This Gay Man Was Kicked Out Of A Vegas Pool Because Of His “Speedos”

A video’s going viral of a gay man being kicked out of a Las Vegas pool because of his swimsuit.

Yesterday, a man named Chris Donohoe shared a video of himself being kicked out of the Encore Beach Club in Las Vegas. Donohoe swears that he was kicked out because he’s gay.

As he shared in the caption for the video’s post:

"I was made to leave the pool for wearing a Mr Turk bathing suit that they said was not ‘In integrity’ with the brand of the pool party. In other words, I was kicked out for being a gay man wearing a bathing suit that was just a little too gay for the The Beach Club Encore Las Vegas to tolerate."

Donohoe later added:

“I’m going to pursue this to the fullest extent possible until LGBTQ+ people are no longer policed and discriminated against at the Wynn Las Vegas."

But, was Donohoe really kicked out because he’s gay, or was there something else going on?

First, the video shows Donohoe having an argument with whom we assume is the bouncer/security. You can hear the two repeating the same defenses over and over again.

Apparently, the excuse for Donohoe’s expulsion is that he’s wearing speedos. Donohoe responds to this by saying he fully understands that speedos are not allowed, but states that he’s not wearing a speedo.

At a first glance, we’d have to side with the security guard. Donohoe’s trying to be clever by using a technicality here. There is a specific speedo brand and Donohoe’s not wearing it. Thus, he’s technically not wearing a speedo.

That said, the rule could be implying that all male swimwear with the cut and shape of a speedo are banned. Technically, Donohoe is right, but that technicality doesn’t mean he has the right to stay at the pool.

This is especially true if you take into account the guidelines for the Encore Beach Club.

The official site’s guidelines state that “all entry is based on management’s discretion.”

The guidelines go further to say:

“Any person who refuses to comply with any regulation governing public bathing or swimming facility or any rule of that facility must be excluded from the premises.”

But here is the most important part of the puzzle. There is no official rule against speedos on the dress code, which is placed out below.

“Prohibited apparel for sunbathing/swimming:

  • No jeans or pants – guests may not swim/sunbathe fully clothed
  • No undergarments allowed for sunbathing/swimming
  • No torn or cut-off clothing
  • No rips/stains on clothing
  • No see-through bathing suits
  • No offensive prints on clothing
  • No chains or baggy clothing (jeans, shorts, etc.)
  • No athletic gear
  • No clothing that contains rivets, hooks, studs, etc.
  • European sunbathing is prohibited”

Speedos are not stated on that list of prohibited apparel, so this policy was either made up on the spot or hasn't been updated on the site yet.

It seems that there may be some sort of discrimination happening, but more information is needed in order to tell. If there is discrimination, it could be either homophobia or sexism and is entirely centered on revealing clothing for men.

Again, Donohoe says he will be pursuing this matter to the fullest extent, so we’ll see if the Encore Beach Club can justify this incident.

In addition, Instinct Magazine has reached out to the Encore Beach Club for comment.

Update (8/08/2018):

The Encore Beach Club's website has been updated to include the line, "No risqué or indecent swimwear is permitted; management reserves all rights to determine appropriate attire," but there's still no mention of speedos.

With this addition, we have to wonder if the rule is being applied to women as well or if it's only targeted towards men.

14 thoughts on “This Gay Man Was Kicked Out Of A Vegas Pool Because Of His “Speedos””

  1. “The Encore Beach Club’s

    "The Encore Beach Club's website has been updated to include the line, "No risqué or indecent swimwear is permitted; management reserves all rights to determine appropriate attire," but there's still no mention of speedos.

    With this addition, we have to wonder if the rule is being applied to women as well or if it's only targeted towards men."


    Well – duh! of course this rule does not apply to women. the staff/management are all male – of course they want to see the women in skimpy outfits.

  2. Again this writer did NOT do

    The 2nd line in the list of club rules is "No risqué or indecent swimwear is permitted; management reserves all rights to determine appropriate attire." It also states "No undergarments" which an intelligent person can assume also includes clothing that resembles undergarments. I'm no prude, but I am pretty sure a banana hammock is considered risque my most of the US population. To add my last 2 cents, the guy in the video is just grasping for an excuse, the word Speedo (although a brand name) is synonymous with any banana hammock. #EYEROLL

  3. The hotel’s swimwear policy

    The hotel's swimwear policy bans:

    Jeans and pants {all long trousers to us Europeans}
    Cut off clothing {long trousers cut down to shorts)}
    Baggy clothing (jeans or shorts) {This seems to mean any denim or long shorts}
    Athletic gear {My guess is this bans short running shorts, Lycra running shorts and all square cut shorts above the knee}
    See through clothing {Anything in a light colour}
    Offensive prints {All prints are offensive to someone}
    European sunbathing { being British I'm European and therefore banned from sunbathing, all Americans of European descent would also be banned from sunbathing, many Afro-Americans have a trace of European blood going back to before the civil war and should also be banned from sunbathing, this rule is deeply rascist and probably illegal}

    The rules above ban all men's wear from the pool area except plain dark coloured swim thongs, swim briefs and square cuts, or going in naked.  They also ban a significant part of the human race who have European descent.

    The sign by the pool area saying "No Speedos" is not supported by the hotel's official published rules and could be challenged in court.  The sign was ambiguous and Speedo should challenge the hotel in court for misuse of a registered trade name and bring it into disrepute.  The poolside ban would also ban all Speedo brand non swim brief products.

    Would a cross dressing, or trans-sexual man be welcome in this pool if he/she chose to wear a skimpy bikini? One thinks not.



  4. I’m assuming that the rule

    I'm assuming that the rule meant "Speedo-type" just like the "European bathing" means nudity.  Sounds like this guy understands the rule but thinks that he is being clever because his trunks are not the Speedo brand. A velvet rope isn't a court of law, and doormen don't care about loopholes and technicalities. Their job is to vet. I don't know what really happened here. But to suggest that the Wynn is homophobic, is totally absurd. On the street level, half the damn place is gay. 

  5. Wynn and Encor just updated

    Wynn and Encor just updated there pool attire rules.  If you go to they're website is been updated

  6. Shocked that Instinct doesn’t

    Shocked that Instinct doesn’t see basic homophobia. They can’t say “no gays” so arbitrary dress code is the way you do it. It’s textbook discrimination so the waffling is bizarre in a gay magazine. 

    • So if a straight man wore a

      So if a straight man wore a banana hammock, would he be let in?  We do not know.  We do not have footage of that.  We would have to see a case of a straight man in a speedo either being let in or kicked out to postulate if this is discrimination against homosexuals.  This instance is a man wearing a Speedo/bikini cut swim suit and is asked to leave. If their policy is no speedos, then it is no speedos.  Maybe this is a case of more narrow minded Americans against being too sexy going against the European/Canadian tourists that wear speedos much more than Americans do and gay men are caught up in the mix. European men wear speedos all the time, just to confuse us gay/bi men (kidding, maybe).  We would have to hear from the corporation as to why the policy is there. As for your "textbook discrimination" … just because a gay man is in a fight in public, according to your textbook, is that a hate crime? It could be a man getting in a fight for many reasons, not based on his sexuality.  When a transgender person is killed, it is tragic, but are these killings always because they are transgender or because of other variables. Or should we consult your textbook? It may be discrimination in this case of no budgie smugglers at the pool.  Let's ask the question, but let's not jump to pitch forks and tiki torches just yet.   And as for textbooks, most of them are written to me the education standards in Texas. 

  7. Nothing wrong with what he is

    Nothing wrong with what he is wearing.  Nothing in the listed rules say "no speedo's". 

    • I would hope that, were it to

      I would hope that, were it to be listed, it would say, "No Speedos," and not, "no speedo's."

      If it said the latter, it would beg the question, "No Speedo's what?" What do Speedos possess (key word there) that is so offensive?

        • Yes…really!


          Learn the difference between possessive ('s or s') and plural words (s only, no ') and you would get fewer a$$holes like me critiquing your comments. ;-P

  8. It may not be on the long

    It may not be on the long list of "don'ts;" but according to this article, the guy acknowledged that he understands that policy. So I'm not sure how this is homophobic.


Leave a Comment