In bright yellow capital letters, the sign on the karaoke bar in downtown Peoria was clear: "WE ARE NOT A GAY BAR!!"The local gay community got the message. And it apparently was just the rallying cry it needed.
As horrible as this kind of homophobia is, it's great to see people respond and force action (and often retraction). The response was one of the first organized efforts of the Peoria LGBT community.
"This is the first time we've mobilized for a situation like that," said Dawn Scally, 35, of Peoria Heights. "Let's finally do something and get together and stop taking everything as it comes. Let's take a stand and try to have a voice for the community."[The bar owner] issued a statement apologizing for the sign, saying he's taken action to ensure it does not happen again. Van Auken warned that it better not; the city has already notified him the sign violated state law.
"You can't give notice to the effect that certain protected groups are not welcome," she said.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Activists respond to anti-gay message at Peoria, IL bar.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13193
im so happy you posted this story!
i think that this just shows how it is assumed that if people dont designate something (a bar, in this case) as GAY, then it is for straight people, by default. i believe that to be one of the most pervasive and harmful aspects of privilege, in my experience.
This reminds me of Barney's Beanery in West Hollywood, CA. They finally took down their "No F******" sign down. Not that any (self-respecting) gay person would go there anyway. I hope people boycott that bar in Peoria.
Just wanted to point out that Barney's has come a long way (beyond simply taking down the awful sign) in recent years. So I think some 'self-respecting' gay folks do actually go there now.
http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2005/06/cover-story-barneys-beanery-repents.html
They removed the offensive verbiage already, and the manager apologized. Boycotting them now sends the message that changing your ways is pretty fucking pointless because we'll still slap you down.
I get that they were dicks, but who hasn't had a wrong idea or been a creep at some point? Are you not entitles to forgiveness if you offer apology and change your actions?
Sure, forgiveness. But that doesn't mean that people will want to shop at a place that might still, albeit secretly, hate them. Boycotts are not always about political pressure, sometimes they're about personal comfort.
I don't want to shop at a store run by bigots, even bigots who have apologized, at least not until they start making generous donations to the charities of whatever peoples they have wronged.
If you go someplace and you feel uncomfortable, don't return. If the food sucks, don't return, if the service, pricing, music, etc suck don't return.
But the word "boycott" means organized denial of trade here, and it's counterproductive if the aim is to make the world a more open and tolerant place.
I'm not typically the person to want to forgive others, mainly because it's proven time and again to be better policy to never forgive and never forget. However when it comes to commerce if I've managed to get the concession I wanted in the first place then forgiveness and continued trade almost always works out.
Why? Because people don't go into business, generally, to fund their extremist Christian fundamentalist retreat and Jew Burning seminars. They do it because they like money more than they dislike most everything else. And little else builds tolerance and even appreciation better than greenbacks.
Maybe the aim is to make other shopkeepers more aware. There's something wrong with a world where people can put up discriminatory signs, then take them down, issue an apology, and expect no bad results for it. If we boycott every time, maybe in the future other stores will think again before doing something that could harm a minority group.
A damn shame. I'm glad folks spoke up...I hope folks take their money elsewhere.
And at the other end of the country, more California bigotry represented at the Miss US contest. Sad to see this person representing my state.
This speaks not to just the heternormative nature of our society but the homosexual panic felt by masculine constructions. Having a Karaoke bar where people can be drunk, merry and sing and be gay (happy) opens the bar to ridicule of being actually gay (homosexual). We have to police how "gay" the people coming in are, because by allowing homosexuality (and dare I say accepting and welcoming) homosexuals, rifts the always teetering masculine power dynamic that can make a person a man or a fag.
You know, I've got to wonder what was on the mind of the owner or the employee that wrote that. You don't want gays to come spend money at your bar? It doesn't make a lick of sense. Heck, if I had a bar, I'd want anyone to come spend money in it.
I think there's a difference between "gay bar" and "bar where some of the customers are gay"...
Maybe they specifically had a lot of people coming in asking for this Diesel bar? Seems pretty unlikely though.
I believe this is a free market ideal, which doesn't happen often.
Let the public decide if they want to go to that bar or not after reading the sign.
NOT THAT I AM EXCUSING THE BEHAVIOR, but (based on what I read on another blog about this) the bar used to be a gay bar, and then changed ownership. Now, the people who bought it should have bought another property if gay customers were going to bother them so much (and, seriously, dude... it's a KARAOKE bar. That by itself brings in a larger-than-average percentage or gay clientele, doesn't it? Or do I hang out with musical theater groups too much?), but at least it puts the sign in a little bit of context. They were not denouncing gays out of the blue, they were trying to point out the bar had changed ownership/format.
Again, this does not excuse the sign, but it changes the situation slightly: the sign appeared out of stupidity (they were trying to let the non-gay customers know they were welcome too?), not out-and-out hatred/homophobia. It was WRONG and it was STUPID, but perhaps not as malicious as it originally seemed.
According to the article at the Chicago Tribune, the owner of the bar told a woman who had her hand on her partner's knee that "we don't do that here." So, I don't think it was to simply point out that the bar had changed hands. He just didn't like gays. And maybe he's one of those types who would buy a gay bar, just to make it not a gay bar.
So a simple "Under new management, introducing Karaoke" sign wouldn't have sufficed?
When management changes at a bar or restaurant most people understand that the vibe and clientele might change up a bit---just as if a sports bar turned into a spoken word joint or something. It's not rocket science. People are smart like that. I honestly don't see the need for the sign---underlining and exclamation points and all---unless their intent was indeed to discriminate.
Also, the article said that it had been a gay bar in the 1990's. Even if it changed to a karaoke bar in 1999, thats 10 years for customers to get used to the new niche.
I don't think intent makes a difference in cases like this. The gay people visiting that bar still have to be worried about the bar's employees being homophobic. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those gay people would stop going to Diesel (which I'm assuming is a gay bar that the other bar is directing gay people to) because it's so close to the homophobic bar.
BTW, my dog's name is Diesel :)
At the very bottom the writing says Diesel is down the something (street I'm guessing, but I can't read it). I took that mean that they were trying to redirect (gay) people to the club they were looking for, assuming that Diesel IS a gay bar.
Still it's a stupid sign and what Tracker is saying above makes it less likley that my first impression was correct.
intent is important here and i dont see the intent to discriminate. an anti gay person would not direct the patrons to a gay bar or another bar. There tends to be tensions when these groups get together and the owner likely wanted to reduce it to help business
I think I disagree with every single sentiment in this comment, but particularly I'd just like to say WTF to the "tensions when these groups get together" bullshit. I hesitate to ask, but what exactly do you mean?
Gays being affectionate and open about their sexuality make some heterosexual people extremely uncomfortable or nauseous, hence they would not go to the bar. Being accessible to homophobic straight folks is better economically than catering to gays.
(But it's still morally reprehensible.)
read the article not just the feministing post. the "tension: is mentioned in the article. that is what i was referring to
When you say "these groups," if you mean that when gay people and straight people get together, there's tension, well, then you're just wrong. If you mean that when homophobes and gay people are together, there's tension, you're right, but obviously that doesn't justify what happened (there's tension when white supremacists and people of colour are together; are you saying that a "white only" bar would be okay?).
the groups i was referring to is the group referenced in the article. the gays and straights that frequent the bar, as mentioned by the author
I don't think intent is important at all. Even lacking intent, they're bad because of their gross ignorance and lack of consideration. If they didn't intend it, it happened because they didn't think enough about how it might affect a marginalized group to not discriminate against them.
Intent is meaningless when we talk about discrimination. Unintended discrimination is just as bad, if not worse, than intended discrimination, and should not be automatically forgiven or dismissed.
Intent is largely irrelevant in matters of discrimination and is completely irrelevant in legal definitions of harassment, discrimination and other infringements against people in protected categories.
intent is central to most forms of discrimination. I think only in wage issues (speaking of the employment context) is intent not really a factor
see: http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/01/minnesota-appeals-court-rejects-sexual-orientation-discrimination-claim-by-lesbian-couple.html
"Plaintiffs in a disparate treatment case are required to prove that the defendant acted with discriminatory intent, or that such intent can be inferred from a facially discriminatory policy."
Holy crap; I'm in downtown Peoria for a conference right now.
Jaja, you can't be serious. There clearly IS intent to discriminate. The sign doesn't say "Gays go away!" but it lets gay folks know their presence in the bar does not go unnoticed and is considered a problem. Gays and straights "get together" in almost every aspect of life: in families, in friendships, in the workplace, etc. Oh, and at bars and restaurants.
i get the same feelings when i have gone to gay bars. yes, these two groups mingle in a variety of settings, but some settings less so as these groups seek to have a space of their own, hence the existence of gay and straight bars.
i meant to add that i dont think the creation and maintenance of these separate spaces is intentionally discriminatory
It's not discriminatory to... discriminate?
are all-girls school discriminating against men?
Is a whites-only establishment discriminating against people of color?
...Oh.
this is veering off topic, and you never answered my question. to answer yours : not necessarily. every group should have the right to their own space.
There don't seem to be many male-only spaces around these days, though...
very true
Derail: FAIL
You're intolerant towards jaja!
Context is meaningless, huh?
what do you mean?
i meant to add that i dont think the creation and maintenance of these separate spaces is intentionally discriminatory
You can't be serious. You're basically justifying separate but equal, which everyone knows is not equal.
Irrespective of the bar owners in this case, many people go to bars to hook up and meet people. Gay bars increase the chance that a person is pursuing someone who is interested in gay sex. This is not "separate but equal" territory but a question of signaling to potential partners the type of sex a person is interested in and attempting to filter the broader group of partners a person is interested with people who are signal their interest in their gender. People separate themselves on these terms because it improves the odds of successfully attracting a mate for both sides.
What I think you are ignoring is that the creation of these "seperate spaces" are due mostly to the fact that gay bars were created so people would have a "safe space to go" which is inherently unfair. To say that gay and "straight" bars (which I don't believe exist) are the same is ignoring the reason why LGBT communities needed their own place. It is completely dicriminatory to say it's not a "gay" bar because that does not change the activities that take place at a bar that qualifies the type of patrons you desire.
you're right. but still straight bars are not inherently discriminatory. this one may be, though it isn't entirely clear. looks like the owner had no problem with gays going there for many years but found the increasing tension bad for business and sort to resolve it. it was not done tastefully, but it isn't clear he is a bigot
The tension that was bad for business was lesbians holding hands and the like. That tension was between gay and homophobic patrons. How about a policy that doesn't allow discrimination in the bar?
The entire world is designed for straight people. Creating a special place that only allows the majority group is inherently discriminatory. It might not be illegal, but it does marginalize the minority group. Gay people already have enough against them without us declaring that they are not welcome in places that are already assumed straight.
since this is a private joint, so what? why can't the owner choose to do so with his own funds? he is trying to make a living and finds certain groups don't get along well together in his bar. if he ran an upscale restaurant that used to be a biker joint and the bikers kept coming back, he would make the same decision he made here.
being a biker is not the same as being gay, so your comparison is pretty disingenuous. if bikers were born to grow up to be bikers and had no choice but to be bikers as any other identity would be extremely destructive to themselves and others, then yes, i would understand your point. but the truth is, bikers choose to be bikers. gay people do not choose to be gay. in fact, i find the comparison of a sexual identity to a chosen lifestyle pretty borderline offensive.
"why can't the owner choose to do so with his own funds?"
because it insults human dignity? because it implies that a certain group of people (who did not choose to be the way they are) are less welcome than others? i understand that you're maintaining a hard economic line here, but there were and are plenty of institutions that profit off bigotry and perpetuating privilege and divisive thinking - do they get off the hook free too? does making a dollar negate the hurt being done to minority communities?
Because it is illegal under Illinois law. Period.
I've NEVER felt out of place or got bad vibes from anyone in a gay bar--I'm straight. In fact the atmosphere seems much nicer and more inclusive.
I wish I lived in the Peoria area. I would get every single gay person I know, tell them to bring 5 friends, and make a night of it at this bar!! We'd have a great time singing Karaoke--I Will Survive, anyone??--and touching each other's knees. Oh, bad idea, gay people have money, too, and this bar doesn't seem to want their homosexual dollars.
I don't want to make light of homophobia here, but these people are just splitting hairs. ALL karaoke bars are gay bars. Every single one that has ever existed. Ever. Gay. Super duper gay. That's what makes karaoke awesome. People who think otherwise, or protest the label don't get it.
Come on America, it's time to come to terms with the fact that most bars are at least kinda gay.
In fact, my living room is currently a gay bar cause I'm drinking a beer and watching Rachel Maddow with my dog.
(Okay, now I'm making light...)
um no.
I think what a couple people are trying to say that since there is such a thing as a "gay bar," it should be possible to say that an establishment is a "general bar" rather than a "gay bar," without being accused of homophobia. I agree, BUT, that's not what's going on here. The article makes it clear that the intent is "gays not welcome." Especially since, as has been pointed out, it was a gay bar in 1999.
Yes, but how many people are reading the article? From the sign, and its history as a gay bar, it is a perfectly natural reaction to just see the sign, read the blurb here and think they are trying to advertise that they are no longer a "gay bar", but now a "Karaoke bar", where gay people might be welcome, but where the main aim is singing songs terribly, not meeting gay people. The blurb only says that (some) people took it to mean "Gays not welcome" not that it was intended to say "Gays not welcome".
I suppose it should be emphasized that the article makes it clear the owner intervened against public displays of homosexual affection in the bar. Which strongly tilts the perception and assumptions.
What is up with all these karaoke bars are totally gayzoors comment. Unless one karaoke walks up to another karaoke is all "hey baby let's bone" i'm not seeing the gay part.
comments?
i've been having gay sex in that bar since i was a teenager! when i come home for the holidays i go there with my gay friends, and we like to gay it up while singing horrible show tunes. Peoria is not a friendly place for queers. Since one of peoria's oldest gay bars burnt down about ten years ago (an arson that went un-investigated) its been really hard to find a home. there are couple of other places to go, but none of them make me feel proud of my sexuality and don't make me feel safe in my hometown. its just sad and pathetic that this shit is allowed to happen.
Is there an equation one must know in order to determine a bar is a "gay" bar? Was the owner ok with two gay people but three just put him over the edge?