Define “upsetting” and “hateful”
Opposing accounts are still opposing.
The National Theatre has denied accusations it refused to serve members of the LGBT community in its Green Room bar due to “gender or sexuality” discrimination.
No, it was due to “not flattering trans delusions” discrimination.
A group of lesbian women, straight women and men visited the bar on Friday – the night before London’s Pride celebrations – and claim they were refused service and asked to leave by staff.
The “and men” is kind of interesting. I guess men are welcome no matter what and don’t have to fill out the form stating whether they’re gay or straight? But women do? Because _____?
The National Theatre confirmed it was investigating the claims although say it had “multiple witnesses” who could corroborate the group were asked to leave following a “series of disturbances”.
It insisted the “clothing, gender or sexuality” of the women played no part in the “reluctant” decision, which was a result of “refusal to put placards out of sight that featured messages which upset other customers” and “abusive behaviour” toward staff.
However, speaking to i, Anne refuted claims the group had taken placards into Green Room or acted in an abusive manner.
While she and a few others were served drinks upon their arrival that evening, she said friends who came shortly after were refused service.
The group were then approached by a member of the management team who asked them to leave.
Anne explained: “The duty manager came and spoke to a few of us and said that there were trans staff coming on duty at the next shift change who could find our t-shirts upsetting and could be seen as hateful.”
Well anything could be seen as hateful, especially by people who spend their entire waking lives looking for pretexts to call things hateful. But if we decide that T shirts defining what a lesbian is are hateful, then aren’t we taking a huge leap back into plain old homophobia?
National Theatre security staff and police were called soon after the exchange, Anne said.
She added: “At no point were we abusive to staff, we were very polite and respectful.
“The NT have defamed and discriminated against us which goes against our protected characteristics as set out in the EA 2010.”
Yes but all that has been superseded by the new dispensation in which the potential conjectured possible future upset of trans staff who haven’t arrived for their shift yet is infinitely more important than the right of lesbians to sit on chairs and consume drinks. Better be safe than sorry.
In a statement, the National Theatre’s joint chief executive Lisa Burger said: “While investigations into the incident are ongoing, multiple witnesses corroborate that a group who attended the Green Room restaurant on Friday 5 July were ultimately asked to leave the premises as a result of a series of disturbances.
“These began with their refusal to put placards out of sight that featured messages which upset other customers and contravened our visiting policy, and culminated in abusive behaviour towards our staff.
“The clothing, gender or sexuality of the group was not a factor in the decision, which was reluctantly taken on the basis of the group’s behaviour and what was said. The National Theatre must be an inclusive place for everyone, and that means asking visitors to conduct themselves in a way that respects that principle.”
The National Theatre must be an inclusive place for everyone, and that means ordering lesbians to get out before the trans staff arrive for their shift.
When atheists have been asked to leave places because something atheist about them (t-shirts or not bowing their head to pray or just being there while not believing?), it has always been cast as the atheist creating a disturbance. In most cases, it was the people who were upset by the presence of the atheists who caused a disturbance and behaved in an obnoxious manner, but the atheists were asked to leave because their very presence was “causing” the commotion, not the inability of the others to witness people believing things they don’t agree with.
This may very well be the same thing. It is definitely possible that the lesbians could have been totally polite, and there have been disturbances, which is then interpreted as the lesbians causing the disturbance because they dared to be open and proud lesbians in public, while believing that transwomen are not actually lesbians because they are men. So, they may, in that context, have “caused” the disturbance, but not really. It was caused by people unable to accept anyone disagreeing with them.
Whether we will ever clearly know the answer depends on whether Skeletor decides to come into the thread and clear it up for us. /s
“Hey, you atheists need to clear out. Jeff’s shift starts at 5:00, and he won’t like your T-shirts.”
I also thought of that analogy: atheists are welcome as long as they’re not the “ shrill” kind of atheists who flaunt their atheism in front of people who don’t agree. Or, perhaps, it’s fine if you’re gay — just don’t bring up divisive opinions on gay marriage.
“A group of lesbian women, straight women and men…”
That’s just piss-poor writing. It can be read as [lesbian women]+[straight women]+[men]. It can also be read as [lesbian women]+[straight {women + men}].
That’s the problem with lists. People write them so poorly and have such generally shitty grasp of grammar that it’s not easy to tell what the original intent was. Did the writer intend this as a three-item list? Is “straight” to be distributed across “women and men”? Would the writer recognize that doing so makes the whole list grammatically invalid? Fuck if I know.
#2 Ben: “Hey, you atheists need to clear out. Jeff’s shift starts at 5:00, and he won’t like your T-shirts.”
That reminds me of when some members of Ex-Muslims of America were denied entry to a Hilton Starbucks because of their shirts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuXseuHyko
Spoiler: the shirts were as banal as you can imagine. They said, “I’m an Ex-Muslim. Ask me why.”
I saw the video and saw no disturbances. And this sentence “multiple witnesses corroborate that a group who attended the Green Room restaurant on Friday 5 July were ultimately asked to leave the premises as a result of a series of disturbances” would be more truthful if it said multiple people saw that a group was asked to leave but until those people come forward and publicly describe that “series of disturbances” they did not know why the group was asked to leave.