What's a gay kitchen?

April 13, 2010 11:05 AM

What is a "gay kitchen"?

In a book on Canadian constitutional law, I'm reading a discussion of equality. The book makes the claim that:
"Discrimination on the ground of heterosexuality is rare, but not unknown, for example, in the 'gay kitchen' of a restaurant."

I've never heard that term. What does it mean?

posted by Lemurrhea to Human Relations (14 answers total)

I'd suppose it meant a kitchen in which the chef, who happened to be gay, hired people to help him with whom he was most comfortable - who all also happened to be gay (it's not difficult to imagine that a gay person would feel most at ease in the company of other gay people). If a new guy was interviewing to be a dishwasher or sous chef, and he was heterosexual, he might well (but not necessarily legally) be rejected solely on the basis of his sexual orientation.
posted by amtho at 11:13 AM on April 13, 2010

I think it's just a poorly framed example of something that might possibly happen.

Another example: Person A works in a cramped kitchen and is constantly encountering sexual talk. Person A complains, and is fired for it. Regardless of the nature of the talk (straight or gay), Person A may have been discriminated against.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:45 AM on April 13, 2010

Which book on Canadian constitutional law? I work in a law library, am curious, and would like to read the passage in context.
posted by onshi at 11:56 AM on April 13, 2010

It's just like every other workplace, only gay.
posted by applemeat at 11:58 AM on April 13, 2010

Best answer: I was thinking the author might be referring, clumsily, to actual case law. For instance, in 370864 Ontario Limited (Katrina's Tavern) v. International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union (Hotel and Restaurant Employee's and Bartenders' International Union, Local 280), 1978 CanLII 620 (ON L.R.B.), at para. 10:

"The Employer's evidence was that, in order to create an atmosphere where gays could feel comfortable and welcome, a condition of employment was established that all staff coming in contact with the public should be gay."

But that's not quite a gay kitchen.
posted by onshi at 12:06 PM on April 13, 2010

D'oh, link to the case cited above is here.
posted by onshi at 12:07 PM on April 13, 2010

Response by poster: Onshi, it's Peter Hogg's Constitutional Law of Canada, the 2007 Student edition. s.55.11 (Direct and indirect discrimination), section a (substantive equality), footnote 234 (discussing how in Vriend the lack of sexual orientation in the human rights code was neutral.

And yeah, both of your explanations are reasonable, amtho and CPB. I was just surprised: he seems to be using it as if it's a known example, like as if kitchens were stereotypically gay or something, which I'd never heard before.
posted by Lemurrhea at 12:08 PM on April 13, 2010

Actually, reading more, it seems like the case I quoted earlier might be what Hogg has in mind... if 'gay kitchen' is read as 'gay shop' (as in union shop):

The Employer has a policy of requiring all of its staff coming into contact with the public to be gay. The Trade Union does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orienta­tion. There may well be problems which arise if the Trade Union, which represents both ho­mosexuals and heterosexuals, continued to send over waiters or waitresses, for example, who were rejected by the Employer for not being gay. Whatever the legal implications or public policy which pertains to this sort of discrimination in hiring, the Board does not find that sexual orientation affects "the nature of the work requirements and skills involved" of waiters, bartenders and others within the scope of the collective agreement herein.

posted by onshi at 12:16 PM on April 13, 2010

I was just surprised: he seems to be using it as if it's a known example, like as if kitchens were stereotypically gay or something, which I'd never heard before.

Tell me he's not trying to make a parallel between "union shop" and "gay kitchen" as if "shop" was too manly and therefore the more nancy "kitchen" was subbed in?
posted by desuetude at 12:37 PM on April 13, 2010

Best answer: I wouldn't think so, desuetude. For my part, I was meaning to suggest that might be a vague reference to a case like the once I found, where the passage might have been written without actually going back to look it up. It wouldn't have been too inexcusably far off, I think, for Hogg to have recalled it as having been about kitchen staff rather than waitstaff... but it could be about another case entirely. I only searched CanLII, which is free; Quicklaw or Westlaw Canada might find a better result.
posted by onshi at 2:01 PM on April 13, 2010

And desuetude, to be clear, I'm just taking a wild stab at which case this might be about. It could be something else entirely.
posted by onshi at 2:02 PM on April 13, 2010

Ok, OP, one last post and I'll quit: if you're really curious, I suppose you could ask the man himself? I wouldn't necessarily expect a reply, though. He's a big deal.
posted by onshi at 2:05 PM on April 13, 2010

And desuetude, to be clear, I'm just taking a wild stab at which case this might be about. It could be something else entirely.

Oh, me too. And Lemurrhea, nthing that "gay kitchen" isn't some sort of known term.
posted by desuetude at 2:29 PM on April 13, 2010

Odd, the link to "the man himself" above as mean to be to this...
posted by onshi at 2:02 PM on April 14, 2010