Gay bars wichita falls tx

A close-knit group of acquaintances made their way to the Boulevard Nightclub during the springtime to experience the refreshed venue featuring its considerable dance space, discounted drinks, current chart-topping songs, and - as they came to find out - a sign seemingly preventing men from engaging in partnered dancing.

Corey Rauscher, a resident of Wichita and a gay individual, experienced an unmistakable sense of being unwelcome resulting from displayed regulations, including "Guys must dance with a female unless it's line dancing" along with "Guys are not allowed to dance independently'.

Acting in unity, his entire group got to their feet and departed the premises.

"Within such a setting, I wouldn't, for my part, feel particularly at ease dancing alongside another man," expressed Rauscher, aged twenty-six. "However, to physically put up a sign declaring its prohibition introduces an entirely different perspective. I wouldn't even choose to remain there."

He proceeded to share an image of the mentioned sign, which was displayed within the club's entrance area, on social networking platforms, which consequently generated significant reactions.

In the time since that instance, a newly revised sign has been presented, which either rewords or omits the majority of the content found to be unwelcoming by both Rauscher and Pastor Melanie Martinez from the Wichita Falls Metropolitan Community Church.

WFMCC serves as a place of spiritual gathering and service catering to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender population, along with other individuals.

Regardless, the owner-operators associated with Boulevard Nightclub, which stands as a business venture belonging to the Amburn family, weren't compelled to modify even one solitary word featured on the initial sign.

Neither federal law, Texas state law, nor any Wichita Falls municipal ordinance exists to prohibit discriminatory practices based on either sexual preference or gender identity with regard to the interactions between businesses and their respective patrons.

Taking nothing for granted

Martinez asserted that such protections ought to be in place. She pointed out how the LGBT community isn't able to presume basic considerations in a similar manner to that of heterosexual individuals - even extending to matters such as childcare.

"There are instances where childcare establishments will decline the enrollment of a child who comes from a household comprised of two mothers or two fathers," she stated. "Within the realm of business operations, individuals possess the authority to make such determinations, dictating who they will provide service to and the reasoning behind those decisions."

While Martinez remains open and outspoken, she still comprehends why others among the LGBT community residing in Wichita Falls might exhibit greater reservation concerning their sexual preference or gender identity.

"Some employment opportunities in this locality could still be jeopardized if one's status becomes publicly known. People find themselves losing their employment or facing eviction from their homes," she revealed.

Related: If Whiskey River champions dignity and respect, it should eliminate LGBTQ-discriminatory dress code

Rauscher demonstrates careful consideration for both safety considerations and the impressions he projects.

"It's uncertain if my experiences arise from consciously moderating my behavior within specific contexts, but I haven't personally encountered significant negativity," he stated. "That's certainly a positive thing, though I question the outcome if I were to express my complete, unreserved self in every scenario throughout this town. The answer eludes me."

Regarding the updated signage, Martinez offered favorable observations regarding the Amburn family's decision to implement modifications.

"To me, it stands as a substantial indication of their principles and their dedication toward behaving as reputable businesspeople within this community," she remarked.

Private businesses and discrimination laws

The extent to which anti-discrimination legislation is capable of compelling private business proprietors is presently in the spotlight due to a wedding cake legal proceeding currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission sets a state law prohibiting discrimination against a business owner's denial to create a specialized cake for a gay couple.

In defense of his actions, owner Jack Phillips cites his deeply-held religious convictions pertaining to marriage as an exclusively between a man and a woman. The fundamental question surrounding the case revolves around whether forcing Phillips to craft a personalized cake intended for a same-sex couple would constitute an infringement upon his constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression.

According to data provided by the Texas Tribune, Fort Worth is included among the count of twelve Texas cities populated by over one hundred thousand residents that have formally outlawed discrimination grounded in someone's sexual orientation or gender identity.

"When it comes to such issues, Fort Worth comes across as notably progressive," shared Susan Hutchison, an attorney from Hutchison and Stoy who practices in Fort Worth.

Related: Corpus Christi demonstrators decry 'homophobic' policy even as Texas nightclub pursues a 5-star rating

As stated on the city's official website, the city ordinance concerning public accommodations makes it unlawful for any establishment to refuse access to services and goods due to considerations of race, skin tone, gender, religious affiliation, national origin, age, disability, sexual preference, gender identity, gender expression and transgender identity.

"In truth, the ordinance doesn't come with considerable strength in enforceability," Hutchison said. "It doesn't grant individuals a private cause of action enabling them to pursue legal recourse. The singular form of redress the ordinance makes provision for is a monetary penalty."

Punishments imposed for infractions involve a fine valued up to two thousand dollars, which has the potential to be levied on a daily basis.

Sign change is 'ultimately progress'

Having a background of acting prudently, Rauscher remains hesitant about making a return visit to the Boulevard Nightclub, despite the presence of the revised sign which was put up later in April.

"I'm interested in understanding the motivating factor," he expressed. "Is the decision genuinely something they wanted to implement, or did it result purely from an adverse reaction?"

He stated that he questioned if the nightclub might put into practice the now-removed restriction preventing men from dancing together regardless.

Rauscher expressed his happiness over the implemented sign modification, while likewise articulating his interest in receiving a formal statement issued by the nightclub clarifying the intention that underpinned the signs.

Mike Amburn and his spouse, RaLane, chose to withhold any input regardless of numerous inquiries that the Times Record News presented spanning across several weeks.

Both iterations incorporate a segment focusing on appropriate dance floor behavior by alerting men, through the use of entirely capitalized letters, that the selection of partners rests with the ladies. Consequently, men should not automatically assume they possess the liberty to simply approach and commence dancing with women who are unfamiliar to them.

Related: Demonstrators congregate at Texas club facing backlash for 'homophobic' policy

The original sign proceeded to enumerate "Dance Floor Rules intended for Men," which included prohibitions against wandering around the dance floor aimlessly, engaging in dancing while on all fours, performing solo or break dancing, impeding entrances, or exhibiting inappropriate gestures during dancing.

Upon learning about the initial sign that was put up in April, Martinez proceeded to visit the bar in order to evaluate it firsthand.

"As I proceeded with analyzing the sign from its opening lines down to the conclusion, I took away from approximately three-quarters of the sign that the establishment was endeavoring to maintain the safety of women," Martinez noted.

Rauscher and Martinez were in agreement that the goal was appropriate.

Then came statements that came across as conveying an idea that gay men were unwelcome as patrons of the club, as Martinez described.

Moreover, the sign consciously exempted women from nearly all regulations, regardless of the fact that females have, on occasion, displayed similar unwanted conduct within clubs, as she mentioned.

Martinez stated that she discussed her considerations with a manager. The manager conveyed to her that the intention was not to deliberately exclude gay men from entering or patronizing the bar.

"Nevertheless, there was demonstrably a certain level of misunderstanding regarding the true ramifications stemming from current events," Martinez pointed out.

The manager provided further clarification, noting that the club faces safety-related challenges and needs to stay vigilant with regard to the potential for male patrons to become overly aggressive while on the dance floor, as she noted.

The majority of the content displayed on the updated sign comprises general guidelines that pertain to everyone, irrespective of their gender, as Martinez indicated.

The recent signage displays "DANCE FLOOR RULES FOR SAFETY REASONS." Yet, it still encompasses a stipulation that "Men are not allowed to dance independently."

"While not necessarily perfect, it represents a significantly improved state as compared to what it once was," Martinez stated. "I view it as progress, in the final analysis."