Traveller bride-to-be awarded €15,000 after hotel found to have discriminated against

FreudianSlippers

RandRuns wrote: »

Nice changearound.

If I was wary of say, having a white man teach my child, because "90% of paedos are white men" it would not be a reasonable position, because the percentage of white men who are paedos would be infintesimally small.

If 90% of traveller weddings end in violence, then it is only reasonable that I be wary of hosting a traveller wedding, because the chances it will end bad are extremely high.

Surely you can't really be this simple, and are only pretending to be to make some obtuse point?

Yes, simple ol' me just walked you into making the case that such a policy would in fact be discriminatory under legislation.

Overheal

RandRuns wrote: »

Yes, anecdotal indeed. If I had a hotel, and my choice was between having my hotel wrecked "anecdotally" or taking a chance on the anecdote that some traveller weddings don't end in violence, I know which I'd bet my premises on.

Yet the law which your hotel is licensed to operate requires you to operate in a non-discriminatory manner. By doing so you accept the risk of breaking the law.

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yes, simple ol' me just walked you into making the case that such a policy would in fact be discriminatory under legislation.

That would be a great gotcha if only I had claimed it wasn't.

Since I didn't, it isn't what you think it is.

I know refusing to host a traveller wedding is discrimatory under the law. Everyone knows that.
That doesn't mean it's not the sensible position to take.

Try reading posts before responding.

Overheal

dd973 wrote: »

Jerking off about Travellers and LGBT people, the Irish psychosis.

That itself is discrimination to the Irish. There’s a broader global norm of people ‘jerking off’ about ‘The Other’

RandRuns

Overheal wrote: »

Yet the law which your hotel is licensed to operate requires you to operate in a non-discriminatory manner. By doing so you accept the risk of breaking the law.

Yeah, I know. Everyone knows that. The trick is to avoid having your hotel wrecked, and avoid having to pay damages for not wanting to have your hotel wrecked.

FreudianSlippers

breezy1985 wrote: »

What is the actual percentage of traveller weddings that end in violence just out of curiosity

Not that I want to hijack your question or that I'm saying your question isn't relevant, but I'd like to point out that it actually shouldn't matter what the answer to this is - it's the assumption that if even 99% of them do that you can assume that it will happen just because it's a traveller wedding.

FreudianSlippers

RandRuns wrote: »

That would be a great gotcha if only I had claimed it wasn't.

Since I didn't, it isn't what you think it is.

I know refusing to host a traveller wedding is discrimatory under the law. Everyone knows that.
That doesn't mean it's not the sensible position to take.

Try reading posts before responding.

So you accept it's discriminatory, therefore award justified... case closed.
If you have a point, I'm struggling to glean what it might perhaps be?

RandRuns

breezy1985 wrote: »

What is the actual percentage of traveller weddings that end in violence just out of curiosity

That is the question.
According to those I know who have knowledge of this area (hotel workers and owners, and Gardai) the percentage is close to or at 100%.
There is a hotel in Limerick that specialises in traveller weddings, but it uses garden furniture in the function room (cheap to replace, difficult to use as a weapon its so light), has mesh over the most likely to be broken windows, has extremely tough security around the bar, and has nothing in the function room or it's environs that can be picked up or ripped off the wals/floor.

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you accept it's discriminatory, therefore award justified... case closed.
If you have a point, I'm struggling to glean what it might perhaps be?

We know.

Just read some posts. Then think on them awhile. Then get someone ese to read them and explain them to you.

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not that I want to hijack your question or that I'm saying your question isn't relevant, but I'd like to point out that it actually shouldn't matter what the answer to this is - it's the assumption that if even 99% of them do that you can assume that it will happen just because it's a traveller wedding.

Thank you.

This is exactly the attitude that the descrimination industry holds, that makes no sense to people who's livelihoods could be wrecked, or whose staff could be maimed, if they are stupid enough to take the chance on the wedding they host being in the 1%.

I know you think this is awful of them, and we all know it is illegal, but it is still the sensible position.

McFly85

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not that I want to hijack your question or that I'm saying your question isn't relevant, but I'd like to point out that it actually shouldn't matter what the answer to this is - it's the assumption that if even 99% of them do that you can assume that it will happen just because it's a traveller wedding.

I disagree with this. If you were to have irrefutable data that showed 99% of traveller weddings ended in violence then it stops being a question of discrimination and then becomes a question of risk.

Right now, there is no data available to support the argument, so it is discrimination.

Overheal

RandRuns wrote: »

Thank you.

This is exactly the attitude that the descrimination industry holds, that makes no sense to people who's livelihoods could be wrecked, or whose staff could be maimed, if they are stupid enough to take the chance on the wedding they host being in the 1%.

I know you think this is awful of them, and we all know it is illegal, but it is still the sensible position.

So you think it’s sensible to break the law? Bold strategy for a Hotel to take. Such an acknowledgement in court would open them up to even wider penalties.

What in the world is the discrimination industry?

gmisk

dd973 wrote: »

Jerking off about Travellers and LGBT people, the Irish psychosis.

Huh?!
What are you on about?

FreudianSlippers

McFly85 wrote: »

I disagree with this. If you were to have irrefutable data that showed 99% of traveller weddings ended in violence then it stops being a question of discrimination and then becomes a question of risk.

Right now, there is no data available to support the argument, so it is discrimination.

I think we actually agree though? I'm using 99% as an absurd percentage to point out that it's clearly discrimination.

Overheal

McFly85 wrote: »

I disagree with this. If you were to have irrefutable data that showed 99% of traveller weddings ended in violence then it stops being a question of discrimination and then becomes a question of risk.

Right now, there is no data available to support the argument, so it is discrimination.

Then it would become a question of why does the violence happen and who instigated it: are 99% of brides or grooms responsible for the violence? Is it a handful of individuals that go to most of these weddings and start brawls? Is it 99% of all the guests? What is the severity of violence and what are we codifying it as: a few people moshing or do we start tallying property damage? Is a dropped pint glass equivalent to a broken window?

irelandrover

Overheal wrote: »

So you think it’s sensible to break the law? Bold strategy for a Hotel to take. Such an acknowledgement in court would open them up to even wider penalties.

What in the world is the discrimination industry?

In the case of traveller weddings it is sensible for a hotel to break the law.
It would be very stupid of them to admit that in court.

FreudianSlippers

irelandrover wrote: »

In the case of traveller weddings it is sensible for a hotel to break the law.
It would be very stupid of them to admit that in court.

So are you suggesting that we, as a society, only start following the laws that we subjectively deem sensible?

McFly85

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think we actually agree though? I'm using 99% as an absurd percentage to point out that it's clearly discrimination.

I disagree that the question is irrelevant. If you had the data, you could argue that refusal of service isn't discriminatory.

Overheal

irelandrover wrote: »

In the case of traveller weddings it is sensible for a hotel to break the law.
It would be very stupid of them to admit that in court.

So the courts could justifiably discriminate against hotels if the hotels are prone to wanting to break the law out of clear ‘sensibility?’ How many hotels would need to be found discriminating against travelers before the courts just decide that all hotels discriminate against travelers? Wouldn’t it be a sensible position for the adjudicators to take?

irelandrover

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So are you suggesting that we, as a society, only start following the laws that we subjectively deem sensible?

I'm saying that a hotel should take a decision to protect their building and staff. In this case it goes against the law.

Fly_away

Fly_away wrote: »

Nope, I think there is absolutely a justification in a hotel turning down a Traveller wedding. And because there's a more than reasonable justification, I don't think it's discrimination. In a similar way I don't think it's discriminatory to place restrictions on sex offenders and their involvements with children once they are released from prison.

If you owned a hotel you wouldn't want Travellers to have a wedding there either if you were honest about it (which I suspect you're not).


I don't think a lot of the people who shout 'THAT'S DISCRIMINATION!' around these parts and in the liberal media actually understand fully what discrimination is and that's part of the problem.

I think you don't seem to understand the law.
You are blaming every traveller for the behaviour of some travellers.
That is discrimination!

You can think it's not all you like, but you are wrong.

FreudianSlippers

McFly85 wrote: »

I disagree that the question is irrelevant. If you had the data, you could argue that refusal of service isn't discriminatory.

Is this an opinion statement or is it backed up by some precedent or legislation?

Overheal

McFly85 wrote: »

I disagree that the question is irrelevant. If you had the data, you could argue that refusal of service isn't discriminatory.

I could argue the common factor is alcohol though, not the bride being a member of the traveler community.

JimmyVik

breezy1985 wrote: »

He is a convicted paedo convicted is the important word. He is definitely a paedo and yes I would be worried.
The traveller woman is not definitely a criminal. You assume she is due to the group she is from which is the definition of discrimination

Not any little bit the same thing.

Now if hotel staff came and said Mary the traveller is having a party and she has done loads of time for assault then it would be the same

What if he was known to hang out with paedos but wasnt convicted.

FreudianSlippers

irelandrover wrote: »

I'm saying that a hotel should take a decision to protect their building and staff. In this case it goes against the law.

So in the context of the thread, what's your point?

Overheal

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So in the context of the thread, what's your point?

Presumably that the hotel deserved to be convicted and fined and that perhaps such fines in the future will need to be steeper as the discrimination becomes seen as a frugal alternative to property damages.

RandRuns

Imagine if I built a one-armed bandit, like the ones in casinos.
But instead of putting in your money, and getting a payout on occassion, and nothing most of the time, it worked like this;
You pay in €10,000 and pull the handle. If you win, you get €15,000, but if you lose, a baseball bat hits you repeatedly across the head.
The odds of winning are 1 in 100.

Would you play?

But there's a twist - if you don't play, you get fined. Say, €15,000.

Tough isn't it?

Hotels have this machine sitting in their lobby.

McFly85

Overheal wrote: »

Then it would become a question of why does the violence happen and who instigated it: are 99% of brides or grooms responsible for the violence? Is it a handful of individuals that go to most of these weddings and start brawls? Is it 99% of all the guests? What is the severity of violence and what are we codifying it as: a few people moshing or do we start tallying property damage? Is a dropped pint glass equivalent to a broken window?

I think getting the data would be problematic, definitely, and you could argue collecting it is inherently discriminatory if its only use was to give hotels a reason to refuse service-but hypothetically you would really only look at cases in excess of 1k of damages to property to see how many times it actually happens.

irelandrover

Overheal wrote: »

So the courts could justifiably discriminate against hotels if the hotels are prone to wanting to break the law out of clear ‘sensibility?’ How many hotels would need to be found discriminating against travelers before the courts just decide that all hotels discriminate against travelers? Wouldn’t it be a sensible position for the adjudicators to take?

How would courts find that all hotels discriminate against travellers.

bubblypop wrote: »

I think you don't seem to understand the law.
You are blaming every traveller for the behaviour of some travellers.
That is discrimination!

You can think it's not all you like, but you are wrong.

You aren't blaming every traveller. There is a very high percentage of the prison population that are travellers. there is a higher likelihood of crime in the traveller community that settled community. Traveller weddings tend to be massive so you are not saying that every traveller there will cause trouble but there is a much higher chance of trouble.

I agree that this is discrimination but i can see why the hotel would choose a fine rather than accept the wedding.

Overheal

RandRuns wrote: »

Imagine if I built a one-armed bandit, like the ones in casinos.
But instead of putting in your money, and getting a payout on occassion, and nothing most of the time, it worked like this;
You pay in €10,000 and pull the handle. If you win, you get €15,000, but if you lose, a baseball bat hits you repeatedly across the head.
The odds of winning are 1 in 100.

Would you play?

But there's a twist - if you don't play, you get fined. Say, €15,000.

Tough isn't it?

Hotels have this machine sitting in their lobby.

So what you’re saying is the fine isn’t steep enough to prevent criminal discrimination. I guess adjudicators should take note.