Bar's - over 23's

mayordenis

Ok is it ok for a bar or any business to discriminate based on your age - obviously once the legal obligations are met ie. 18 for alcohol.

Really annoyed was going to a sports bar/restaurant for about 2 years and then 1 day they just said no, when we were only trying to have dinner aswell ffs.

I'm 21 by the way and my GF is 20.

Really annoying, pretty offensive actually.

Tipsy Mac

Fully allowed to do it, if however they put no over 23's allowed that would be illegal.

mayordenis

That's exactly what I've said no?
that they won't allow be in or to purchase anything and yes they have signs saying over 23's only.

EDIT oh wait totally backwards my bad - so you can discriminate based on age - that's fairly rubbish.

Cunning Alias

If you try and take it any further they will use the "right to refuse admission" excuse. Pretty strange that they would refuse a regular.
Same thing happed to me on a first date! Very annoying.

jor el

You could check with the Equality Commission to see if this is legal. I'm pretty sure there was an act passed in the past which made it illegal for any licenced premises to refuse entry to anyone over 18. I think that was subsequently revoked though.

It's strange that you can't discriminate against someone for being too old, but it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against someone for being too young.

mcaul

All bars have an exemption from equality legislation for age limits.

Only stipulation is They must display it clearly at the entrance.

When the legislation was first introduced, all bars had to allow all people over 18 in. This caused major problems with drunk 18 yr old yobs insisting on entry to places that did not target the market. The legislation was amended so that bars / clubs could set a minimum age limit. It must be applied across the board & it must be displayed prominently at the entrance.

daheff

I know there is a law that says a bar can say over 23s /30s etc....but i'd be pretty sure that if this was challenged on constitutional grounds that it would be overturned.

As far as I'm aware the constitution says that you cannot be discrimated against on the basis of sex,race,religion and age (i'm open to correction on this though).

Mountjoy Mugger

daheff wrote: »

I know there is a law that says a bar can say over 23s /30s etc....but i'd be pretty sure that if this was challenged on constitutional grounds that it would be overturned.

As far as I'm aware the constitution says that you cannot be discrimated against on the basis of sex,race,religion and age (i'm open to correction on this though).

Article 44

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

The only references to age in the Constitution refer to voting, running for President, the Dail, retirement, etc. Nothing to do with getting refused admission to a premises.


Reference: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20IrelandNov2004.pdf

RedXIV

As far as i'm aware, the can refuse entry alright and as Cunning Alias said, if you argue your case, the security are able to refuse you entry through a simple loophole which states if a member of security feels uncomfortable with your presence and believes you may add to risk assessment, he can refuse you entry.

KoolKid

I remember a while back a elderly man taking a case against Q Bar for refusing him for being too old. The quote was this would not be your scene. He won that case based on discrimination, surly the reverse applys.

Our man in Havana

You can try your look at the pubs licence renewal in September.

sunny2004

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

Article 44

The only references to age in the Constitution refer to voting, running for President, the Dail, retirement, etc. Nothing to do with getting refused admission to a premises.


Reference: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20IrelandNov2004.pdf

There is your answer, run for president..
Seriously I dont have the knowledge to help you but it sucks....

evil-monkey

A bar is perfectly entitled to refused admission to u23s. They are perfectly within their rights. The law was changed a while back. If a bar says no U23s (or 21, 22, whatever) and you are below that age, well tough s**t.

nothing you can do about it. it's the law.

axer

evil-monkey wrote: »

nothing you can do about it. it's the law.

Can anyone point to the law that allows the club to not allow u23's?

Having looked at the equal status act 2000 it seems only clubs can discriminate based on age. Unless I am missing something the pub would not fall under the term club?

Disposal of goods and provision of services.


5.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of—

(a) an activity referred to in section 7 (2),

(b) a service related to a matter provided for under section 6 , or a service offered to its members by a club in respect of which section 8 applies,

(c) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground in relation to services of an aesthetic, cosmetic or similar nature, where the services require physical contact between the service provider and the recipient,

(d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk where the treatment—

(i) is effected by reference to—

(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or

(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,

and

(ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors,

(e) differences in the treatment of person on the religion ground in relation to goods or services provided for a religious purpose,

(f) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the basis of nationality or national origin in relation to the provision or organisation of a sporting facility or sporting event to the extent that the differences are reasonably necessary having regard to the nature of the facility or event and are relevant to the purpose of the facility or event,

(g) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground where embarrassment or infringement of privacy can reasonably be expected to result from the presence of a person of another gender,

(h) differences in the treatment of persons in a category of persons in respect of services that are provided for the principal purpose of promoting, for a bona fide purpose and in a bona fide manner, the special interests of persons in that category to the extent that the differences in treatment are reasonably necessary to promote those special interests,

(i) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender, age or disability ground or on the ground of race, reasonably required for reasons of authenticity, aesthetics, tradition or custom in connection with a dramatic performance or other entertainment,

(j) an age requirement for a person to be an adoptive or foster parent, where the requirement is reasonable having regard to the needs of the child or children concerned,

(k) a disposal of goods by will or gift, or

(l) differences, not otherwise specifically provided for in this section, in the treatment of persons in respect of the disposal of goods, or the provision of a service, which can reasonably be regarded as goods or a service suitable only to the needs of certain persons.

Could it be (h) or (l) that are bolded? Either of them would be really pushing it if they are what makes it legal (especially the first one).

evil-monkey

right, here is the law, as it is now. it was changed to this a few years ago...

25.— Section 15 of the Equal Status Act 2000 is amended by the addition of the following subsections:

“(3) (a) This subsection applies to the option given under subsection (2), (3) or (4) of section 34 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 to the holder of a licence of any licensed premises to allow a person under 18 to be in the bar of those premises at the times, or in the circumstances, specified in those subsections.

(b) The non-exercise of the option to which this subsection applies shall not of itself constitute discrimination.

(c) The reference in paragraph (a) to section 34 is to that section as substituted by section 14 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003.

(4) If—

(a) the holder of a licence or other authorisation which permits the sale of intoxicating liquor adopts a policy of refusing to supply intoxicating liquor to any person below a specified age which exceeds 18 years,

(b) a notice setting out the policy is displayed in a conspicuous place in or on the exterior of the premises, and

(c) the policy is implemented in good faith


so, as seen above, any premises selling alcohol, be it pub, club or what not, can set any age they want, as long as it exceeds 18, and is displayed at the door. that's how it is. there is no way around this, it's the law, very plain and simple. the premises in question had every right to deny entry to the OP unless they hadn't got the policy up on the door. if they had, then they were well within their legal right.

i thought that this was common knowledge?? doesn't anyone watch the news anymore?? it wasn't all that long ago this amendment was made, a few years at most...