The Ykua Poty ecotourism farm, near Asunción, refused entry to a gay couple who wanted to celebrate Valentine's Day lunch there. The company argued that the place "is for couples made up of a man and a woman." The establishment's response went viral on social media and drew criticism from numerous users. By María Sanz, from Asunción. Daniel Guerrero wanted to share Valentine's Day lunch with his partner. He chose an outdoor location in the town of Ypané, south of Asunción: Quinta Ykua Poty ("spring in bloom" in Guaraní). The place, which is promoted as an ecotourism destination, doesn't usually have many clients, but Daniel preferred to contact the administrators beforehand via Facebook to secure a spot. When the reservation was almost confirmed, Daniel asked, "There's no discrimination based on sex, is there? Because we don't want to have a bad experience." Daniel knew why he was asking that question. On another occasion, he and his partner had already been kicked out of a club pool for "attracting too much attention," as he told Presentes. Now he wanted to be sure that Valentine's Day would be a pleasant experience for him and his partner, not an unpleasant one. But the company clarified: "This is for families and groups of friends who shouldn't be discriminated against. Management reserves the right to refuse entry and leave. Thank you for your honesty; this place is for couples consisting of a man and a woman, to avoid any unpleasantness."

[READ ALSO: #HateCrimes2017: More than 400 reports of violence against LGBT people in Paraguay]

Outraged, Daniel called the farm manager. “They told me they would always support the family, and that we couldn't go there and cause trouble if the children saw us. I was very surprised, because who brings children to a Valentine's Day lunch? It's an intimate moment, I think, for couples. They even told me that if I went with my boyfriend and two other women, they would let me into the restaurant,” Daniel explained.

Viral on social media

Daniel decided to take a screenshot of his Facebook conversation with the property management and shared it on his profile. “I just wanted to go to lunch with my partner. When I asked about gender discrimination, it wasn't because of the other people who would be there (…). I asked in case the reception staff had told me then and there that we wouldn't be allowed on the premises, but they didn't even let me finish writing. The manager of this place is an empty-headed and prejudiced person,” he posted.

[READ ALSO: #Paraguay: the government banned content on gender in schools]

Within hours, the post was shared dozens of times, and Quinta Ykua Poty's Facebook page was flooded with negative comments and references labeling them homophobic and discriminatory. The controversy prompted the company to issue a statement reaffirming its right of admission: “Quinta Ykua Poty is reserved for family, school, and corporate recreation in a harmonious and natural environment. Management reserves the right to refuse admission and to refuse service on the premises. We apologize to those who felt offended by our rules.” They further clarified: “'Management reserves the right to refuse admission and to refuse service on the premises' refers to those who might engage in inappropriate behavior, as it is a place frequented by children and other adults.”

Constant discrimination

The company itself advertises promotions for "Valentine's Month" on its Facebook page, offering discounts between February 14th and 28th for access to its eco-friendly space. Daniel says he feels "outraged and a little embarrassed for them" when he discovers that these promotions for lovers don't apply to gay and lesbian couples. He says it's common for people to look at him with disgust or hatred when he's walking down the street with his partner. "It's a disgrace, in 2018, to still be repressed by society. We're tired of always having to hide, of not being able to hold hands or caress each other's faces. These are just gestures of love; we're not disrespecting anyone," Daniel stated. He believes that discrimination is a matter of education and changing people's perceptions. “I work for a trucking company; there are more than 230 drivers. All of them know I’m gay, and they’ve never disrespected me. They support me, telling me they didn’t have that perception of gay people, but that changed when they met me. If you don’t have contact with an LGBTQ+ person, not discriminating depends on your upbringing,” he said. Despite this, he says discrimination persists. “People seem to want to force us back into the closet. We experience constant discrimination on the street, in stores, and on social media. I think it’s unacceptable. I have a saying: ‘Love and let yourself be loved.’ We all have the right to love and care for someone, regardless of that person’s gender,” Daniel stated.

Without laws against discrimination

The case of Daniel and his boyfriend is not the first instance of discrimination based on sexual orientation to come to light. In August 2016, a worker at the Britannia pub in downtown Asunción, She warned a lesbian couple that they should separate more.or they would be expelled from the premises. In October of the same year, a couple of girls were expelled from the Villa Morra Shopping Center for holding hands. This discrimination prompted various protest actions and public shamingwhich included walks hand-in-hand with kisses and hugs between LGBTQ+ couples inside the shopping center. Network Against All Forms of DiscriminationThe Network, which encompasses several organizations against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic origin, or socioeconomic status, among other factors, asserts that the right of admission in establishments open to the public cannot be used as a tool for discrimination, since the Paraguayan Constitution guarantees freedom, equality, security, and freedom of expression. The Network also points out that Paraguay is the only country in the region without a law against all forms of discrimination. This project It was introduced in 2007 and rejected in 2014 with 17 votes in favor and 21 against. It was introduced again in 2015, but has not been considered again in Parliament.