Saddle Up

NYC Gay Bar Flaming Saddles Lands Reality Series

l

According to the New York Post, Flaming Saddles had secured a deal for a new reality series. The Hell’s Kitchen bar, which is famous for its country and western theme, has attracted the likes of Anderson Cooper and Jesse Tyler Ferguson among it’s numerous patrons. The straight couple, Jacqui Squatriglia and Chris Barnes, who owns and manages the bar are likely to be the center of the series. Squatriglia was a chorographer for Coyote Ugly, which not only became the focus a Tyra Banks film but its own reality show on Country Music Television.

The bar was in the news recently for getting shut down due when it failed to pass a health inspector’s test. But it quickly reopened.

The real question is, will anyone watch it? The A-List failed to keep viewers entertained and is there really that much drama that goes into line-dancing on top of a bar?

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #coyoteugly #flamingsaddles #gaybar stories and more

6 Comments

  • Mr. E. Jones

    The straight couple, Jacqui Squatriglia and Chris Barnes

    Of course. Because nothing gay can exist without straight people making money off of it.

  • SmartManbear

    Please go back to school. Don’t understand the difference between “it’s” and “its?”

  • Spike

    A reality show about a gay bar owned by a str8t couple. And who is going to watch this?

  • miagoodguy

    Another trash reality show.

  • chefshep65

    @SmartManbear: lmao. The article used it properly, so I am guessing YOU should go back to school!

  • GreatGatsby2011

    @chefshep65: The possessive form of it was used twice in the same sentence. The first use of the possessive form of it was spelled correctly (its). The second use of the possessive form of it was spelled incorrectly (it’s).

    Unless of course the sentence is supposed to read “The Hell’s Kitchen bar, which is famous for its country and western theme, has attracted the likes of Anderson Cooper and Jesse Tyler Ferguson among *it is/has* numerous patrons.”

    Since this reading makes no sense, it appears to be a simple misspelling of its in the second usage.

Comments are closed.