Treating the bar as a night out turns somebody else's refuge into a spectacle

The argument

The second argument concerns conduct rather than numbers. Proponents of this position argue that a recognisable pattern has developed in which groups of straight visitors treat a gay bar as a destination with a theme, and that this changes what the venue is for the people who depend on it. The complaint, they argue, is not about the presence of straight people in general but about arriving as an audience. Proponents argue the specifics are familiar to regular patrons: large groups that come to watch rather than to take part, photographs taken of other customers, comments on how brave or fabulous the place is, and the assumption that the staff and patrons are there to provide a memorable evening. They add that a particular version of this involves groups who have booked the bar for a celebration and treat its patrons as part of the entertainment hired for the night. On this account the problem is that a refuge and a curiosity cannot occupy the same room, and the patrons who came for the former find themselves inside the latter. Proponents argue that there is a further and more practical cost. Where a substantial share of a room is straight, patrons cannot tell who is a fellow customer and who is visiting, which means an approach that would have been unremarkable now carries a risk of embarrassment or hostility, and some regulars respond by not approaching anyone. They argue this removes the bar's original function altogether. The argument concludes that because treating the venue as somewhere to visit rather than somewhere to belong takes from its patrons the thing it exists to provide, straight people should not go to gay bars.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics answer that every objection here is to behaviour, and that the remedy for bad behaviour is to address the behaviour, which bars do routinely through staff, house rules and ejection, rather than to exclude a category of person who might behave that way. They add that the pattern described is not confined to straight visitors, since gay patrons also photograph strangers and arrive in large celebrating groups. Critics further argue that the uncertainty point assumes approaching strangers is the venue's central purpose, which many patrons would dispute, and that in any case misreading someone is an ordinary hazard of any bar.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The behaviour described is real but is a matter of conduct, and bars address conduct through staff, house rules and ejection rather than by excluding a category of customer. [Rejecting P2] Photographing strangers and arriving in large celebrating groups are not confined to straight visitors, so the conduct does not track the category the conclusion targets. [Rejecting P3] The uncertainty point assumes approaching strangers is the venue's central purpose, which many patrons would dispute, and misreading someone is an ordinary hazard of any bar. [Rejecting C] At most it follows that visitors should behave as guests rather than as an audience, not that they should stay away.