Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
What right does the majority have to suppress the rights of others? As long as those rights are the same everyone else has then someone's sexuality shouldn't remove it.
|
You might have a point, if we knew that the Landlord objected because they were Gay, and happily allowed straight couples to do the same thing. We don't know if he does.
Having been to Soho for a drink on a few occassions, and seen some of the punters there, I think he's probably working in the wrong area if he is homophobic.
A couple of friends of mine had something similar happen. They are both Indian. One is a woman, and one a man.
We'd gone out drinking with the woman to a favourite local pub, and she got a little loud (not angry, just shouting and laughing while drunk). The Landlord threw her out. We thought it was because she was being loud.
A few weeks later, my boss, who is also Indian and certainly not loud (although he isn't shy and retiring either) went into the same pub for a quiet pint. He was also asked to leave. I am not sure what happened after that, but the chain that owned that pub moved the landlord elsewhere and eventually sold the pub.
Ironically, it's actually a much nicer pub now, and they even happily serve my boss (the lady has long since married and moved up north).
That case, I would say, is clearly racism. The case in the news (based on what is written) is not clearly homophobia.
In fact, if it isn't homophobia and they claim it is, they are cheapening the plight of those who are geniunly suffering homophobia (you know, those being insulted or assaulted because of their sexuality) by comparing their experiences (which may be quiet severe) to a peck on the cheek.
Also, it depends on the kiss. If it was a small kiss on the lips, or a peck on the check, most people would not be offended. If it was a full on frenchie with tongues in mouth and lots of noise, people may well have been offended whether it was man to man, man to woman or woman to woman.