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

BattleCorp

Overheal wrote: »

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.

There's a reason that hotels don't like holding traveller weddings. Many, and I don't mean the odd one, many traveller weddings end in disaster for the hotel.

While it is illegal to discriminate, I totally understand why a hotel wouldn't want a traveller wedding.

McFly85

Overheal wrote: »

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

You could, but alcohol is a fixture of the vast majority of Irish weddings. If alcohol was the factor, hoteliers would be wary of hosting any wedding for fear of damages.

irelandrover

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

My point is that i fully understand the hotel in this case. This isn't the legal discussion forum. It is current affairs.

FreudianSlippers

I've decided not to hold any Jewish weddings at my hotel because of all the broken glasses.

RandRuns

Overheal wrote: »

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

Not a business owner I'm guessing?

Overheal

McFly85 wrote: »

You could, but alcohol is a fixture of the vast majority of Irish weddings. If alcohol was the factor, hoteliers would be wary of hosting any wedding for fear of damages.

And so it could be. Hotels are not required to host weddings. If the risk of criminal penalty or public liability is too great, don’t offer the service. Basic economics.

FreudianSlippers

irelandrover wrote: »

My point is that i fully understand the hotel in this case. This isn't the legal discussion forum. It is current affairs.

Ok, I got it, you just wanted to drop in and let us all know that you understand it's completely illegal and the compensation is justified, but you're cool with it. Got it.

Overheal

RandRuns wrote: »

Not a business owner I'm guessing?

Ad Hominem. The purpose of anti discrimination law is to eliminate unlawful discrimination. If hoteliers are not fazed by the penalties incurred for discriminating and continue to discriminate, then clearly the penalties related to discrimination are in need of enhancement.

FreudianSlippers

RandRuns wrote: »

Not a business owner I'm guessing?

You own a hotel?

irelandrover

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ok, I got it, you just wanted to drop in and let us all know that you understand it's completely illegal and the compensation is justified, but you're cool with it. Got it.

Why are you in the thread? This is clearly discrimination. According to you the thread should be 2 posts.

1. Is this discrimation.
2. Yes it is, close thread.

I am here for the further discussion around this. The hotel in this case chose a fine rather than host a traveller wedding. Many many hotels do the same.

McFly85

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

Completely my own opinion! Without knowing the actual number and just refusing service based on someones background is of course discrimination.

If you could quantify it, and it was high, then the hotel could reasonably argue they didnt want to assume the risk.

If, however, the number was low, then there would be absolutely no recourse for the hotel at all.

It's basically what this thread is dancing around anyway. Just how much risk does the hotel open itself up to by accepting a traveller wedding? Nobody can categorically answer.

irelandrover

irelandrover wrote: »

There is a very high percentage of the prison population that are travellers.

just FYI, 10% of male prisoners are travellers. Doesn't seem very high percentage?

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You own a hotel?

Why, are you looking for a job?

I'm sure you'd be great serving at traveller weddings.

ELM327

bubblypop wrote: »

just FYI, 10% of male prisoners are travellers. Doesn't seem very high percentage?

1 traveller prisoner to 9 "settled" prisoner in each 10?


What's the ratio of traveller population to settled?
I'd wager it's much less than 1 in 10. Ergo, they are disproportionately represented in prisons, and thus the statement made was correct.

irelandrover

bubblypop wrote: »

just FYI, 10% of male prisoners are travellers. Doesn't seem very high percentage?

Travellers are 0.7% of the irish population. Id say 10% of the prison population is very high.

Baggly

Mod

RandRuns, you are done in this thread. Dont post again.

FreudianSlippers, dont post in this thread for a week.

whisky_galore

I'm sure a bunch of travellers that were business minded could buy their own hotel and have a traveller-friendly venue.

Overheal

McFly85 wrote: »

Completely my own opinion! Without knowing the actual number and just refusing service based on someones background is of course discrimination.

If you could quantify it, and it was high, then the hotel could reasonably argue they didnt want to assume the risk.

If, however, the number was low, then there would be absolutely no recourse for the hotel at all.

It's basically what this thread is dancing around anyway. Just how much risk does the hotel open itself up to by accepting a traveller wedding? Nobody can categorically answer.

Wouldn’t the better choice for the hotel be to operate weddings the same for everyone? If some percentage of weddings get violent assume the potential is there for all of them to get violent, and plan accordingly. As one post mentioned earlier make your hotels wedding plan be around heightened security and minimal cost collateral. Places that still want to be fancy, just charge more appropriate to cost-benefit for all weddings at your venue. Having one standard of weddings for travelers and one for everyone else is discrimination.

Paulzx

RandRuns wrote: »

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.

That's giving me a vision of the bar in the Blues Brothers where the stage was protected by chicken wire and they played with a hail of bottles and glass coming down on them!

Sounds like a cool wedding venue:D

end of the road

Fly_away wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/traveller-bride-to-be-awarded-15000-after-hotel-found-to-have-discriminated-against-her-40005977.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=seeding&fbclid=IwAR0YIRq0iKW199aRDhlAscslUSNmYq_paIX9U240aDAGnPUa1AsvzE5zmoo

I don't blame the hotel at all. Multiple travellers steamed within an enclosed environment after a piss up would be quite capable and maybe even likely to cause more than €15000 worth of damages.

I think the judge made a mistake. And we as a society are making a mistake by allowing these judgements to pass without serious reflection as to the reality of the situation the hotel found itself in. If I had allowed such an event to take place, I don't think I could feel I was doing my job properly given the major risk of damages. It would certainly have me on edge. I don't feel the judgement gave due consideration to this reality. In fact, it cast it aside and ignored it - pretending it doesn't exist. And that is a complete nonsense.

I don't think this is a controversial, unreasonable or discriminatory thing to say, it is based on my learned experience of having interacting with the travelling community. These are real anxieties and shouldn't be dismissed.

the reality of the situation is that the hotel discriminated against her, nothing more, nothing less.
what might, or could have happened is irrelevant as it's speculation.
discrimination law doesn't care about might haves, it cares about what happened, and the hotel discriminated against her and has to pay.
views that are irrelevant to discrimination has to be dismissed as part of discrimination cases so as to insure the case is decided on the basis of the facts of the situation.

Renault 5 wrote: »

The hotel are fully to blame for this.

Not because they refused the wedding. It’s because they made it so obvious why they were refusing.

Their are hundreds of excuses they could have used but chose to dig themselves into a hole.

using other excuses may not necessarily protect them from a discrimination case i would suspect.

ELM327 wrote: »

They made the mistake of just blanking her and the commission.

Now they need to engage and simply continue replying and come up with another reason to not hold it. Price them out, close the hotel temporarily (still a saving over the carnage caused at these events, and also on the 15k), something.

But you cannot be seen to do it

these could still be very obvious as to discrimination so may not protect the hotel.
pricing them out would be the most obvious one to fail as it can be easy enough to find out what they would normally charge.

osarusan

The fact that the hotel didn't engage with the WRC meant there would only be one outcome.

It still remains the case that many hotels would rather turn down business than host a Traveller wedding (and many pubs would rather close rather than welcome Travellers after a funeral), and the reasons behind this are obvious to us all.

These businesses are between a rock and a hard place at such times.

Fly_away

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.

I did no such thing.

I said it was justifiable for a hotel to deem it too great a risk to host a Traveller wedding, and because there is a clear and obvious justification - it isn't necessarily discriminatory practice.

You can continue to stick your head in the sand and claim that the risks for the hotel would not be enormous, and think therefore their actions are unjustifiable - but you are wrong.

Overheal

osarusan wrote: »

The fact that the hotel didn't engage with the WRC meant there would only be one outcome.

It still remains the case that many hotels would rather turn down business than host a Traveller wedding (and many pubs would rather close rather than welcome Travellers after a funeral), and the reasons behind this are obvious to us all.

These businesses are between a rock and a hard place at such times.

Is it illegal to close? You’re not serving anybody in that case.

osarusan

Overheal wrote: »

Is it illegal to close? You’re not serving anybody in that case.

Not illegal, and obviously much easier to close a pub than a hotel.

ELM327

Overheal wrote: »

Is it illegal to close? You’re not serving anybody in that case.

Thats what the pubs in my local area do when "the travellers are out". When they are turned away at one pub the owner updates all others, and they all close their doors. No one (traveller or not) allowed in.

end of the road

Fly_away wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but it surely cannot be right that the state's laws does not recognise the extra risk that the hotel would have taken on here? If we keep ignoring this issue and pretending it doesn't exist how can we hope to improve the relationship between the travelling community and the rest of society?

Equality and respect is a two way street but unfortunately it doesn't always feel that way when the travelling community are involved.

the law has no need to recognise such.
any actions that may be taken that cause damage or other issues come under a mix of criminal damage and other laws.
the risks to the hotels etc is just i'm afraid, a fact of being open to the public.

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears based on that report that once she spoke her surname that guilt of the defendant was decided. That is a very low bar to set for proof of discrimination.
"In conclusion, WRC adjudicator Ray Flaherty ruled: ”The evidence clearly shows that the disengagement coincided with (the coordinator) being made aware of the complainant’s surname on the morning of 21 July 2019, some hours in advance of the complainant’s attendance at the wedding showcase.”"

Maybe the Hotel discriminated, maybe not, but that is the rule of thumb that will be applied when considering future cases for every company offering services and product to the public.

it was very blatently obvious discrimination, that is what decided the guilt of the defendant.
discriminate against someone, suffer the consequences of it, it's that simple.
if this makes future cases come down harder on companies or businesses who discriminate against travelers or others then that can only be a good thing.

Invidious wrote: »

It would be quite reasonable to assume that a Traveller bride is young.

You're the one taking the stand that people shouldn't make assumptions about people just because they happen to be Travellers ... and yet, by your own admission, you also assumed that a Traveller bride-to-be must be young, even though the average Irish bride is almost 35.

the average is only the average and not thee ultimate story.
there are plenty of brides younger then 35, so it was a reasonable assumption to make that this woman is young, nothing to do with her being traveler, for which she happens to be so.
so what you think is some sort of gotcha is just the digging of a bigger hole and falling deeper into it as you double down.

martinr5232

McFly85 wrote:

It's absolutely discrimination. And it will keep happening until attitudes about the Travelling community change.

That will happen when traveling community attitudes change and have respect for other people and other peoples property.

Fly_away

Overheal wrote: »

Is it illegal to close? You’re not serving anybody in that case.

But the intent behind closing for all is to avoid Travellers entering the premise.

I think it would be racist and discriminatory behavior for a pub to temporarily shut to avoid black people entering for instance.

And fwiw I think a few Travellers entering a pub is very different to hosting a Traveller wedding at a hotel. The risks involved in hosting the wedding are obviously much greater.

DaveyWaveyLad

Many hotels refuse to take Stag or Hen parties but nobody shouts discrimination. People booking such parties just keep trying until they find a hotel that will accept their booking. The difference here is travelers feel they have entitlements because of their Ethnic Minority status and keep banging this drum. Hotels have a right to protect their assets so whether a traveler wedding or a stag party, I believe they have a right to refuse unconditionally.

breezy1985

DaveyWaveyLad wrote: »

Many hotels refuse to take Stag or Hen parties but nobody shouts discrimination. People booking such parties just keep trying until they find a hotel that will accept their booking. The difference here is travelers feel they have entitlements because of their Ethnic Minority status and keep banging this drum. Hotels have a right to protect their assets so whether a traveler wedding or a stag party, I believe they have a right to refuse unconditionally.

A premises can refuse to host all stag parties or all weddings.
A type of party is not a person so can't be discriminated against. Where it gets dicey is if you allow some stage parties and not for certain groups.
And if you have a reason to not allow a certain group in don't make it obvious like the hotel did