Hell No, No Gay Kissing In My Pub

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,290
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Gee, I would assume he doesn't allow straight kissing in his pub, right? Yeah. I wonder how he defines inappropriate behavior. That's an interesting question-what are your personal standards about PDA, what is appropriate and where? Obviously that is different from what a business can be allowed to get away with, and if you're going to have a set of standards as to what you consider appropriate in your business they have to be applied equally to all people.

If this is true, well it just makes me very sad and angry that something like that can happen to someone because of a kiss. I don't know why he waited so long to file a lawsuit, not that it's even relevant to the case.

A gay kiss spurred violent ouster from bar, lawsuit says

By Matt Viser, Globe Staff | March 1, 2007

A Boston man is accusing Jeremiah Foley, a member of the family that runs the well-known J.J. Foley's pubs in Boston, of assaulting him and physically throwing him out of the chain's bar in the Leather District because he was kissing another man.

Martin T. Keenan says in a civil lawsuit filed this week in Suffolk Superior Court that Foley grabbed and forcibly removed him from the bar in September 2005 and in the process broke one of Keenan's fingers and caused permanent disfigurement.

The action was "extreme and outrageous in a civilized society," the lawsuit says.

The five-page lawsuit says that Keenan suffered emotional distress and that the broken finger required surgery. The lawsuit did not specify the damages sought by Keenan.

Foley said yesterday that he was unaware of the lawsuit and that he did not remember an incident like the one described. He added that he normally works at J.J. Foley's on East Berkeley Street in the South End.

"That's a long time ago," he said. "I don't recall."

Foley said he has not been served with court papers informing him of the suit, but said he would probably hire a lawyer to handle the case.

He said his family's establishments, which draw a large cross section of people, are open to all, and he doesn't ask or care about his patrons' sexual orientation.

"It's none of my business," Foley said.

He said he occasionally has to remove patrons for "inappropriate behavior," but he did not recall the two men kissing. Asked whether he would allow two men to kiss in one of his establishments, Foley said: "Hell no. What would you think?"

Keenan's lawyer, Adam A. Rowe , declined to elaborate on the lawsuit, which includes charges of negligence, assault and battery, and emotional distress.

"It is what it is," he said. "He was there at the restaurant. He was forcibly removed and suffered injuries that required surgery."

He said the kissing was consensual.

Rowe declined to make his client available to discuss the lawsuit, and Keenan could not be located yesterday by phone or at the address listed in court documents.

The injuries have caused "permanent scarring and disfigurement" and has inhibited his "ability to work and earn income," the lawsuit says. "His ability to enjoy life has been permanently and severely damaged."

No court date has been set.

The J.J. Foley's pubs have been institutions in Boston for years. The Leather District location is typically frequented by a variety of customers, including famous musicians performing in the city.

The South End bar, founded in 1909, has been a storied watering hole frequented by late-shift workers, including cops and reporters from Boston's newspaper row, and such familiar Boston figures as former mayor Raymond L. Flynn.
 
To be honest if 2 gays were kissing infront of me i would feel a bit uncomfortable, saying that i always feel uncomfortable when people are kissing infront of me.
 
It's not the bartender, he's a member of the Foley family. Unless he works there as a bartender. And being uncomfortable with gay PDA is never a justification for anyone to assault someone, if that indeed did happen. It goes beyond all credibility to believe that no heterosexuals have ever kissed in that place.
 
No, because two guys kissing in any sort of "joking" way is perfectly acceptable. Real love and affection is just so scary and offensive and gross.

And that would be two STRAIGHT guys, it's never acceptable apparently for two gay guys to kiss.
 
Last edited:
The assault may be undue but I think that allowing lesbians and hetero couples to kiss but not gay men should fall within the scope of the owners rights.
 
A_Wanderer said:
The assault may be undue but I think that allowing lesbians and hetero couples to kiss but not gay men should fall within the scope of the owners rights.

How do you justify that? If gay people can't kiss then straight people can't either, or else it's discrimination. Private business or not. Gay people shouldn't have to go to a gay bar to be able to kiss, even though I'm sure even in 2007 most of them do because they live in fear of certain situations. It's a kiss for God's sake, they're not having sex or anything remotely similar. I have seen straight people practically have sex in public (and have seen it once in a parking lot of a park). Where is the outrage about that?

And the assault is undue, there's no may be.

I assume gay people can still kiss goodbye in a place such as an airport-should we not allow that either?
 
A_Wanderer said:
The assault may be undue but I think that allowing lesbians and hetero couples to kiss but not gay men should fall within the scope of the owners rights.

or letting just white people in...
 
A_Wanderer said:
The assault may be undue but I think that allowing lesbians and hetero couples to kiss but not gay men should fall within the scope of the owners rights.



actually, i agree.

the owner is an idiot and a bigot, but he's perfectly entitled to run an idiotic and bigoted establishment.

however, what would we say if he threw out a black man kissing a white woman? would that cause any legal repercussions?
 
Well that's my point-it's discrimination in both cases. I can't believe anyone in 2007 would think there would be no repercussions for throwing out a couple of mixed race. But it's within an owner's rights to do that to a gay person?
 
Irvine511 said:
however, what would we say if he threw out a black man kissing a white woman? would that cause any legal repercussions?

shouldn't both situations cause legal repercussions? or am i living in an idealist cloud and frolicking with unicorns? i would think an owner would be in big trouble for throwing out anybody that wasn't breaking any sort of law, assualting somebody, disturbance of peace, etc.
 
Irvine511 said:

actually, i agree.

the owner is an idiot and a bigot, but he's perfectly entitled to run an idiotic and bigoted establishment.

This brings up an interesting question. How can a private establishment get away with discriminating their clientel, but not their employees?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


This brings up an interesting question. How can a private establishment get away with discriminating their clientel, but not their employees?

Aren't employee rights usually more well defined in legislation through labour codes and employment standards?

With clients/customers, it's more aribitrary, isn't it? Private businesses discriminate based on other criteria all the time: "no shoes, no shirt...noooo dice." Or whatever. Not to mention all those snooty private golf clubs.

But, yeah, i don't think they can discriminate based on criteria that goes against state or federal statute, which, i hope, would include racial, religious, gender, etc., protections.
 
Last edited:
Judah said:


Aren't employee rights usually more well defined in legislation through labour codes and employment standards?

With clients/customers, it's more aribitrary, isn't it? Private businesses discriminate based on other criteria all the time: "no shoes, no shirt...noooo dice." Or whatever. Not to mention all those snooty private golf clubs.

But, yeah, i don't think they can discriminate based on criteria that goes against state or federal statute, which, i hope, would include racial, religious, gender, etc., protections.

Well that's what I'm curious about...

Are there set standards to clients like there are with employees?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Well that's what I'm curious about...

Are there set standards to clients like there are with employees?

I guess it would be a country's/state-jurisdiction's basic equality/human-rights laws.

Like what others are saying in previous posts, the kissing males being kicked out would have a great case (civil court or otherwise), i would think, if they could cite examples of kissing hetero-couples not being kicked out.

Similar to the cases mentioned in this story:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-05-07-cracker-barrel_x.htm
 
Irvine511 said:
however, what would we say if he threw out a black man kissing a white woman? would that cause any legal repercussions?

I always think about this when these kinds of cases come up. It wasn't so long ago that my boyfriend and I would have been discriminated against in exactly this manner and people would have called it justifiable (actually, there probably still are places where we might not want to be too "obvious" but thankfully that hasn't been the case so far where we live). It's depressing that the rules of human decency don't extend to everyone. :|
 
redhotswami said:
i wonder if 2 women would've been kicked out for kissing.

Bet you a hundred bucks they wouldn't. Actually it would all depend on the women wouldn't it. If they were bulldyke types I bet the guy would of kicked them out - but if they were hot...NO WAY!!!
 
i dont like any public displays of affection. holding hands or having a small snog is not a big deal, but really, that's my opinion and it relates only to me. i dont really care if i see two people have sex in public. if they dont care, i'm not going to. i just wont do it myself. i cant bring myself to be bothered by what others do.

i reckon the guy in the suit is having himself on with his permanent loss of ability to enjoy life. sue yes, for discrimination, but not immeasurable claims like this. suing over personal distress is another issue though, and not one i disagree with. i just have trouble agreeing with it at certain times.
 
Judah said:


Private businesses discriminate based on other criteria all the time: "no shoes, no shirt...noooo dice." Or whatever.

But, yeah, i don't think they can discriminate based on criteria that goes against state or federal statute, which, i hope, would include racial, religious, gender, etc., protections.


You are correct, Judah. People who go barefoot or don't wear shirts are not a "protected class". However, there are different levels of tests that apply to certain protected classes.

The highest level is called Strict Scrutiny and it is applied to classes such as Race or National Origin. Other classes, such as Sex/Gender or Age, enjoy less protection under the Intermediate Scrutiny test. And still other classes, such as Sexual Orientation, enjoy the least amount of protection under the 3rd test, rational review, which is normally easily overcome.

Most, if not all, of the 50 states have adopted some form of the U.S. Constitution's clauses that deal with Equal Protection.
 
Last edited:
I hope the day where two dudes drunkenly making out in a (non-gay) bar goes entirely unnoticed comes real soon. :sigh:

That's a very good point wondering if they would have been kicked out if they were both ladies. :hmm:

I'd be willing to bet that two morbidly obese women sharing a kiss would have been told to leave, too.
 
Judah said:


Would those owners rights extend just for sexual orientation or for other criteria also?
If taken fully then yes; sexual orientation, race, political beliefs, religion etc.

The customer is electing to enter the bar on the proviso that they abide by the owners enforced standards. Does this make this case of violence and discrimination okay - no.
 
Irvine511 said:




actually, i agree.

the owner is an idiot and a bigot, but he's perfectly entitled to run an idiotic and bigoted establishment.

however, what would we say if he threw out a black man kissing a white woman? would that cause any legal repercussions?
If the Klan wanted to open bars and enforced such a rule I wouldn't try and and use government mandated discrimination law to stop them. Of course people get a lot more touchy over race - but if we were to be consistent and even handed then that could happen.

Of course if that happened the media attention and picketing would be great.
 
A_Wanderer said:
If the Klan wanted to open bars and enforced such a rule I wouldn't try and and use government mandated discrimination law to stop them. Of course people get a lot more touchy over race - but if we were to be consistent and even handed then that could happen.

Of course if that happened the media attention and picketing would be great.

I agree. Discrimination in any form is disgusting, but a private business is a private business. Let them be found guilty in the court of public opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom