Fridae

In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in Australia, a gay bar in Melbourne can now legally turn away heterosexual men and women as well as lesbians despite the fact that Australia's equal-opportunity laws prevent discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

The management of Melbourne's Peel Hotel sought an exemption from Australia's anti-discrimination laws and won a landmark case at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal last week.

The establishment first filed its case last December seeking to legally deny heterosexuals entry to the club citing that its gay male patrons were upset at being gawked at and made fun of by heterosexuals and in some cases, being derided and/or are physically abused.

Tom McFeely, owner of the nightclub which already has a monthly "Boys Only Night" at which women are barred, told local radio that while there are more than 2,000 venues in Melbourne catering to heterosexuals, his is the only pub in Australia's second-largest city catering to homosexual men.

He said that while the pub welcomed everyone, its gay clientele had expressed discomfort over the number of heterosexuals and lesbians coming to the venue over the past year.

"We've had instances in the past where, for example, a buck's night has come up to the Peel or a hen's night - our whole atmosphere changes immensely," he said.

"Heterosexuals have other places to go to; my homosexuals do not," he said. "The only place they can feel comfortable and safe is the Peel."

In the tribunal's exemption decision dated May 24, Tribunal Deputy President, Cate McKenzie, wrote: "If heterosexual men and women and lesbians come to the venue in large groups, then their numbers may be enough to "swamp" the numbers of gay male patrons. This would undermine or destroy the atmosphere which the company wishes to create. Sometimes, heterosexual groups and lesbian groups insult and deride and are even physically violent towards the gay male patrons. Entry of these groups would undermine or destroy the unique atmosphere which aims to foster and not frighten or discomfit its gay male patrons."

The pub, which is said to be popular with Melbourne's Asian community, will now be able to advertise that it will turn away women and non-homosexual men and its door staff will be able to ask people whether they are gay.

Supporting the tribunal's decision, Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission Chief Executive Officer Helen Szoke said in a radio interview: "They have, in the past, had experiences where their predominant clientele, which are gay men, have been subject to harassment and hostility and instances of violence and also have felt as though they've been like a zoo exhibit, you know, with big groups of women on hen's parties coming to the club."

Disagreeing with critics that the move discriminates against heterosexuals and lesbians, Szoke says the decision is in fact consistent with the equal opportunity provisions because it defends the rights of gay people.

"The reality is it's these exemptions exist to protect groups in our community who are subject to being treated less favourably or treated unfairly compared with other groups and in this case, what we know is that there are many options for heterosexuals males to enjoy a safe, social environment," she said in the same interview.

While the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby spokesperson agreed it was important to preserve an environment predominantly for gay men, the tribunal's decision has attracted criticism from the gay community and mainstream alike.

The unnamed owner of gay and lesbian dance venue The Market Hotel, Spiro Condos, was quoted in The Age as saying: "The correct attitude is what is important when choosing patrons," he said. "I understand a need for the ruling, however it is taking a backward step for our fight for equal rights.

"It's a very sad day when two friends, regardless of their sexuality, can't go into a venue and dance together."

Andrew Burry, a gay man in Melbourne, who wrote in his Fridae blog about the issue told Fridae that he supports the Peel's decision to seek the exemption having experienced "challenging behaviours" by both groups of heterosexual women and men at the Peel.

Although he does not agree with discrimination in any form and would not ordinarily support such an arrangement, he feels that "it is necessary for The Peel to seek this broad right to refuse entry to heterosexuals simply in order that they can exercise their discretion in some situations where they feel that their gay patrons may come under risk from homophobic behaviours, taunts or vilification by groups of heterosexuals who, with the assistance of alcohol have come to The Peel on some kind of adventure. I have experienced challenging behaviours by both groups of heterosexual women and men."

"The general issues with women tend to be that they put their handbags on the dance floor while dancing, try to pick up gay men - even me! - and make comments like 'what a waste'. There are also reported to be straight men that go to The Peel because it is reputed to have available straight women. There is some view that straight men drink and become aggressive and are more likely to be overtly negative towards gay men that they perceive as competition."

While the Peel Hotel is excluding patrons based on their sexuality, another hotel in Melbourne has been granted a 'Male Only' status by the Australian legal system. The nine-room Laird Hotel, which operates three bars on its premises and is popular with the leather and motor club community, has been an exclusively gay male venue since having its application to the Anti Discrimination Board approved in 1998.

Readers: Do you agree with the bar/tribunal's decision to refuse entry to heterosexuals and/or lesbians? If you have any positive and/or negative experiences involving heterosexual men/women at the Peel or any other gay bar (please state name of bar and city) and/or other thoughts on this issue, please post them in the comments section below.