Were They Right To Be Offended?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425026/Customers-anger-bar-staff-hand-receipt-marked-marked-gay-guys-friend.html

If they were, was it appropriate for them to take it to the papers and even for sexual equality charity Stonewall, and York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Forum to become involved?

/// A spokesperson from the York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Forum said: 'Clearly this is an unacceptable and wrong stereotype made by a member of staff at the bar, but it is also a mistake which could cause great offence and upset to anyone involved, regardless of their sexuality. ///

/// 'We would welcome any business to contact us should they feel their staff require training on issues of equality, where we would be more than happy to assist.' ///

[boxtops]

I think it's inappropriate - where would you draw the description line? "Ugly couple who need to wash their hair"? "Fat couple"?

[katerich48]

I think its over the top.... its not as if gay is a derogatory term like bender or shirt lifter.. Its just saying he's with a gay man... If it had been me I would have laughed especially if my friend wasn't gay and I would hope he would too.

[woofgang]

well if the local LGBT group was asked for a comment (which i bet they were) then what else would you expect them to say? Its a pretty stupid way of identifying customers as the person she was handing over to might not have thought the blokes in question looked gay. Surely a better way to describe would have been by clothing or hair colour?...personally I would be irked, not by the misjudgement but by the fact that the staff member had even considered what my sexual preference might be.

[Mamyalynne]

I would have laughed it off, said I needed a drink for the shock and suggested they install a better method of guiding meals to customers.

[youngmafbog]

Stupid mistake by probably a person from the lower echelons of the brain factory. I doubt it was deliberate and I doubt it was meant to be offensive so totally over the top by going to the papers and stonewall et al to get involved.

Until we legislate against thickness this will always happen.

Gay guys stools eh, conjours up all sorts !

[jomifl]

I would take it as a reminder to review my wardrobe..
People often make wrong assumptions but if it goes no further what's the problem.

[Baldric]

I would not be best pleased if it had happened to me, but neither would I have had a hissy fit about it and gone to the papers, some people just want to be offended.
I do think though that when I got home I would have a chuckle and a serious look at my image.
As for the LGBT Forum, any publicity etc . . . . !

[ludwig]

// ..for sexual equality charity Stonewall, and York Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Forum to become involved? //

They've only 'become involved' because the Daily Mail phoned them up and asked them for a comment.

It baffles me how the papers get hold of these stories in the first place though.

[anotheoldgit]

boxtops

/// I think it's inappropriate - where would you draw the description line? "Ugly couple who need to wash their hair"? "Fat couple"? ///

No because these would be personally offensive.

Are you saying that it is similar offensive for two straight persons to be described as gay?

[joko]

its a daft way to describe them anyway - unless they were dressed like daffydd from little britain its not really helpful for a waiter scanning the room looking for the person who ordered.

they should have a coded system, with just physical descriptions, such as hair colour, clothing colour, skin colour etc

nothing wrong with writing something like - (2m, Br ha, wh sk, re co, at bar) - for 2 males, brown hair, white skin, red coat at bar - no-one would know what that meant really and even if they did they could not be offended if its true.
not sure all that info is even needed, but if they do because theyre busy then

[ummmm]

Yes, they have every right to be offended.

[Zeuhl]

It's just rude (and stupid) to make assumptions about people's personal inclinations based on superficial information and stereotypes

Catholic Guys (they were wearing crucifixes and had irish accents)

National Front Guys (had Cross of St George tee-shirts and shaved heads)

Leftie Guys (had beards and ordered muesli)

I think most heterosexual people would baulk at being thought of as Gay not because there is anything wrong with being Gay per se, but because it calls into question their sexuality and the signals they are putting out

[Sqad]

LOL....LOL.....

[anneasquith]

£3 for a coke, that's offensive !

[anotheoldgit]

joko

/// nothing wrong with writing something like - (2m, Br ha, wh sk, re co, at bar) - for 2 males, brown hair, white skin, red coat at bar - no-one would know what that meant really and even if they did they could not be offended if its true. ///

Oh I don't know, if that had been "2 MALES, BLACK HAIR, BLACK SKIN, RED COAT AT BAR", there would have been some offended, "why mention the colour of one's skin"? would be asked.

[sandyRoe]

I wouldn't be happy if a receipt described me as a 'miserable old baldy'.
Could that bar not just number the tables?

[leahbee]

They should have laught it off.
Something to tell their mates about at the pub.

[Sipowicz]

....or the gay bar?

[ummmm]

Why should they laugh it off if they didn't find it funny?

[rockyracoon]

What happened to table numbers?