Gay City Council workers ban their straight colleagues from Christmas party

[Ian David]

Banned from gay festivities
By Lawrence Marzouk

Gay council workers have been criticised for banning their straight colleagues and friends from their Christmas party.

Leading gay activists questioned the decision, which emerged last night, by the Brighton and Hove City Council LGBT Workers Forum. Experts warned it may even have been illegal.

Peter Tatchell, a spokesman for gay rights group OutRage!, said: "I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea of excluding heterosexual employees and their friends. "Inclusivity is always best but if some groups of employees want to hold their own Christmas parties I am not going to criticise that.

<snip>

The LGBT Workers' Forum party on December 6 at the V2 nightclub offered free entry to the buffet and a cabaret show. But straight people were warned to stay away. Posters for the event placed across council buildings stated: "The LGBT Workers Forum and its events are designed to be a safe space for Brighton and Hove City Council LGBT workers.

"Please respect that this event is aimed at LGBT workers, their partners and LGBT friends."

<snip>

Arthur Law, co-ordinator of the city's LGBT community forum Spectrum, said he believed the backlash against the party could be explained by the controversial prosecution of city councillor Peter Willows for calling gay men paedophiles.

More:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1104671.0.banned_from_gay_festivities.php

[originalpckelly]

1. Would we allow straight people to ban gay people from a Christmas party?

Why is this any different?

*You should post this in one of the big time forums as well, wouldn't have even seen it if it weren't for the "latest" bar. Thanks for posting this, it's a very interesting matter.

[ThomCat]

6. Straight people don't have to worry about retaliation for being

straight. There may be GLBT people who would not come to that party if it meant getting outed.

It seems like a reasonable request to me.

[mitchtv]

22. Those poor, poor strates.

being not invited to a gay employees' "safe" Xmas party, at an off prem club.I'll bet if one came he'd get beat up in the parking lot. Such persecution!:wtf: :nopity: Gays are routinely not invited to loads of strate affairs. , and, often scheduled to work Xmas , since they have "no families" I was a union stewart, I know.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. why woudl they do that? its not very nice.

[ThomCat]

7. To protect those who need to be closeted?

Or to avoid being the "freak show" for straight co-workers?
Or to give them a chance to talk honestly about their experiences with straight co-workers without those co-workers being there?

I can think of a bunch of very good, legitimate reasons.

[LostinVA]

8. Me too, including all of those

[mondo joe]

9. If they need to be that closeted they shouldn't be at a LGBT party anyway.

They have no good excuse for being exclusionary.

[ThomCat]

10. Then what party should they go to?

The whole point of an LGBT organization is to be there for THEM, not their straight coworkers.
:shrug:

[mondo joe]

11. They can go to whatever work parties there are. Or they can have a

personal party.

For that matter, if they are a membership organization I see no reason to not simply limit the party to members and their families, which would effectively get to what they seemed to be trying for, but without using exclusion based on orientation.

[ThomCat]

12. Limiting attendance to members

IS excluding straight people. So you just found a catch 22.

It sounds to me like they did want it to be just members.

AS for going to whatever work parties there are, well, what's the good of that if they have to stay in the closet at all of them? Where's the party where they can relax and be themselves if not at the GLBT party?

[mondo joe]

16. Then they really should have said MEMBERS ONLY.

I don't really see the point in being closeted AND part of a LGBT group.

And I REALLY don't see the point of a LGBT group acting as a big old closet.

[ThomCat]

17. Then it's a good thing you've never run an organization for GLBTs.

x(

Maybe if you had, you'd understand a bit more.

[mondo joe]

18. Maybe so. I certainly wouldn't run one as a closet club.

If you want to be CLOSETED at work you'd be well advised not to join the group GAY CLUB.

[mockmonkey]

4. Maybe I'm reading this wrong

I don't see where it was stated that no one else was welcome. I'm reading it as it letting people know that it is a LGBT event to let others know what to expect. People who are uncomfortable in that environment of people openly expressing who they are should probably not attend.

It might have been poorly worded. It doesn't say LGBT ONLY or straight people stay away and it does say "and LGBT friends." I would like to know if they turned anyone away.

One other thing, the sign wasn't posted on the property but across the street.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. i re read it and thats what i got out of it too..i think maybe the article writer

has a biased subject line.

[DarkTirade]

13. Is this a ban or just a request?

There's a big difference between 'we don't want your kind here' and "Please respect that this event is aimed at LGBT workers, their partners and LGBT friends.", which was on the sign.
Unless there's something else there that I didn't notice, I don't see a problem with it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. i realized after i re read this..that it was just a badly titled/written article

[William769]

15. I don't see any banning here.

How could it have been Illegal? Some people get their panties in such a bunch sometimes over nothing. :eyes:

[NMMNG]

19. What ban?

"Please respect that this event is aimed at LGBT workers, their partners and LGBT friends."


It's not a ban on straights, it's just asking them to respect who the event is aimed at. I can't imagine there were any bouncers demanding atendees prove their "gay cred" at the door.

[Ian David]

20. You're right. It looks like the person writing the article had an agenda. n/t

[mitchtv]

21. I have no problem with it

Whatsoever. Every event is a strate event. It was at a off premises club, was it not?

[Jamastiene]

23. At what point did anyone other than the biased

writer of the story say it was a LGBT only event? It just said it was for "LGBT workers, their partners and LGBT friends." Last time I checked, that could include staight people as well. I'm not getting the writer's outrage. :shrug:

And that city councillor can fuck off. People like him who are always calling gay men pedophiles is why so many people think such bad things about the LBGT community in general. He needs a damn dictionary to learn some simple word definitions.