So 4 travellers walk into a bar.....

c_man

Richard Hillman wrote: »

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management.

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Take for example the likes of Panti-bar in Dublin which openly admits to discriminating against straight women. That's two of the no-no issues which you're not allowed to use. They're doing fine business wise.

freshpopcorn

Richard Hillman wrote: »

.

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management. I can't see many people standing for such an act. They'll take their business elsewhere.

I know some areas and they'd be delighted with such a policy. It would have no effect on local trade in general and all that wouldn't go there would be a hipster on facebook!

Richard Hillman

c_man wrote: »

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Take for example the likes of Panti-bar in Dublin which openly admits to discriminating against straight women. That's two of the no-no issues which you're not allowed to use. They're doing fine business wise.

Then society indicates that it's OK with it.

c_man

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Then society indicates that it's OK with it.

I think using "society" is a bit much there. More that it shows there's always a market for discriminatory businesses.

mad muffin

When will these stupid publicans learn? All you have to say is sorry you’re too drunk to be served.

end of the road

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Then society indicates that it's OK with it.

should we extend that to other issues as well or is it just in terms of discrimination you support it because of particular groups you have an issue with?
we have laws because sometimes what society may be okay with isn't for the greater good over all.

Ash.J.Williams

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You should be able to discriminate against anybody for any reason when it comes to accepting their custom. It's up to society to say whether it's acceptable or not.

If your local pub says we are not allowing Gay people into their bar, they should be allowed to but the locals will probably just shun the bar until it's closed down or under new management. I can't see many people standing for such an act. They'll take their business elsewhere.

Societal engineering is meaningless.

Then people will get sued while waiting on the village elders to decide if they were correct or not

Orion

riffmongous wrote: »

But it was hardly a Thursday

It wasn't. I think it was a Saturday evening. Was after a conference so about 5 ish as I recall.

Yawns

The pub got sued because they were stupid to actually tell them a reason they were being refused.

Pubs can refuse to serve you as long as it's not done in a discriminatory way. Eg travelers, gender etc.

Just simply refuse and tell them they can come back tomorrow to speak with a manager.

If you have to give a reason, it's always best not to. But best way it works is a member of staff usually recognizes one and remembers having trouble before. At least one or two more get agitated at this point and gives you a valid reason to ask all of them to leave. No discrimination case.

I'm sure the social justice warriors don't like hearing this, but no pub wants the travelers in. They're messy, smash the place up and they couldn't give a ****. Those same sjw most likely wouldn't go to a pub if they knew travelers were allowed in on a regular basis. If they came across a group of them, they'd prob leave as soon as or stay on the far side of the pub away from them.

Orion

Does anyone know why no media outlet are naming the pub and the manager? It's a straightforward case of discrimination so why are the names withheld? Everyone in the town knows where and who did it - it's no secret.

seamus

c_man wrote: »

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Take for example the likes of Panti-bar in Dublin which openly admits to discriminating against straight women.

That's pretty disingenuous, but I suspect you know that.

You're right though, "the market" is not good at self-regulating and never has been. In a perfect world, an establishment which bans "undesirables" would be shunned by the decent people and then be forced to lift the ban.

However, in the real world where people are not decent all the time and tend to act as a herd, one place labelling a group as "undesirables" has a tendency to stick, and before long society is applying the same label and applauding businesses who ban them. Before long, they're banned everywhere because "the market" has decided that they should be.

This is why trusting "market forces" to ever do the right thing will always fail.

Orion

I have to say this bit is hilarious. I know the manager who made the call and that training will do absolutely no good whatsoever.

"A further condition of the settlement was that the staff involved attend a course of equality training."

Was it the place that does the "Funny" sandwich board?

DEFTLEFTHAND

You're right there

Sounds like something out of the Soviet era. Sent for reprogramming.

Orion

It's the Roost. I said it earlier in the thread. I have confirmation from a indisputable source as I'm fully aware that common knowledge can be very unreliable.

Richard Hillman

end of the road wrote: »

should we extend that to other issues as well or is it just in terms of discrimination you support it because of particular groups you have an issue with?
we have laws because sometimes what society may be okay with isn't for the greater good over all.

That's life though, people have different opinions on different issues. If a business decided to discriminate one group of people, some people will take exception and Boycott, some people will not be bothered by it. It should all be about choice.

Society should choose what they deem is the greater good, that's what a Free Democratic Republic should be. The option of choice.

It's a bit like the Gay Cake furore in Northern Ireland. Do I believe they should be allowed to turn away business because they feel it infringes their beliefs? Yes. Would I use their business in future? No chance.

seamus

Orion wrote: »

Does anyone know why no media outlet are naming the pub and the manager? It's a straightforward case of discrimination so why are the names withheld? Everyone in the town knows where and who did it - it's no secret.

The matter was settled before hearing, with agreement from the licensed premises to pay €6,000 compensation to each of the individuals, plus a further €500 payment to each, to be donated to a charity of their choice.

"Settled" means that no fault was admitted, so it can't be legally said that the establishment is guilty of discrimination.

So media tends to avoid naming them lest they be accused of implying that the business was guilty.

riffmongous

Orion wrote: »

It's the Roost. I said it earlier in the thread. I have confirmation from a indisputable source as I'm fully aware that common knowledge can be very unreliable.

It's named in the Irish Times

Yawns

Orion wrote: »

I have to say this bit is hilarious. I know the manager who made the call and that training will do absolutely no good whatsoever.

"A further condition of the settlement was that the staff involved attend a course of equality training."

But that could apply to the majority of publicans and bar staff across the country, including me when I worked in the hospitality sector. Bars, clubs, pubs, hotels etc do not want them. They have themselves to blame. It's not because as a group they have a world wide reputation for hard working, honesty and reliability. They're not known for their kindness to animals and charitable donations.

They're known as thieving scum who treat their haltings sites as a dumping ground and burn crap. The less said, the better. People won't like what I type but it's the damn truth.

I grew up pretty much next to a halting site in Tallaght for 20 years. First hand experience of the scrotes and how the gardaí (don't) deal with them.

Orion

seamus wrote: »

"Settled" means that no fault was admitted, so it can't be legally said that the establishment is guilty of discrimination.

So media tends to avoid naming them lest they be accused of implying that the business was guilty.

That makes no sense. Companies and people involved in settled cases are named all the time. They admitted liability and paid compensation - they are guilty of discrimination. Emily Logan had no such compunction in saying it.

Orion

riffmongous wrote: »

It's named in the Irish Times

The holding company Laraville is named. That's not the same as naming the pub.

Subcomandante Marcos

King George VI wrote: »

My fav quote from the article is:

"The group had been attending a human rights course when they had decided to go for a drink to a nearby pub."

lol

The group had just completed a NUI certified course on human rights in Maynooth University and were in the company of Anastasia Crickley who is president of the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and former head of the Department of Applied Social Studies in Maynooth University.

That's my favourite bit, the bar acted illegally in front of an internationally recognised expert in this field and got rightly bitch slapped because of it.

seamus

Orion wrote: »

That makes no sense. Companies and people involved in settled cases are named all the time. They admitted liability and paid compensation - they are guilty of discrimination. Emily Logan had no such compunction in saying it.

If they admit liability. An out-of-court settlement can be reached that includes no admission of liability.

There's also the matter of evidence. Things said in court are protected, i.e. a paper can report on them as if they were fact and cannot be sued.

But in this case, no hearings had begun, so from a legal perspective everything you report is hearsay.

It's an ass-covering exercise for papers who don't want to spend the extra time making sure their reports are watertight.

riffmongous

Orion wrote: »

The holding company Laraville is named. That's not the same as naming the pub.

I'm sure I saw it Lnamed directly too, let me have a look

Subcomandante Marcos

riffmongous wrote: »

I wonder which pub it was, some of them are pretty big so it'd be obvious they are ****ting you

The Roost, part of the Louis Fitzgerald Group.

Annasopra

c_man wrote: »

I'm not sure this is a great idea. Take for example the likes of Panti-bar in Dublin which openly admits to discriminating against straight women. That's two of the no-no issues which you're not allowed to use. They're doing fine business wise.

Not really sure what you are talking about?

riffmongous

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/bar-staff-should-get-anti-racism-training-says-traveller-activist-1.3330696?mode=amp

Omackeral

Doylers wrote: »

Was walking into coppers there only 4 weeks ago. Group of 7 of us all sober and relatively early(for coppers) went to walk in, no issues but they stopped the disabled guy and said "no, you've had to much". The chap has a type of limp that I knew was medical having only met him a few hours prior but the bouncers couldn't tell or just didn't want him in because of it. I suspect the latter, seems the discriminate whenever they wish.

Bouncers there are absolute w*nkers in my experience. Myself and two friends were turned away a few times the last couple of years despite being grand, courteous and dressed well while young ladies literally stumbled around in the line only to get in. They just seem to pick people out sometimes and give a thin excuse, honestly feels like that! As an experiment, I went up there at 11:30 with a different friend of mine before we'd even had a drink, just to see what they'd say. ''You've a bit too much on board there''. Not. One. Drop. What do you even say to that?! Thing is, there's zero hassle anywhere else ever. Never been refused admission anywhere.

I actually get in free with my job and have done before and all but I would in my bollox stand around pleading a case with some fella who won't even give you or your friends the decency of eye contact or a 10 second conversation to ascertain your manner.

Orion

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm sure I saw it Lnamed directly too, let me have a look

Sorry they did - you're right.

sbsquarepants

seamus wrote: »

Before long, they're banned everywhere because "the market" has decided that they should be.

And why exactly might the "market" decide to ban one group of people over another?

If it was a reasonable assumption that a group of travellers would come in to any business, spend money and leave it as they found it, what possible sense would it make to not want them there. Traveller money goes every bit as far as my money or yours when it comes time to spend the profits.

Problem is it's not a reasonable assumption to make - there is a hugely increased chance that the night will end in chaos, damage and violence. That's a stone cold fact, pubs are just playing the odds.

It's not PC to say it but we (mostly) all know it to be true. I wouldn't let them into my pub, I'd likely up and leave if a group came in to where I was - I've had too many bad experiences with them to give a rats arse whether or not it's politically correct to distrust them as a group. I don't trust them and I wouldn't spend time around them if I could avoid it. If that's racist, so be it. I didn't form that opinion based on nothing. I'd say 99% of people I personally know think the very same way.