Korean Job Discussion Forums

[jaebea]

Just because something happens in reality doesn't always make it right, as I'm sure everyone here is aware.

The key issue is whether or not the private rights that the owner of an establishment extends to the point of infringing upon the civil rights of a patron. In that case, who is right and who is wrong? It is best in this case to limit the rights of the owner to a certain degree whilst maintaining his refusal to serve patrons for specific reasons

Even the gayest of gay bars will serve a bunch of sexually secure straight blokes who are dying for a drink, without batting an eyelid. Certain places will have themed nights, and you might be refused entry, but it's not a blanket policy.

jae.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I don't agree that a bar owner can refuse admittance to a customer. He/She has opened a business to serve 'the public'. Therefore, any member of the public can expect fair and equal treatment.

If your personal behavior warrants it, I agree you can be barred. I don't agree that because some jerk who happens to share some common characteristics with you (like skin color for example) was in last week and caused trouble, that that would justify the owner from barring you. I do not accept guilt by association.

One of the previous posters mentioned that some restaurants barred Americans at the end of '02. That poster said the gov't made a stink about it and it ended. I don't remember the president or any of the candidates criticizing that discriminatory behavior.

I do wish someone with Korean skills of an adequate nature would find a phone number/e-mail address of the proper civil rights authorities and post that information.

One possible place to lodge a complaint is the department/agency (whatever) in charge of turning Korea into a 'hub' of NE Asia. I am sure they would like to know about cases like the original poster's.

[Derrek]

I came out of this thing totally feeling like the guy denied me because I was a "dirty foreigner" and he was afraid to lose Korean business over it.

That's totally the feeling I got as people eyed me while the guy told me this.

[Alias]

I believe the old Hollywood Bar would refuse entry to non-White males. I don't know if the Limelight follows that policy as well.

[kiwiboy_nz_99]

Judging all the members of one race because of previous trouble is definitely racist. They guys who caused trouble did so because they are trouble makers not because they are white. Think about it, we have trouble in bars back home, the entire race doesn't get banned. Bars usually have a policy of banning individuals and that seems to work out fine.

[mishlert]

[kiwiboy_nz_99]

I can very much see how an MP would not want to lock eyes with a GI in the gay area.

[mishlert]

Just because someone is in the gay area it doesn't mean that the person is gay. So, unless a GI is doing something that clearly shows that he/she is gay, an MP shouldn't, and wouldn't assume that the GI is gay for being there.
I personally think that the MPs don't go there because of the don't ask, don't tell policy.
As for Hongdae, unless the off limits policy has changed you'd think that the MPs would go there to make sure that the policy is upheld.

[Gwangjuboy]

[mithridates]

Two things came to mind when reading this:

Refusing service to someone over something they can change is okay. If I'm not cool enough to get into a bar I can leave, get cooler somehow and come back later. Same thing with a dress code and so on. Refusing service over something one cannot change isn't good.

The second thing was: some people have said that refusing service in this way is wrong and racist. Then some others came in and said that it was a matter of practicality for the owner, who may lose some customers and business because of the fact. The interesting part is that these two statements kind of connect in a way...a bar would lose business because of the people who raise a big stink about it, and wouldn't from people who didn't upset enough to go around telling everybody.
Isn't that interesting?

[lawyertood]

One reason MPs might not go to Hongdae is because they might not have gotten permission from the Korean government to patrol that area. Remember, the MPs have no authority off the base unless sanctioned by the Korean government. This is just my thinking, if you know otherwise please let me know. I do wish they had the authority, however.

[Homer]

Kiwiboy,

Thanks for the personal attacks mate, I expected nothing less from you.

I am simply trying to show that there are many sides to this situation, not agreeing with the owner or supporting his choices or racism. Unfortunately you and Matko read this another way. Such is life.

What you think of me matters very little to me.

I did not condone racism or agree with the owner. I simply said that there might be more to this than just basic racism and that like many things in life it is not clear cut black and white. It seems that point was lost on you.

As for my "schitck" Kiwi, how little time you take to read what I say if you came to that conclusion. Then again it suited your little needs of sounding superior, no surprise there.
I am not having a "good time" in the sense that everything is rosy. I try to look at things with a bit of perspective and to see where they come from. That does not mean I excuse everything (thats your read of what I say and again it suits your needs..well done once again) or defend racism in Korea (thats your invention).
I talk from my experiences like you do, with the difference that I do not try to pass off my experiences as universal facts.
You have leveled personal attacks at me before, no breaking news there, that would be your very own "schtick" on here or wait was that misreading you?

In the end, I disagree with the owner that refuses service to a group because of the actions of a few idiots. But, I also can see how he would come to that decision (its wrong indeed but many people make wrong decisions). Seeing how he decided that and supporting that are two different things. I thought that was rather simple.

Refusal of service based on group happens everywhere in the world. Back home in Canada (like someone in this very thread said) people get turned away from bars because they don't have the proper look. They get turned away from restaurants too. Its not overt like it is in other countries (namely Korea) but its happens nonetheless. But of course, since it is not happening in Korea it is not racism or prejudicial....there the owner can refuse service, not directly of course, and not be slammed for it..well done.

As for losing credibility in your eyes Matko, you have used such cut and dry remarks before...they mean very little. You chose to see the situation as me supporting or condoning the behavior of the bar owner when that is not what I did at all. You want a loud and clear stance from everyone on this "issue" because thats how you see things. Thats fair. I respect your choice and stance in this matter even if in my opinion its a little simplistic (as in black-white).



[/i]

[mack the knife]

Now you know how women feel when they are refused entrance into male-only organizations in the United States (and probably every other country in the world).

Also, a lot of owners will refuse service to some for their own good. In other words, they know that certain types of people will inevitably cause trouble, simply by their presence. For instance, why allow a negroid man to enter a skinhead club? It's just nauseating to think about the consequences of that scenario.

Third. The one time I went to a sauna in Itaewon it was dirty, men were engaging in intercourse (with each other) on the ondol floor upstairs, and a man put his hand on my thigh and motioned towards the "upstairs". In other words: seedy as all get out. Screw Itaewon saunas. Oh, and the pools were somewhat dirty.

[Derrek]

[mack the knife]

Derrek,

It doesn't matter how YOU or I feel about women being refused entrance into male organizations (or buildings where such organizations hold their meetings)...it's how THEY feel. They feel just like you did when refused entrance to the jimjilbang: shee-itty.