Gay Website Driven Out of Neighborhood

[Ian David]

Gay Website Driven Out of Neighborhood
by Kilian Melloy
EDGE Contributor
Monday Mar 3, 2008

A ruling handed down by an appellate court forced a gay Web business to relocate, though some in the neighborhood said that other home-based businesses are still in operation.

Orlando NBC affiliate WESH.com reported on the story, in which the online business College Boys Live, a chat site featuring nude young men, was forced out of a Brantley Harbor, Fla. Neighborhood by a homeowners’ association.

Angelcitysdevil.com also reported that the local homeowners’ association had targeted the site from its beginnings in 2002 for a six-year legal wrangle, though according to angelcitysdevil, the business’ employees were not visible from outside the home, nor did the neighborhood’s noise level rise due to the presence of the business.

The association spent not just six years, but also $200,000 trying to force the business to pack up and move out, the WESH.com story reported. The association took the site to court on the grounds that association rules forbade any home-based businesses.

But at least one neighbor thought the primary reason was the gay nature of the business. Said Robert Holland, "I think the guys could have just been left alone."

More:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=71076

[sandnsea]

1. a chat site featuring nude young women

I wouldn't want that in my neighborhood either and suspect they'd be targeted by feminist and child protection groups as well. The group gets caught with someone underage, and the next thing you know the homeowner's assoc is held responsible, home values plummet, etc.

Yeah, I know, flame away. I'm just a homophobe. It's not possible for there to ever be another point of view when it comes to gay issues.

[Deja Q]

4. "It's not possible for there to ever be another point of view when it comes to gay issues."

Sad, but true it seems.

In other words, you're not alone in feeling that way, and your concerns are valid (on ALL counts you'd mentioned, particularly the point re: "young women"). But it's not going to stop some people from spinning things out of the realm of reality. :( Just remember, that's their problem and there are more points of view than theirs. And in this situation, you pointed out the reality of the situation. Reality doesn't stop some from spinning things either.

[Amimnoch]

6. I disagree, and think you are off on several points.

There are thousands of sites out there that show nude young women, I'm sure more than just a few run out of homes that are neither targeted by feminist groups or child protection groups. The informations in the OP said young college men, NOT children so I don't even see where child protection groups would be involved at all. I fully agree, if it's hosting underage people then yes there's real reason, but if it involves consenting adults of any gender or sexual persuasion, and it's being done in the privacy of the home that is certainly NOT the association or other homeowners business in the area.. period. If they are doing shots on the front lawns, or putting advertisements/business signs outside their home.. I can see association involvement.

But, going strictly on what's put in the article.. This is one of at least a few home run businesses, but I'm guessing the only one that is gay based, and therefore the only one that was targeted. If it's in the bylaws that home run businesses are not allowed in the subdivision, and the association is going after all of the home run businesses, I (and I don't think most others) would have an issue with it, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. The association targeted only 1 of several businesses, and it doesn't take a great stretch of common sense to see WHY they targeted that particular one.

As to your last statement... apparently it is possible for you to have another point of view as you posted, and it hasn't been deleted.. You'll just have to pardon me for having my own that disagrees with you. Of course I realize us "single issue" homo's are supposed to just shut up, support, and sit in our corner away from the hetero grown-ups.

[Toasterlad]

8. Oh, You Didn't Know?

To Sandnsea, homosexuality = pedophilia. Many, MANY shining examples of this viewpoint in the unlamented Larry Craig threads. It is, in fact, impossible for there to be any other point of view regarding gay issues when one starts with the premise that homosexuality is immoral.

Tiresome of her to post in the GLBT forum.

[DarkTirade]

2. Somehow I'm not all that surprised.

That area is a big slice of urban sprawl suburbia, where everybody likes to put their nose in the air and pretend they can afford to live in Winter Park. (Winter Park being the area where everyone likes to put their nose in the air and pretend they can afford to live in southern California.) So they try and pull shit like this to convince themselves that they're doing something for their community. When all they're really doing is harassing people who aren't bothering anyone.

[Q3JR4]

3. I'm not sure if this is really something to be up in arms about.

Except for the general fact (from my POV) that homeowner's associations really suck and I will never belong to one. I would say that if the same thing doesn't happen (in the same neighborhood) to a "let's talk to nude young women" chat site then we can maybe think about launching a protest. Otherwise I say let it go.

Q3JR4.

[NMMNG]

5. Funny how nobody worries about nude people in the privacy of their homes

Unless they're gay. :eyes:

[lightningandsnow]

7. I think this may have more to do with sex-industry stigma than homophobia.

Even though many people watch porn, anything to do with porn or sex work is bound to set off a moral panic. Quite frankly, I think most of it is unjustified, whether the participants are gay, straight, or whatever.