Is this age discrimination?

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

You didn't respond to anything, you just said 'thats not true' without offering an explanation as to what was not true.

I said 'That's not true' in response to this sentance, which I quoted in the post where I said 'That's not true'. You'll see it just above where I said 'That's not true'.

On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

I said 'That's not true' in response to this sentance, which I quoted in the post where I said 'That's not true'. You'll see it just above where I said 'That's not true'.

So what's not true?

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

So what's not true?

Really? Again?

Here's the bit that's not true;

On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Here's the bit that's not true;

So a private girls school cannot stop males from entering the grounds? Just as an example.

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

So a private girls school cannot stop males from entering the grounds? Just as an example.

You did read the links, right? And you saw how the Courts have upheld decisions to confirm that private property owners cannot refuse people for whatever reason they decide is warranted?

Private properties cannot discriminate on ground of gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other grounds. They cannot discriminate on age, though there is an exception for over 18 rules. It would be illegal for a pub to have an 'over 25s' rule, though these used to be common at one stage.

And as for your example, what are the school going to do when Dad comes to pick up his daughter? Or when the courier has a package to deliver?

nhunter100

AndrewJRenko wrote:

And as for your example, what are the school going to do when Dad comes to pick up his daughter? Or when the courier has a package to deliver?

Waiting area, sorted. Anyway the thread was about denying access to under 18's. The OP's question was answered correctly. Going to finish watching the Rugby. Irish playing brilliantly. Have a good one.

AndrewJRenko

nhunter100 wrote: »

Waiting area, sorted. Anyway the thread was about denying access to under 18's. The OP's question was answered correctly. Going to finish watching the Rugby. Irish playing brilliantly. Have a good one.

A waiting area outside their own grounds? How would that work?

Enjoy the match.

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It would be illegal for a pub to have an 'over 25s' rule, though these used to be common at one stage

A licenced premises may refuse entry on any age once that policy is clearly advertised and applied to all people.

GerardKeating

notjustsweet wrote: »

This is one of those laws you've been told isn't it?
On private property it's up to the owner to decide who is welcome for whatever reason he/she decides is warranted.

No it is not, the Equal Status Acts would prevent exclusion based on certain catagories, for example, a Pub could ban people with brown eyes, but not with brown skin...

nhunter100 wrote: »

So a private girls school cannot stop males from entering the grounds? Just as an example.

They could limit access to parents of children attending the school

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

A licenced premises may refuse entry on any age once that policy is clearly advertised and applied to all people.

Have the rules changed since 2003?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0425/37618-equality/

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/licensed-trade-most-critical-of-new-measures-1.1062332

AndrewJRenko

GerardKeating wrote: »

They could limit access to parents of children attending the school

So they wouldn't be stopping males then, just stopping non-parents?

Sounds like a bit of a difficult policy to implement. What about Board members, guest lecturers, NEPS psychologies, NCSE SENOs, sales people for school book companies, the bloke who changes the bulbs on the interactive whiteboards?

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have the rules changed since 2003?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0425/37618-equality/

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/licensed-trade-most-critical-of-new-measures-1.1062332

Yes they have

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

Yes they have

Would you have any source or reference for the current rules please?

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Would you have any source or reference for the current rules please?

Google it. The amendment was made in 2005.

Put it this way, a large number of licenced premises have large signs in open view with their age restrictions.

Considering the number of litigant people out there, if such sign or policy was illegal, it would be an atm for litigants.

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

Google it. The amendment was made in 2005.

Put it this way, a large number of licenced premises have large signs in open view with their age restrictions.

Considering the number of litigant people out there, if such sign or policy was illegal, it would be an atm for litigants.

I've been looking for it yesterday and today without success. I can't find anything on Licensed Vitners or the IHREC site or with some Google searching.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've been looking for it yesterday and today without success. I can't find anything on Licensed Vitners or the IHREC site or with some Google searching.

You haven't looked hard enough, here's the PRECISE wording

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

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

You haven't looked hard enough, here's the PRECISE wording

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

Thanks - very helpful. I've bolded the key point for reference for others.

What particular Act is that from?

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks - very helpful. I've bolded the key point for reference for others.

What particular Act is that from?

Are you just taking the piss? - The very first lines give it to you.

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

AndrewJRenko

Delacent wrote: »

Are you just taking the piss? - The very first lines give it to you.

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

Eh no, I'm not taking the piss. I'm asking you what Act this is from.

This is Section 25 of an Act that amends the Equal Status Act 2000. It is not the Equal Status Act 2000.

Delacent

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no, I'm not taking the piss. I'm asking you what Act this is from.

This is Section 25 of an Act that amends the Equal Status Act 2000. It is not the Equal Status Act 2000.

There is a site called Google.

The first result gives it to you. I'll post it here as you seem unable to do basic search yourself.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2003/act/31/section/25/enacted/en/html

dudara

@Delacent & AndrewJRenko - enough, if you want to continue this back & forth, them take it to PM. At this point, your bickering is just clogging up the thread.

dudara

GerardKeating

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So they wouldn't be stopping males then, just stopping non-parents?

Sounds like a bit of a difficult policy to implement. What about Board members, guest lecturers, NEPS psychologies, NCSE SENOs, sales people for school book companies, the bloke who changes the bulbs on the interactive whiteboards?

It would/should be fairly simple, a sign saying "No un-authorised Access"

Commotion Ocean

jty0yt wrote: »

So there's a hotel/spa/restaurant near my home and it's known that if you're under 18 you won't be allowed in, they also ask this at the gate.
Now I presume that they don't have a club license so therefore they can't refuse entry if you're under 18, that would be age discrimination right?

CPTM wrote: »

Isn't it their property and so their right to allow whoever they want onto it?

I've always wondered about this.

Pubs, clubs etc., refuse people under 18, because that's the law.

However, I've often wondered about the legality of refusing a people under 21. I've even heard of clubs having an over 25 or over 30 policy. If a hotel or spa refused over 70's they could be sued for discrimination.

How come the legislation doesn't apply to having a lower age without good reason?

AndrewJRenko

GerardKeating wrote: »

It would/should be fairly simple, a sign saying "No un-authorised Access"

So it would be nothing to do with the gender of the visitor then?

dfeo wrote: »

If a hotel or spa refused over 70's they could be sued for discrimination.

How come the legislation doesn't apply to having a lower age without good reason?

Good point.

Peregrinus

dfeo wrote: »

However, I've often wondered about the legality of refusing a people under 21. I've even heard of clubs having an over 25 or over 30 policy. If a hotel or spa refused over 70's they could be sued for discrimination.

How come the legislation doesn't apply to having a lower age without good reason?

If I recall correctly, the licensed trade bargained for this, pointing out that there members where being held legally responsible for things done by customers who couldn't or wouldn't drink responsibly/hold their drink/etc. And they also pointed to abundant research which showed that, while 18 may be the legal age of adulthood, it's well below the age at which people develop into mature adults in social contexts, And between those two things they needed a greater degree of leeway than the original Act provided (which only exempted an under-18 rule). And this was desirable not just for the licensed trade but for society as a whole, since the downstream social costs of irresponsible drinking are considerable.

You may agree with that; you may not. But the politicians bought it.

FWIW, the UK equality legislation also accommodates age discrmination. You can discriminate on the basis of age if you have a legitimate aim (like public health and safety, or maintaining a particular ambience in your pub) and the age-discriminatory rule is a proportionate way of achieving that.