Reader comments · Apologies after gay students ejected from bar ‘for kissing’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Apologies after gay students ejected from bar ‘for kissing’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Pink pound power always works.

  2. We’re not anti-gay but please don’t perform any acts that can be percieved as gay.

    1. That’s not really fair..

      The owners quickly extended an invite and at least were willing to resolve matters. It takes a lot of guts to do that.

      Kudos to both parties for dealing with this responsibly.

      1. edwarddwoodjr 24 Aug 2011, 2:58pm

        Yeah, they “quickly extended an invite” to resolve the matter that was causing harm to their establishment. That wasn’t guts. That was business. Sure it’s nice that a resolution was reached that satisfied both parties. That’s truly a good thing. But don’t make the owners out to be victims of their own prejudice. (As someone else pointed out, there was no male/female couple thrown out for kissing. OF COURSE they’re not anti-gay… when they’re caught.)

        1. I’m not sure how you can summise that because of one over zealous bouncer that the owners of the establishment are homophobic, where in the article does it stipulate that?

          It’s important to fight homophobia whenever it’s encountered true – but this should be done with objectivity and a clear head.

          I don’t know what the owners beliefs are, I don’t profess to know. All I can go by is what’s written here – not by guesswork.

          1. Well I agree. The bouncer was clearly an idiot and unsuitable for the job he was doing.

          2. edwarddwoodjr 24 Aug 2011, 5:29pm

            Understood and partially agree. But why are employers no longer responsible for their employees’ actions? Are there no standards set? Is there no training? Article after article involves employees acting disgracefully on behalf of the owners. Guess this is a wake-up call for this particular establishment… since recent history doesn’t seem to have been. You’re right about not knowing what the owners’ beliefs are. But I believe they should avoid hiring those in opposition in order to prevent this; and to train accordingly. I appreciate your response and the good points you made.

    2. Exactly! The couple did nothing wrong. Have a straight couple ever been told to stop PDA????

      1. Hello World 25 Aug 2011, 8:14pm

        “The bouncer was clearly an idiot and unsuitable for the job he was doing.”

        That sounds exactly like every bouncer I’ve ever met.

  3. Jock S. Trap 24 Aug 2011, 11:49am

    A terrible case. So what if they were kissing. What is good to come out of this is despite what we read in the papers about homophobic young adults.children we do have many more young adults growing in society who feel this kind of action and homophobia is not acceptable.

    Thats is pleasing to hear.

  4. c’mon … it’s because they were students wasn’t it … ;-)

  5. Well, at least the incident was publicised and the owner backed down. Shows the power of the new media.

    1. Perhaps one of the law abiding LBGT brigade threatened to hack his computer.
      (see US bride refused a dress thread)

      1. DJ Sheepiesheep 25 Aug 2011, 9:47am

        Well Keith, I would have suggested it, only pubs don’t usually sell beer online! However, for businesses of this type that rely upon large numbers of visitors I would recommend super gluing its locks so it can’t open.

        Or maybe you think it would be appropriate to eject a person from a pub for expressing Christian views?

        1. LOL exactly DJ Sheepiesheep!!

        2. I am condenning criminal action. It appears you and your ilk encourage it.

          1. DJ Sheepiesheep 25 Aug 2011, 7:41pm

            I do, and so does my elk!

    2. @Rehan –

      “A Facebook page which was set up to promote a boycott of the bar gained 5,000 members in a matter of days, backed by the student unions of CIT and University College Cork.”

      You’re right… young people have come to realize the power they have in social networking, and they know their rights.

  6. I want to know more about what happened that BOTH parties agreed that “mistakes were made all around”. What did the couple do that they agreed was a mistake?

    What I’m hearing is, everyone agreed that the gay couple shouldn’t have been kissing, or at least shouldn’t have kissed the second time, and that even if they did the management should have called them down in a more appropriate manner.

    Is this the agreement that we’re supposed to take comfort in? I think that EVERYTHING about such an agreement is insulting, offensive and absurd! If the gay couple was doing nothing but kissing, just like any straight couple, they had nothing to apologize for and did nothing that was a “mistake”.

    I’m very troubled by how this all turned out and unfortunately no one wants to talk further so that we can know the facts.

    It sounds like “play along to get along” to me.


    1. edwarddwoodjr 24 Aug 2011, 2:59pm


      1. But we don’t know the context. It’s unfair to assume the owners are homophbic without due evidence. It was the bouncer that got shirty – no-one else.

        It’s like looking at a photograph of someone and making a snap judgement. You wouldn’t do it then, why would you do it now?

    2. Well said Hayden, I agree totally.

    3. The couple in question is very young though – 19 and 21.
      If they were not out of the closet to their family then they would be trying to avoid publicity.

      They are much younger than the couple in Soho some months ago.

      1. That’s my fear of why the COUPLE apologized and didn’t want any publicity.

        Why is no one explaining what the couple “agreed” they had done wrong?

        @Mendirin, there’s a difference between not wanting to read something into the situation and not wanting to know anything more about a situation so that one can make a more informed judgement about what happened. Contrary to your accusations, I don’t see people reading things into the situation but I see you, for some reason (perhaps you’re an employee or PR representative of the pub) wanting people to just forget about it and move on. I’m not willing to do that without more information, like WHAT DID THE COUPLE DO THAT THEY “ADMITTED WAS A MISTAKE”? And did they admit to such a mistake just to make the whole thing go away because they aren’t out to their parents and family or because they really believe they made a mistake. And what was that mistake? Kissing in public? Not stopping when asked? Those aren’t mistakes, so what’s up?

    4. Staircase2 25 Aug 2011, 3:09am

      @ Hayden: Agreed – it doesnt sound like a ‘mistakes all round’ kind of scenario to me….

  7. I suspect the bar has paid them money to shut up as this ‘explanation’ makes no sense.
    If the bouncer threw the couple out for being gay then it is discrmination.

    If the couple had been drunk and disorderly then the bar would not be accepting any responsibility as they would have been within their rights to throw them out.

    On the Facebook boycott page, a poster claims to have rang the bar on Monday to ask what was going on. The barman allegedly said that the couple were upsetting other punters for their kissing and were told by the bouncers to leave.

    The poster then allegedly asked the barman would the same have happened if it had been 2 women kissing to which the barman said ‘Oh but that’s different’. When it was pointed out that this was discrimination the barman hung up.

    The Old Oak in Cork should be boycotted until the bar clarifies that gay couples will be treated in the exact same manner as straight couples and that their security staff are aware of this.

    1. Bill (Scotland) 24 Aug 2011, 5:02pm

      I think your assessment of what has happened, together with the apparent ‘reconciliation’ is probably pretty close to the truth about the machinations that went on in getting this statement made.

      It is all rather unpleasant and underhand. I’d like a clearer explanation from the bar as to why its employee (the bouncer) took the action he did and what action they are taking to ensure that that it does not recur; is the bouncer, for example, being sent on some kind of ‘diversity awareness’ course, or has he been replaced by someone more suitable?

      1. But Mendirin wants us to just stop asking questions and accept that all is well, nothing more to see here.

        Instead of boycotting I think gay couples should flock to the pub and kiss every chance they get. That’s the only was to determine what the pub’s real policy is.

        It sounds very likely that the couple was either paid off or threatened in some way. The pub’s explanation, and press release just doesn’t add up to anyone with an IQ above 10.

        1. Staircase2 25 Aug 2011, 3:11am

          lol …good idea….

          Perhaps thats why “Chris Scanlon, CIT student union president called for an end to the boycott, saying: “I would urge anyone using social media to prolong the situation to leave it alone.” “

  8. So they got bought off basically. Then they even managed to say it was their fault it occurred !

    How did they fall for such a pr job.

    I the owner said it was his staffs fault and he’s sorry and will hold an lgbt night then great win.

    Make it a success and they may happen more often.

    But by getting them to say they contributed to the problem ( when ll they did was kiss ) he has cleared partially atleast his bar of blatant discrimination.

    1. Apparently 1 of the couple was not out to his family.

      in that case it’s very easy to bully them into silence.

  9. It’s all too easy to speculate,that the pub owner was quick to apologise once he learned of the Facebook petition.But he seemed just as quick to affect a meeting with the two guys,& he DID apologise,not something we hear of every day.The person at the centre of this debacle,the BOUNCER ,is not reported to have apologised,nor has it been reported whether or not he was reprimanded or offered re-training in public relations! It’s just a pity that we only ever get the ‘edited highlights’ on these ‘stories’.

  10. So what has the couple gained with this? Just apologies?

    1. Well what more do they need.

      It was an unpleasant experience for sure – but they were not injured.

      And that fact that 5,500 people joined the ‘Boycott the Old Oak’ Facebook page in solidarity with them; and the fact that the owner did apologise (in a half hearted manner) should give them a litttle comfort.

      1. Well, they were buying products at the bar. Imagine if the couple asked for drinks didn’t pay and left the bar, would the bar accept apologies instead of payment?

  11. And why isn’t Pink News providing more complete information on the topic? There is more information in the comments than in the original article.

    1. There is no further information.

      It’s all been hushed up.

  12. douglas in canada 25 Aug 2011, 12:54pm

    Too bad I didn’t live closer… Otherwise, since the bar management said clearly that they “are not and never have been anti-gay”, I’d go there with a buddy and we’d dance and kiss in the same place as the couple mentioned in the article. Then we’d see what happens.

    A little test like this will tell you if anything has changed.

  13. Apparently the gay community in Cork are planning a kiss-in this Saturday night.

    Not to cause trouble – but merely to ensure that the bar (and its bouncers) are abiding by equality legislation.

    If the bar (or the bouncers) cause any trouble for the gay punters then this story will get a lot more interesting,.

    Assuming the bar knows about the kiss-in then I suspect it will be on its best behaviour.

    1. The heterosexual ‘community’ are planning to not give a toss. Try it!

      1. DJ Sheepiesheep 25 Aug 2011, 7:44pm

        Keith, to be hetro you have to have sex with a woman. Just being a bigoted w4nker doesn’t count.

      2. If you are claiming to represent the heterosexual community, commenting on this thread is probably not the best way to show us all that you ‘don’t give a toss.’
        Also, please don’t do all heterosexuals the injustice of assuming that they do not care about discrimination.

        1. Discrimination is necessary in life and society free of it is a myth. People that witness what they perceive to be immoral behaviour in public have a duty to act.Godly persons of conscience or those with impressionable children seek to train them to know what is right and wrong and not to expose them to immoral practices such as public displays of homosexuality..
          Genesuis 2:24 reads…For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 Aug 2011, 9:18am

            FVCK OFF< KEITH

            I come here to debate the stories of the day NOT to debate me as a person SO JUST FVCK OFF AND DIE will ya… do us all a favour.

          2. I agree that discrimination is necessary.

            I think religious people shouid be barred from holiding public office or from working in the public sector as they are likely to infect impressionable people with their dangerous and absurd beliefs.

            Religious parents should be sterllised to preventn them passing their mental illness onto children.

            It’s all about the children.

            They need to be protected from religious freaks.

          3. Jock S. Trap 26 Aug 2011, 3:15pm

            Here! Here! SteveC!

          4. Nice evasion of my point. I repeat, if you ‘don’t give a toss’, why do you read threads such as this on a gay website?
            And of course a society free of discrimination is a myth. Of course different people will have different definitions of descrimination. But no, people who witness something that they personally deem ‘immoral’ do not always have the duty or indeed the right to act. Because in certain cases, doing so would be illegal, as it technically was in this case. Everybody should abide by the law. If an illegal act is witnessed, people have a duty and a right to report it to the police. But if someone simply reacts – in a manner prohibitted by law- to an act that they personally disapprove of (but is not against the law), then that person has committed discrimination. And I’m talking about discrimination according to the law, not my definition or yours. Please do not try to justify breaking laws (which were made independent of religious input) by citing religious verse.

      3. @ Keith “The heterosexual ‘community’ are planning to not give a toss.”
        Oh, you’re its spokesperson now, are you? Fascinating. You do get around, don’t you? Amazing you find so much time to post on a gay website.

  14. ‘Gay Maul Fest’ being held by members of the Cork LGBT community this Saturday.

    Billy Bragg (??) has gotten involved.

    1. The Gay Maul Fest will (naturally) be held at the Old Oak bar.

      If the bar has any sense they will welcome the party.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.