4 ms·

This is simply because its 'public'. A straight man or woman can go to a gay club or bar, and they can't block or ban you. since it's a public place. If you w

This is simply because its 'public'. A straight man or woman can go to a gay club or bar, and they can't block or ban you. since it's a public place. If you want to restrict access, you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird. It's weird people claim something to be 'public' but then want to restrict access. And for the record, it can be alot of fun going to a lesbian or gay event or club or bar or whatever if you are straight. good times are good times - these are often really fun places. Had lots of laughs in my time going to places in amsterdam. - initially just to 'see what is there' - curiosity, then having a lot of laughs and coming back for 'gezelligheid'.

like_any_other 2y ago
> If you want to restrict access, you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird. It's weird people claim something to be 'public' but then want to restrict access. Why is it "weird" to want to restrict an event to only lesbians? It only seems to be "weird" if you impose a false public/private dichotomy on it. But, presumably, the lesbian group doesn't care about "public" or "private", only "lesbian" or "not lesbian".
- eesmith 2y ago
  In the US you cannot exclude people from a public event based on sex, race, national origin, and a few other characteristics. (The full list depends on the location.) On the other hand, if you want a white-only private club, that's well within your right. As I read it, the Australian law is similar. From https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda : > The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 protects people from unfair treatment on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy and breastfeeding. Would it be weird to want to exclude pregnant women from a public event? What about preventing unmarried people? Friends of mine organized a Valentine's Day party that was only for single people. That's a private event, so legal. As I read understand it, an Australian bar couldn't have a public Valentine's Day party with the same restrictions. The same law, it would seem, prohibits banning bisexual women from a public event organized by a lesbian group.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    That's "legal" vs. "illegal", not "weird" vs. "normal". It does seem like Australian law forbids such "public" events, I agree with you there.
    - sim7c00 2y ago
      if you call something 'public' then it should be public... it's weird to then not have it be public. All definitions of the word 'public' seem to agree with me. But you know... i guess meaning changes with the times?? I guess i called it 'weird' because it defies the meaning of the word. that's weird _to me_. adjective 1. of or concerning the people as a whole. "public concern" noun 1. ordinary people in general; the community.
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        > if you call something 'public' It doesn't matter what they call it, the law itself determines what counts as "private" and what "public". Unfortunately I can't find the exact definition that the law uses, but I'm reasonably confident that a "lesbians with XX chromosomes only" event, even if it never used the word "public" in its marketing, would be illegal - nothing in the article suggests otherwise.
        sim7c00 2y ago
        laws differ between countries, so that's likely hard to find a general case for. I do mean by 'calling something public', that it would adhere to a formal definition of that word in the area where it's being used. As far as I can tell, the consideration is mostly the venue. if its on public grounds or property, or if its on a private property. it depends on various things. venue type (private or public proprty), advertising - where are the adverts posted, in public or private platforms / view / reach, purpose of the event (commercial / promotional goals) and 'access controls'. so in essence i dont think i am wrong - if you want to restrict access to only a certain group of people, you'd need to do it on private property, and only advertise it to that group of people and make clear its a private event at a private venue. all in all, it's not only the 'wording' public or private, but several other factors that litterally revolve around 'the general public knowing about it and having access to it' e.g. via ticket sales, guest access to the event or otherwise. this also says nothing about 'discrimination' ofcourse. - i'd expect there'd be resistance to 'private events on public property' - like a private club night or something, if the descrimitory factor is race, sexe, dna based or other things that can be coined as negative discrimination of groups of people. - you'd need to do it on a private venue, and ensure your advertising and access controls aligns with that. I think as an event organizer (gonna use the word again) its weird if you don't take into account all such factors if you know you are discriminating people based on sexual preferences and DNA. its 2025 - sadly even the woke people seem asleep at the wheel! it's not hard to figure these things out!

like_any_other 2y ago

> If you want to restrict access, you need to make it private. - this is sensible and not weird. It's weird people claim something to be 'public' but then want to restrict access. Why is it "weird" to want to restrict an event to only lesbians? It only seems to be "weird" if you impose a false public/private dichotomy on it. But, presumably, the lesbian group doesn't care about "public" or "private", only "lesbian" or "not lesbian".

eesmith 2y ago
In the US you cannot exclude people from a public event based on sex, race, national origin, and a few other characteristics. (The full list depends on the location.) On the other hand, if you want a white-only private club, that's well within your right. As I read it, the Australian law is similar. From https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/legislation#sda : > The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 protects people from unfair treatment on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, marital or relationship status, pregnancy and breastfeeding. Would it be weird to want to exclude pregnant women from a public event? What about preventing unmarried people? Friends of mine organized a Valentine's Day party that was only for single people. That's a private event, so legal. As I read understand it, an Australian bar couldn't have a public Valentine's Day party with the same restrictions. The same law, it would seem, prohibits banning bisexual women from a public event organized by a lesbian group.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  That's "legal" vs. "illegal", not "weird" vs. "normal". It does seem like Australian law forbids such "public" events, I agree with you there.
  - sim7c00 2y ago
    if you call something 'public' then it should be public... it's weird to then not have it be public. All definitions of the word 'public' seem to agree with me. But you know... i guess meaning changes with the times?? I guess i called it 'weird' because it defies the meaning of the word. that's weird _to me_. adjective 1. of or concerning the people as a whole. "public concern" noun 1. ordinary people in general; the community.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      > if you call something 'public' It doesn't matter what they call it, the law itself determines what counts as "private" and what "public". Unfortunately I can't find the exact definition that the law uses, but I'm reasonably confident that a "lesbians with XX chromosomes only" event, even if it never used the word "public" in its marketing, would be illegal - nothing in the article suggests otherwise.
      - sim7c00 2y ago
        laws differ between countries, so that's likely hard to find a general case for. I do mean by 'calling something public', that it would adhere to a formal definition of that word in the area where it's being used. As far as I can tell, the consideration is mostly the venue. if its on public grounds or property, or if its on a private property. it depends on various things. venue type (private or public proprty), advertising - where are the adverts posted, in public or private platforms / view / reach, purpose of the event (commercial / promotional goals) and 'access controls'. so in essence i dont think i am wrong - if you want to restrict access to only a certain group of people, you'd need to do it on private property, and only advertise it to that group of people and make clear its a private event at a private venue. all in all, it's not only the 'wording' public or private, but several other factors that litterally revolve around 'the general public knowing about it and having access to it' e.g. via ticket sales, guest access to the event or otherwise. this also says nothing about 'discrimination' ofcourse. - i'd expect there'd be resistance to 'private events on public property' - like a private club night or something, if the descrimitory factor is race, sexe, dna based or other things that can be coined as negative discrimination of groups of people. - you'd need to do it on a private venue, and ensure your advertising and access controls aligns with that. I think as an event organizer (gonna use the word again) its weird if you don't take into account all such factors if you know you are discriminating people based on sexual preferences and DNA. its 2025 - sadly even the woke people seem asleep at the wheel! it's not hard to figure these things out!