I read in another thread that the women-only rule was an art installation and they were happy when the guy sued, because it created the publicity they were looking for.
Comment on Mona: Court rules women’s-only exhibit must allow male visitors
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
The velvet-clad lounge - which contains some of the museum’s most-acclaimed works, from Picasso to Sidney Nolan - has been open since 2020.
If the artist had opened an exhibit of her own work only to women, I could defend that as artistic expression. However, this is just a museum being sexist and then saying “It’s just art bro!”
With that said, apparently the museum is privately funded. I tend to think that this ought to mean it can be sexist if that’s what the people running it want (as a matter of principle, not as a matter of Australian law).
state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
The problem with letting private businesses discriminate is that it often leads to total discrimination. A single racist towing company would be a huge problem. A racist grocery store could be the only one in town. Sure you might not go to a racist bar, but what if the fire or police chief frequents that place?
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
That if about the police chief is doing some heavy lifting.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Hardly, there’s a rich history of using police to enforce racism. It’s still happening today in some areas.
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
That’s my point… it’s more likely that they are, than aren’t. Thus the “if they are going to the racist bar” is doing a lot of heavy lifting
_tezz@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You think it’s unheard of that a police officer can be a racist? Have you come here from an alternate timeline or something? If so can I come back with you?
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
God I wish.
The if, is if they frequent the racist bar. My point is that it’s more likely that they would frequent it, than not, thus the heavy lifting.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
It’s the privately funding thing, I’m sure Australia has men’s clubs like the Eagles, Masonic, etc. My guess is that if they offered tickets to purchase, there would be the discrimination? You can’t sell something and not offer it to everyone. OTOH, that doesn’t make sense because we have timed tickets and members only tickets here in the US, do they have something like that in Australia?
wahming@monyet.cc 7 months ago
IDK, I’d see issues with a cafe saying ‘No colored people allowed’.
bluGill@kbin.social 7 months ago
I (a white person) wouldn't knowingly going into such a Cafe, but I still allow them to exist. It is a matter of defending - as much as possible - the right of others to do things I find stupid. There are lines, but I try to use them to cover as little as possible: all lines can be used against me.
Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I don’t mind other people doing things that are stupid. I do mind other people doing things that are harmful. The difficult part is finding where that line is, if and how to legislate it and what the implications are on other important societal values.
In this example of a cafe refusing to serve people based in race, I’m personally totally fine with that being illegal.
quindraco@lemm.ee 7 months ago
How do you ban such a cafe while also banning slavery? How do you draw a line between permissible and impermissible compulsory labor when you’re drafting your Constitution to reign in future politicians?
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 7 months ago
To deny access to any one group on the basis of an immutable characteristic of their physical being is a dangerous precedent to set for a government. It just gives a license to discriminate against any out group. I believe you have a right to do whatever you want, so long as doing so does not violate the rights of others.
To take it to a logical extreme, would you defend the right to drink and drive, given that stupid people should be allowed to do stupid things, even if it is incredibly dangerous to the drinking party and everyone else around them? No? Then don’t tolerate the intolerance of others. That’s how the social contract frays.
zaph@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
So you’d be fine with a towns only hospital receiving a patient in the ER while the only doctor on the clock refuses to treat the patient based on them being part of a protected class? Or do we need to create a law that says doctors can’t discriminate but everyone else can?
bluGill@kbin.social 7 months ago
There are lines. Make them as narrow as possible but no more.
that covers your situation and many others.
Kedly@lemm.ee 7 months ago
The lack of lines lets the strong oppress the weak moreso than the lines themselves ever could
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I feel like running a museum is a lot more like a form of expression than running a cafe is. “Who is the audience for art?” seems like a topic where a government-imposed “correct answer” is more of a problem than it would be if the topic were “Who eats a sandwich?”