A venue that depends on custom cannot afford to turn paying people away

The argument

Proponents of this position begin with the commercial position of the venues themselves. A bar is a business with rent, staff, licences and suppliers, and proponents argue that the gay bars which have closed in recent years closed because not enough people came through the door rather than because the wrong people did. On this account a policy of discouraging straight custom is one a bar can only afford when its core clientele is large enough to fill it, and in most towns it is not. Proponents argue that the reason the clientele has thinned is itself worth noticing. Where meeting other gay people once required a particular room in a particular street, it can now be done from a phone, and where the bar was the only place one could be open about a relationship, many other venues are now unremarkable about it. The effect is that the specialised bar has lost much of its former monopoly, and proponents argue that a venue in that position survives by broadening its appeal rather than by narrowing it. They add that the loss falls hardest on exactly the people the restrictive position means to protect. Proponents argue that when a town's gay bar closes there is no substitute for the patrons who do rely on it: the people who are not out at home, the ones who do not use apps, the older customers for whom it has been the one fixed point for decades. On this account keeping the doors open to everyone is what keeps them open at all, and so straight people should be welcome in gay bars rather than discouraged from them.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that a bar which survives by becoming indistinguishable from any other bar has not been saved, because what closed was the thing its patrons valued even though the premises stayed open. They add that the argument proves too much, since on the same reasoning any venue with a particular clientele, including women-only and faith-based spaces, should broaden until its character disappears. Critics also dispute the causal story, arguing that straight custom can itself drive core patrons away, so the broadening presented as a rescue may be part of what thinned the clientele in the first place.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Bars close for many reasons including rents, licensing and redevelopment, and a venue that survives by losing its character has not preserved what its patrons valued. [Rejecting P2] That people can meet elsewhere is a reason the remaining venues matter more to those who still need them, not a reason to dilute them. [Rejecting P3] The patrons named as most dependent are precisely those most affected when the room fills with visitors, so the premise cuts against the conclusion it is offered for. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that such bars need more custom, which could come from the patrons they are for rather than from outside.