobic in anyways. No one deserves to be turned down for a room at a hotel, etc. because of race, sexual orientation, etc etc...

[Brian_Expat]

58. I'm frankly quite shocked that so many gay people disagree with you

I completely agree. I think discrimination based on sexual orientation is always wrong -- whether you're gay or straight.

[9215]

57. heterophobia really is alive and well.

:eyes:

[boobooday]

67. Protecting their sanctity

hahaha

"We don't like your kind." It probably feels good to say it, no matter how intolerant it is. If I were a member of a group that heard that all the time, I would want to say it sometimes too.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[ButterflyBlood]

69. this is wrong and very counter-productive

not very good PR for gay rights.

If they were clearly right wing religious bigots I could understand it, but since they were associating with a gay couple, they clearly were not homophobic, so it's stupid to say they needed to know what discrimination felt like. They were already on the right side.

Of course this will get much more attention than the countless times it happens against gays, and that isn't fair. But it doesn't make this right.

[Fescue4u]

72. Seperate but equal huh?

Glad to see that we are making so much progress ?????????

[booley]

74. I am of different minds..

the inner a$$hole says Good. About time straight people knew what it was like. Though I have nothing against these people who were refused thier reservation, I am sure they are very nice people. But I am no saint and thus not beyond wanting petty revenge.

The little radical pseudo ACT-UP political demon iin me really wants to see the Bigots who said that private businesses could discriminate on the grounds of sexual orianation now try to say how it is wrong becuase it's happening to straight people. I even want to this go further so that straight people are denied soemthign they really want. I would love to see a straight couple denied housing by a gay landlord and that couple being asking the Rutherford foundation or the ACLJ to represent them in court. How Wonderful to see people like Pat robertson squirm as they try to choose between that discriminating becuase of sexual orientation is wrong or discriminating against heterosexuals is ok.

The sad little cynic in me sees this as inevitable . Gay people are discriminated against, so why would it be so surprising that eventually there would be gay people wanting to return the favor? As in my a$$hole personality.

The idealist says that discrimination is wrong. Though it is significant that the hotel owners didn't just throw the couples out on the street. You know a black couple in the segregationist south would not have been treated that way at a White only Hotel. Still, You don't fix a problem by perpetuating it.

And finally my inner Bill Maher says that saying this is a civil rights issue like "seperate but equal" or gay marriage is realy dumb. We are talking about a Resort in a town filled with LOTS and LOTS of really Nice resorts. This isn't like these couples were denied the right to vote or to go to a decent school or make medical decisions for thier spouse. The couples rights as human beings was not endagered, thier ability to be productive citizens not impaired. It was a hotel with a dick of a manager and a picky clientele. These couples were perfectly able to go to an equally nice hotel in the same area and move on to give the gay resort bad reviews. (thats how you really hurts a business)

So I am seeing both sides here but really, is this actually as big a deal as we are making it out to be? I mean, what if two catholics wanted to have a catholic wedding in a Jewish synagoge? Would the sysnagogue have to comply? what if a man sued to become a member of the WNBA (I think thats the womens basketball group, right)? Are restaurants illegaly discriminating against nudists?
I thought we were supposed to celebrate our differences, not grind them out of existence...