Wang's, Chicago Gay Bar, 'Men Only' Policy Makes 'Chelsea Lately' (VIDEO)

 


 

 

The Huffington Post's report on Wang's, a Chicago gay bar that appears to openly ban female customers after 11 p.m., was a subject of conversation on Chelsea Handler's "Chelsea Lately" Monday evening.

"So, they want wangs only after 11," Handler said, before turning the discussion to her roundtable of fellow stand-ups, who also weighed in on the matter.

"I would have no problem if a bar called Wang's told me to leave," explained guest Fortune Feimster. "But if a bar called Chicken Wang's asked me to leave, then we'd have a problem."

Heather McDonald and Ali Wong also shared their opinions on the bar's "men only after 11 p.m." policy.

The bar's policy is currently being investigated by the Illinois Department of Human Rights as it appears to violate the state's Human Rights Act. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of one's sex or other protected categories in places of public accommodation -- including even gay bars that cater to a male clientele.

While a Wang's manager denied that the bar discriminates against women -- or even has such a policy to begin with -- reports of the nightspot turning away female customers are widespread.

Politics and Religion: How Long before We Stop Persecuting in the Name of Religion?

The most profoundly disturbing issue in all of politics is that we are still debating the division of church and state.  When you have a presidential candidate like Rick Santorum make statements about how "Christian values" and government must coalesse - and then to hear the talking heads utter sheepish the sheepish responses (pun intended), "Well, at least we know where he stands," "He's nothing if not honest," and so on - is not only chilling but threatening to the very foundation of nature, itself:  that everything must either evolve or die.

I realize the counterargument:  We were founded on religious freedom.  However, as law is, itself, dynamic, it's important to give at least equal recognition to the present time.  In short, we've grown well beyond the days where religious ideology came in the form of witch trials, the belief that the tragedies which befall us are because we've either angered God or appeased Satan - a time when superstition subordinated not only rational thought but also led to the torture of the innocents.  It's shocking to hear such rhetoric today, and, if we're not very careful,  I believe that we will enter into a "neo-Puritan" time.  And if this occurs - and, arguably, it is occuring - we will have incapacitated our very existance to the point of complete anhillation.  From an ideological point of view, this would render not only our planet but our entire universe meaningless.

In fact, meaning is a very slippery subject, although it shouldn't be.  It's when consciousness (particularly, human consciousness) defines meaning that eventual inhillation of the species is inevitable. 

Dr. Peggy Drexler: When Faith and Policy Trump People

So, let's follow this to its (il)logical conclusion. If faith, wrought from the study of, and the eventual belief in, a religious text is to be considered in public discourse, then all religious texts must be fair game...unless, of course, you want to exclude some and admit only those in which *you* believe. Also, if the text in question has multiple "versions," as does the Judeo-Christian text, which version should we use? All of them? And what happens when a particular sect's own bible (there are, after all, many flavors of Christianity) is in direct conflict with another - say Mormon and Catholic? The logical answer, then, is to create the Congressional Religious Committee whose job it is to ratify all of these versions of the bible into one authoritative text, and then add it to the Constitution not as amendments but as a kind of "meta-Constitution," a lens through which the Constitution must be interpreted. Of course, that would also require a ratification of the entire Constitution, itself - so, we'll need another committee for this. Perhaps, the Congressional Committee on Morality. And who's going to oversee these committees? Perhaps the Church - no, ChurchES, since we don't want to exclude anyone who believes differently than we do. Right? I mean, that would be unheard of - after all, who would deny someone his or her religious freedom? Wait, did I just say "freedom?" Well, sort-of-freedom.