genderkid sent in a link to a story in the Chicago Tribune about a karaoke bar in Peoria, Illinois, called Elbo Room whose felt the need to post the following sign:
Apparently the location used to be a gay bar, and the karaoke bar doesn’t want to be mistaken for it.
This led to protests by members of the gay community and others opposed to homophobia:
The group held three protests last weekend, one of which drew the attention of paintballers, who fired on the crowd. Police had no suspects in that attack.
Since sexual orientation is a characteristic protected by state law, the bar owner was notified the sign is illegal, since it implies that gays and lesbians are unwelcome in the establishment.
Comments 13
mt — April 20, 2009
I like how this sign implies that the two ('gay' and 'karaoke') are mutually exclusive. No karaoke-loving gays allowed. I guess that means Madonna and Cher have been removed from the song options, right? ;)
pcwhite — April 20, 2009
why would a bar actively dissuade paying customers from giving them money? baffling.
re: "we're a karaoke bar!!!" - i suppose that's a nice illustration of how spaces are assumed to belong to straight people alone unless otherwise specified.
JanetM — April 20, 2009
And yet, I can see the same information, phrased a bit differently, could be perfectly reasonable, something like,
Hi! Welcome to Elbo Room, a new Karaoke bar. Looking for Diesel? They moved down the street.
Duran — April 20, 2009
Some people seem to have read "no gays are allowed".
I read "if you're straight, you can feel comfortable in this establishment."
Two very different things. I've definitely been in gay bars where I was getting the stare because I was with my girlfriend.
Rachel — April 20, 2009
seems clear by this sign that gays and lesbians aren't welcomed. because...really...if they didn't mind that a bunch were turning up to do karaoke...they wouldn't have put that sign up. They would've put one up that said people of all orientations are welcome.
Keith — April 20, 2009
The overemphasis on the word "NOT" makes it seem unfriendly at best. I can understand the owner trying to differentiate his business from the former business at the location, but there are better ways to do it.
Like JanetM pointed out, the same info can be presented in a much better way.
Chris — April 20, 2009
Small change:
"We are not a country and western bar! The Watering Hole is down the street!"
Would that result in a warning that it's illegal to discriminate against rednecks(*)? I doubt it. :-)
If you read the newspaper article it's clear that the sign -- which looks very reasonable if you don't have the context -- is actually a proxy for the tensions between the owners/some patrons and other patrons increasingly willing to show same-sex public displays of affection. THAT is what made the sign hostile, not using the colloquial term that the patrons of the "gay bar" would use themselves and the helpful directions to a nearby establishment that does identify itself as a 'gay bar'.
I think the real story here is why so many people are willing, even eager, to jump on the small story of a controversial sign instead of asking the bigger question of opposite sex/same sex displays of affection. Is it an indication that the opponents realize that they'll face condemnation if they admit the real reason for the tension? Or is it the other way, that the community isn't yet ready to admit that same-sex individuals may wish to publicly display affection?
(*) I know, I know, but it's a shorthand for the sake of argument.
Bagelsan — April 21, 2009
Definitely agree that the information itself is fine, but the presentation not-so-much. It's the difference between saying "oh, I'm not actually Jewish" and *making a grossed-out face* and saying "oh, NO I'm not Jewish." (I've done the former many times. Yay ambiguously-named brunettes who love bagels. :p)
Ex-Illinoisian — April 21, 2009
Remember that Peoria Illinois is the home of Matthew Hale - leader of the former "World Church of the Creator" an Aryan Brotherhood "church" (renamed after a federal judge ruled that another church in oregon had the name first.) In response to the outcome of the legal suit Hale put a hit out on the judge. Oh, and Hale's Aryan Brotherhood dad is a (or maybe was a) Peoria cop...... they both represent a majority attitude in the area - and hence why paintballing protestors went unchecked by law enforcement.
Carla — April 23, 2009
^ I hate Illinois Nazis.
Village Idiot — April 23, 2009
If the leather aficionados show up and they're dressed up anything like I've seen at some gay bars, it can have a detrimental effect (to say the least) on a "straight" bar's image and popularity among the crowd the owner seeks to cater to. It's no different that a bar known for having fights break out; people not into fighting will avoid it (go to the gay bar down the street if you want to hang out at a place where you're far less likely to get into a fight than a sports bar).
Rather than put up a sign, the bouncer should just throw out patrons the owner doesn't like whether they are drunks, fighting, publicly displaying affection, sporting patent-leather S&M fashion, or simply wearing an ugly shirt. It's a PRIVATE business and the owner can refuse service to anyone for any or no reason at all, and I am in favor of that up to a point. That point is where "private business" intersects with de facto public commons, such as in a mall. The Boy Scouts don't allow openly gay scoutmasters, and they should be legally allowed to take that stance IMO. No one HAS to sign their kid up with a Christian pseudo-paramilitary youth group, but the same is not true for teachers in public schools, for instance (and it is already illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in that context).
And if "gay bars" exist, why can't "not-gay bars" exist?
Carla — April 23, 2009
"It’s a PRIVATE business and the owner can refuse service to anyone for any or no reason at all"
Well...no, not exactly. I don't know how Illinois wrote its law, but generally things like restaurants are considered "public accomodations" and can't throw people out on the basis of race/gender/sexual orientation, provided that those classes are protected under state law (as they are here). They owner can't refuse to serve a black couple simply because they don't like black people. It doesn't work like that.
Village Idiot — April 25, 2009
Sigh.
I even go to the trouble of qualifying my comments but no, I have to clarify them twice because I guess I'm just too nuanced. I said UP TO A POINT. I guess I should've exhaustively listed what constitutes a de facto public common. A Mall, restaurant (happy now?), a sports stadium, a concert venue, a movie theater, should I go on? And yet, people are thrown out of all of these establishments every day for some reason or other.
FWIW, an owner can indeed throw anyone out of their business as long as they don't do something stupid like say it's because you're gay or black or whatever. It's just like how police aren't allowed to search you without probable cause; a legal probable cause isn't that hard to fabricate for the motivated officer. Same goes for business owners.
Perhaps "it doesn't work like that" on paper, but reality is a different story. You weren't thrown out because you're gay, or black, or whatever. You were thrown out because you "seemed intoxicated" or were "disrupting other patrons" or something.