How do you feel about Pattaya restaurants that won't serve ladyboys?

[Jingthing]

Not naming names, and hoping nobody does mention names, but it has come to my attention a very popular tourist oriented restaurant here has a policy of turning ladyboys away at the door and telling them that is the reason they are being denied service.

How do you feel about that?

I have mixed feelings. I realize this is Thailand and that Thailand lacks the non-discrimination laws for open to the public services addressing many identity factors as we find these days in many western countries. I accept that ... Thailand can be that way if they want and if that's going to change, that's up to Thais to change, not foreigners.

But specifically on the ladyboys banned from a restaurant, that got me thinking.

Is that especially unfair if they are only banning ladyboys and not banning obvious cisgender prostitutes, male or female, with dates? How about if two respectable ladyboys show up and just want to eat ... not with dates?

That's my point. I understand wanting to have a non-sex tourism space in your restaurant and why they might think it's bad for business to allow obvious sex touristing customers ... but if this is only applied to ladyboys ... that seems to cross another line in especially scapegoating them.

I consider HOTELS a different matter than restaurants because you go to a restaurant to just eat food ... not what obviously goes on in hotels.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Jingthing

[theguyfromanotherforum]

I have a clue for you.

A respectable ladyboy personality would not get turned away.

[Jingthing]

I have a clue for you.

A respectable ladyboy personality would not get turned away.

I'm not so sure about that.

Have you tried?

[derator01]

This topic might not last long. For now, move to the Gay forum.

Topic Moved.

P.S. please abide by forum rules, or don't post.

[Jingthing]

Well I see moved to the Gay Forum.

I suppose we might see the same issue in any part of Thailand with a lot of tourism and a lot of ladyboys involved in sex tourism.

My main issue isn't so much that "respectable" restaurants want a non-sex tourism space, but more about if you're going to ban ladyboys presuming they are involved in sex tourism, wouldn't it be more fair to ban ALL customers that are obviously involved in sex tourism.

With that of course you get into bigger cans of worms.

Suppose a gay man and his long term male lover with a large age difference. Assuming many people would presume there is probably a sex tourism aspect to that in a tourist resort.

[scorecard]

I try to be non discriminatory, but I can't help but think about the vast numbers of ladyboys who cruise beach road etc etc, rob people etc, and lots of such stories regularly here on TV with photos.

Hence I wouldn't be surprised if restaurant owners have fears of what could happen.

There are obviously very balanced and polite ladyboys, anywhere, who are entitled to non discriminatery treatment same as anybody.

But Pattaya seems to attract large numbers of over the top, loud, poorly behaved and untrustworthy ladyboy types.

People in business need to respect all, but you can't blame them for being wary of any form of possible risk.

[Jingthing]

Sounds like you're talking about gay people, not ladyboys.

This is the gay forum. Just letting you know hate speech against GLBT people is not welcome here.

Edited November 12, 2015 by seedy
abusive

[seedy]

One Abusive post removed

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific
locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or
any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Do it again - win a Free Posting holiday !

[chiang mai]

A restaurant owner need to protect their business, ditto any business and that includes deciding who they will accept as a customer and who they will not.

Edited November 12, 2015 by chiang mai

[scorecard]

Sounds like you're talking about gay people, not ladyboys.

This is the gay forum. Just letting you know hate speech against GLBT people is not welcome here.

No jingthing, strongly no, my comment was not about gay people, I did very specifically mention ladyboys and I did specifically mention two groups of ladyboys:

1. Those who offend no one in any way, they are entitled to be treated with respect in every way, they are human beings.

2. The ladyboys, in Pattaya (and in other places too) who seem to think nothing of robbing people, etc., as I already mentioned, and regularly in the news. Surely they do a disservice to themselves and by their actions attract negative attitudes.

IMHO your strong response is uncalled for and does not even connect to my comments.

In reality I have many close friends who are gay in a number of countries, I enjoy their friendship and their caring attitudes, not necessarily because they are gay, but because they are nice human beings.

Jingthing, just to get a clear picture, why did you say: ..."Sounds like you're talking about gay people, not ladyboys."

And from my comment do you really thing your response of "....this is the gay forum. Just letting you know hate speech against GLBT people is not welcome here." is justified? How so?

More specifically how do you justify using the word 'hate'. Nothing I wrote has even the slightest connection to 'hate'.

[RichCor]

Jingthing, just to get a clear picture, why did you say: ..."Sounds like you're talking about gay people, not ladyboys."

And from my comment do you really thing your response of "....this is the gay forum. Just letting you know hate speech against GLBT people is not welcome here." is justified? How so?

More specifically how do you justify using the word 'hate'. Nothing I wrote has even the slightest connection to 'hate'.

I don't think that comment was meant for you, but for a derogatory comment that has since been removed (and quote edited out of Jingthing's post) by a Mod.

[Jingthing]

Exactly.

[FruitPudding]

I think it is dumb.

Why not refuse entry to women showing too much leg or cleavage, or men in Chang vests, if they don't want a sex tourism feel?

They may also wish to move their restaurant out of (probably) Thailand's most dense sex tourism area (rather than complain about it and refuse entry).

[Jingthing]

As I've said, I can respect a consistent policy that bans anyone who projects as obviously on a sex tourism date. At this particular place there are a lot of families with children. I think the management is probably right that those families would rather have an escape from that scene in their restaurant. So the question for me, is why pick on ONLY the ladyboys?

[FruitPudding]

Because lady-boys most obviously fit the stereotype of sex tourism. With males or females they can't draw a clear line of what is acceptable what isn't.

Though, if families with children don't want to see sex tourism, then they can choose to go elsewhere (like stay at home or go to a city where this type of thing doesn't go on) and I don't think the restaurant has the right to discriminate anyway.

[Jingthing]

I think in Thailand they DO have a right to discriminate any way they like.

[RichCor]

About 25 years ago I was travelling out late and stopped by small 24/7 Restaurant in San Jose, California. Was seated in a booth next to four fully decked-out drag queens. Was not expecting to see this outside of the Castro ...but here they were. Friendly bunch. Had a lovely chat over a late dinner. They didn't jump or rob anybody. But then I'm assured there is a difference between a drag queen, a transvestite, and a kathoey.

So, a drag queen, a transvestite, and a kathoey walk into a bar...

[mogandave]

I think people running privately held businesses that do not do business with the government ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they please.

[rgs2001uk]

I think people running privately held businesses that do not do business with the government ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they please.

Give this man a cigar, thankfully after 18 posts we get to the root of the matter.

I was going to post this before, but declined, waiting to see who would be the first.

Thankfully Thailand being the business friendly country it is, it lets busines owners decide how to run their business.

For the record, if that includes gays barring straights from their premises, i have no problem.

A private individual running a business as they see fit, with no Big Gov't breathing down their neck.

North Korea is nice this time of year for those who want Central Gov't running their lifes.

[geriatrickid]

I think people running privately held businesses that do not do business with the government ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they please.

Give this man a cigar, thankfully after 18 posts we get to the root of the matter.

I was going to post this before, but declined, waiting to see who would be the first.

Thankfully Thailand being the business friendly country it is, it lets busines owners decide how to run their business.

For the record, if that includes gays barring straights from their premises, i have no problem.

A private individual running a business as they see fit, with no Big Gov't breathing down their neck.

North Korea is nice this time of year for those who want Central Gov't running their lifes.

It's 2015 and discrimination based upon race, gender, sexual orientation or disability is unacceptable and contrary to accepted social behaviour.

You are incorrect when you state that Thailand is a business friendly country that lets business owners decide how to run their business. A proper response would monopolize this thread and would make this a "business" topic discussion as opposed to a human/civil rights discussion. I will make it very simple for you, Under the Gender Equality Act 2558 B.E. it is illegal to discriminate when providing goods and services.

As per the Act;

The reason for promulgating this Act has been the fact that there is no clear measure to prevent unfair gender discrimination at present, resulting in no protection and no appropriate fairness for those who are subject to unfair gender discrimination. It is, therefore, deemed appropriate to enact the law to provide protective measures for those subject to unfair gender discrimination. This shall also further prevent the incursion of unfair gender discrimination, which is in compliance with the international human rights principles according to the international obligations for which Thailand has been a party. This Act is therefore promulgated

More specifically;

Section 3: In this Act: “Unfair gender discrimination” means any act or omission of the act which causes division, discrimination or limitation of any right and benefit either directly or indirectly without justification due to the fact that the person is male or female or of a different appearance from his/her own sex by birth.

Section 34. Any person violating the orders of the WorLorPor Committee as prescribed in Section 20 (1) shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht, or both an imprisonment and a fine.

Section 35. Any person violating Section 22, paragraph two shall be subject to imprisonment of not more than three months or a fine of not more than ten thousand baht, or both an imprisonment and a fine.

Section 36. For all offences according to this Act, if the following competent officers have considered that the alleged persons should not be subject to imprisonment or prosecution, they shall have the power to settle the case as follows:

1. the Director-General or the person authorized by the Director-General, for offences committed in Bangkok Metropolitan areas,
2. the provincial governors or the persons authorized by the provincial governors, for offences committed in other provinces.

If the ladyboys believe they have been discriminated against and wish to address the situation, they should speak up. The good " old days" of putting up signs outside facilities that say No Blacks or Whites Only, or No Jews or No Italians or No Irish or No Chinamen (sic) are over in much of the world.

[shirtless]

Ladyboys have a bad reputation , which has been well earned ,

[sjaak327]

I think name and shame to be the best remedy to this nonsense.

I have no attraction whatsoever for lady boys, but refusing to serve them in a restaurant (or bar) is utterly ridiculous.

A few years back we went to the new spicy in Chiang Mai, where one ladyboy friend of ours was indeed refused, to which all 20 of us left the bloody place immediately. No such establishment is worthy of our money.

[sjaak327]

I think people running privately held businesses that do not do business with the government ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they please.

No I don't think they have that right. They are in business, and as such should engage that business with anyone willing to pay for their services. Have a problem serving certain people, find another line of work, really simple.

It's like that place over on Suk soi 2 (Atlanta Hotel), where they supposedly refuse sex tourists. I know of Thai/Foreign partners who have been refused service based on this premisis.

It's utterly humiliating and hypocritcal. They are in no position whatsoever to ascertain who is and who isn't a sex tourist. That place would have been out of business back in Europe in a heartbeat and rightly so..

[Linky]

I do have to wonder about the OP. He complains of getting spat on in malaysia because he is a jew. He complains of baht buses because every week there is some issue involving him. He complains of service in any number of restaurants and now complains about ladyboys not being allowed in. Also complais about how posters may respond. He is also psychic.

Its hard to think he would be happy anywhere in the world, always something to annoy him. Perhaps he should move to a life of solitude to Bikini Attol, but I guess he would complain about the lack of bikinis.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Linky

[mogandave]

I think people running privately held businesses that do not do business with the government ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they please.

No I don't think they have that right. They are in business, and as such should engage that business with anyone willing to pay for their services. Have a problem serving certain people, find another line of work, really simple.

It's like that place over on Suk soi 2 (Atlanta Hotel), where they supposedly refuse sex tourists. I know of Thai/Foreign partners who have been refused service based on this premisis.

It's utterly humiliating and hypocritcal. They are in no position whatsoever to ascertain who is and who isn't a sex tourist. That place would have been out of business back in Europe in a heartbeat and rightly so..

I never said they had the right to refuse service as they see fit, I said I think they should.

That you disagree does not surprise me.

[petermik]

JT...........what can I say,another contentious thread you have started..........ever tried going to a whist drive or taking up crown green bowls,both very therapeutic for a chap your age

[SchadeBoy]

I have a clue for you.

A respectable ladyboy personality would not get turned away.

Never had problem anywhere with any of my ladyboy friends taking them to dinner

[JHolmesJr]

Im sure theyre all welcome at pooks sausage bbq.

[Jingthing]

I have a clue for you.

A respectable ladyboy personality would not get turned away.

Never had problem anywhere with any of my ladyboy friends taking them to dinner

I was speaking about a specific very well known restaurant that I can't name.

[alex88]

I think people running privately held businesses that do not do business with the government ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they please.

Give this man a cigar, thankfully after 18 posts we get to the root of the matter.

I was going to post this before, but declined, waiting to see who would be the first.

Thankfully Thailand being the business friendly country it is, it lets busines owners decide how to run their business.

For the record, if that includes gays barring straights from their premises, i have no problem.

A private individual running a business as they see fit, with no Big Gov't breathing down their neck.

North Korea is nice this time of year for those who want Central Gov't running their lifes.

It's 2015 and discrimination based upon race, gender, sexual orientation or disability is unacceptable and contrary to accepted social behaviour.

You are incorrect when you state that Thailand is a business friendly country that lets business owners decide how to run their business. A proper response would monopolize this thread and would make this a "business" topic discussion as opposed to a human/civil rights discussion. I will make it very simple for you, Under the Gender Equality Act 2558 B.E. it is illegal to discriminate when providing goods and services.

As per the Act;

The reason for promulgating this Act has been the fact that there is no clear measure to prevent unfair gender discrimination at present, resulting in no protection and no appropriate fairness for those who are subject to unfair gender discrimination. It is, therefore, deemed appropriate to enact the law to provide protective measures for those subject to unfair gender discrimination. This shall also further prevent the incursion of unfair gender discrimination, which is in compliance with the international human rights principles according to the international obligations for which Thailand has been a party. This Act is therefore promulgated

More specifically;

Section 3: In this Act: “Unfair gender discrimination” means any act or omission of the act which causes division, discrimination or limitation of any right and benefit either directly or indirectly without justification due to the fact that the person is male or female or of a different appearance from his/her own sex by birth.

Section 34. Any person violating the orders of the WorLorPor Committee as prescribed in Section 20 (1) shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine of not more than twenty thousand baht, or both an imprisonment and a fine.

Section 35. Any person violating Section 22, paragraph two shall be subject to imprisonment of not more than three months or a fine of not more than ten thousand baht, or both an imprisonment and a fine.

Section 36. For all offences according to this Act, if the following competent officers have considered that the alleged persons should not be subject to imprisonment or prosecution, they shall have the power to settle the case as follows:

1. the Director-General or the person authorized by the Director-General, for offences committed in Bangkok Metropolitan areas,
2. the provincial governors or the persons authorized by the provincial governors, for offences committed in other provinces.

If the ladyboys believe they have been discriminated against and wish to address the situation, they should speak up. The good " old days" of putting up signs outside facilities that say No Blacks or Whites Only, or No Jews or No Italians or No Irish or No Chinamen (sic) are over in much of the world.

That Grindr pic you posted is irrelevant. A everybody has sexual preferences and if somebody is not attracted to a particular race it isn't racist to say so. You don't choose what you're attracted to. Why waste everybody's time? I only like Asians, I am usually not attracted to white people. Does that make me racist against white people? No of course not, I like white people, I'm just not attracted to them and not interested in dating them and would say so in a dating profile so as to not waste everybody's time.