I apologise for perhaps re-opening a can of worms, but this article reminded me of the recent fuss about the legislation to prevent gay people from being turned away from hotels and other public places. It was, if I remember correctly, generally seen as outrageous that someone could ban someone from such an institution based on their sexual orientation.
Down-Under, things are evidently a little bit different.
"The Victorian state civil and administrative tribunal ruled the Peel Hotel could ban patrons based on their sexual orientation."
So, where are the Human Rights and Civil Liberties folk, who should be decrying such an outrageous ruling? Not out protesting, because they "welcome the decision".
Now if you read the whole article, it is apparent that there has evidently been some trouble and this should be prevented. But to attempt to solve the problem by banning heterosexuals just defies belief. It's 'bigoted' and 'intolerant', you might say and as a heterosexual man I feel that there is a grossly unfair stereotype being upheld. We've all heard the arguments which begin "being gay doesn't mean that..." and so in the same vein I should point out that being straight doesn't mean that I will behave abusively (towards anyone) in a pub.
The issue of whether or not it is right to ban someone based on sexual orientation is (or should be the same) whether that orientation is straight or otherwise. The fact that Civil Liberties groups (and others) are not opposing, but even supporting this ruling screams hypocrisy and as ever makes a mockery of the supposed 'liberty' and 'tolerance' they like to think they stand for.
I think I will end by considering this:
"Civil liberties groups said homosexuals should be allowed to relax in places without fear of bullying or intimidation."
Fine. And Catholics should be allowed to make choices about adoption which fit in with their beliefs and religious conscience without fear of bullying or intimidation.