A Denver bar has been cited by
the state’s Division of Civil Rights for discrimination because it
refused to let a gay man dressed in drag enter. The bar is the
Denver Wrangler, and
despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western
joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that
a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person.
What happened last summer is that a gay man named Vito Marzano,
dressed in drag from a fundraiser elsewhere, wanted to enter the
Wrangler. He was denied entry. The bar claims it wasn’t because he
was cross-dressing but because his image didn’t match his driver’s
license. The bar had been previously cited for serving somebody
underage and were now being extra cautious. For those not in the
know, gay bars have a history of
being targets of scrutiny by authorities looking for excuses to
raid them and shut them down.
Marzano is not transgender and has made no claims that he is.
Nevertheless, the State of Colorado has determined that the
Wrangler has likely violated Marzano’s right to public
accommodation on the basis of his appearance.
The state’s report notes that the bar has a dress code
forbidding high-heeled shoes, wigs or appearance-altering make-up
or strong perfumes. While the report states there’s nothing wrong
with the dress code itself, it has determined that the bar uses
this code as an excuse to exclude overly feminine women or
transgender people. The Wrangler is a “bear” bar, whose target
demographic is the burlier of the gay men. What’s alarming about
the ruling is that it seems to act as though catering to a
particular demographic is in fact evidence of a likelihood of
discriminating against others:
“[T]he Respondent caters to a gay subculture known as “Bears,”
which are bisexual or gay males which tend to place importance on
presenting a hypermasculine image and often shun
interaction with men who exhibit effeminacy. This is
evident from the pictures and statements made by employees
regarding the “Bear” culture of the club and several links on the
Respondent’s webpage referencing “Bear” clubs … .”
Emphasis added by me because WT-bloody-F? You know what gay
people love? Having the government tell them how their various
subcultures work and think on the basis of talking to a bunch of
people at a bar and looking at pictures. The preference for dating
or friendship with certain types of people is not the same as
“shunning” other types of people. And to the extent that there are
social rifts between various parts of the gay demographic, nobody
should want the state government policing how they should be
interacting with each other.
I find this ruling maddening as somebody who has been
fighting against the illogical slippery slope arguments that
acknowledging and respecting transgender people will result in
absurd outcomes like men faking it in order to peep on women in the
bathroom. It’s a stupid, irrational fear. And now we have a man who
is not transgender nevertheless using the law to punish a business
for not letting him in. And we have a state agency in Colorado
declaring that a subculture within the gay community is inherently
sexist for having a preference for masculinity.
This case is a good demonstration as to why it’s so important to
hold a hard line on the right to freedom of association. The
Wrangler should have the right to pursue whatever customer
demographic it wants for its bar. And if the community finds it
significantly discriminatory, they can use social pressures to push
for change (as Marzano has apparently
done with a call for a boycott).
Read more coverage of the ruling
here.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1noFqBE
via IFTTT