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

ohnonotgmail

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.

stag and hen parties are not a protected class under law.

Overheal

Fly_away wrote: »

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.

But it's a lot harder to prove and more importantly all potential patrons are injured by the closure, not just Travellers. IDK, but presumably hoteliers should get advice from their legal counsel on how to proceed.

end of the road

TheBoyConor wrote: »

That is all grand and well in theory. But theory and real world practicalities can be very different?

sure, but it doesn't ultimately matter as it doesn't change the facts of how discrimination works and why it has to be illegal.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Would you be totally indifferent if the council decided to build a 40-bay traveller accommodation site 100m down the road from your house? What do you think the effect on the value of your property would be? Perhaps you'd be singing a very different tune then!!!

well, whether one would or wouldn't, property value is subject to market forces and therefore one is ultimately not entitled for it to remain at the same value, because it's not possible to deliver it.
they can try and keep it at a value, but ultimately certain things can and will outweigh it from time to time and market forces will decide.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

We are forever hearing from people who are suggesting that travellers are sweet as pie and are no risk to anyone.....as long as they are not in their own back garden.

nobody ever said such a thing, because like the general population, there will be those who are decent and others who are a risk to the public.
it's a fact of life and won't change while humanity exists.
either way, someone else being a risk is not grounds for discriminating against others who may share genetic trates and an ethnicity and that isn't going to change, so anecdotes will never be grounds to justify the unjustifiable.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I have had the misfortune of having some dealings with that community through my work. It is like nothing you would see elsewhere. I have met one sound one in fairness to him, but the majority of the interactions have been very negative, colleauges being intimidated and threatened, us having to be accompanied by Gardai to do work, contractors refusing to do work for fear of their safety and theft of their tools, the the self-arson of a newly refurbished home.

I have also had to call a vet out to tend to one of their horses on our grounds who was left in the most appalling state. Whatever about trashing hotels, the horrific abuse and mistreatment of innocent animals in the traveller community is beyond forgivable. The emaciated horses and dogs, dog fighting. As an animal lover, I will very much hold that against the traveller community as a whole. They are a disgrace in that regard.
I firmly believe that how a person treats animals reveals a great deal about their character.

yes and 99% of people would condemn such behaviour, however it's still only proof that some people behave badly so is really anecdotal.
also, for you to hold something over the whole traveler community based on your interactions with some is discrimination i'm afraid, because you are assuming ultimately that all travelers treat animals badly on the basis of some travelers doing it, ultimately assuming that traveler equals animal abuser.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I, like many others, have my opinions of travellers and their culture as a whole. They are opinions that are based on direct experience. They are not just dreamed up mad notions for no reason.

but still ultimately opinions and anecdotal even if direct experience, because direct experiences of some individuals will only prove that those particular individuals did or do something and not that all individuals of a group do something.
they arenn't going to be proof that every single traveler is the same, and they aren't going to justify discrimination against travelers.

Baggly

Mod

End of the road i tidied up some broken quote tags, as they tend to mess up the thread if left opened. Hope you dont mind.

fantaiscool

Fly_away wrote: »

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.

The whole point is to find a way to discriminate against the group and do it in a way that has plausible deniability where you can just say that the reason was something else. This is one way that institutional racism/discrimination stays strong. The main priority of many people engaging in discrimination is to have the ability to lie about what they are doing. This extends in many other areas where discrimination occurs.

Naturally you'd expect hotels to regroup and come up with innovative ways to prevent traveler weddings in light of the fact that travelers will be buoyed by this judgement and be ready to take them to court. The absolute last thing they will ever do is honestly say they are discriminating against travelers. I believe that is down to cowardice. Even many online who are praising and sympathizing with the hotels would not have the courage to take their views public. The insidious nature of institutional racism/discrimination can't be highlighted enough.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

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.

You don't get the point. A Judge wouldn't have worded it like that. I referred to the wording and you go off and high-horse as you always do.
A finding like that leaves the Defendant needing to prove they didn't discriminate rather than the claimant needing to prove discrimination. Innocent until proven guilty goes out the window.
Here is the quote again.
""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.”"

Clifford T. Ward or James Joyce would be in line for an automatic payment too by his reasoning. A surname doesn't identify someone as being a member of an ethnic group despite the prevalence of certain names in some ethnic groups.

suicide_circus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

stag and hen parties are not a protected class under law.

Quite. Hoteliers are legally obliged to roll the dice.

Physicskid9

I think private businesses should be allowed to refuse custom as they see fit, especially when said customers are all but guaranteed to ruin the place when they end up feuding amongst each other.

breezy1985

Physicskid9 wrote: »

I think private businesses should be allowed to refuse custom as they see fit, especially when said customers are all but guaranteed to ruin the place when they end up feuding amongst each other.

No blacks
No dogs
No Irish

SEPT 23 1989

Imagine the loss of business if it became known as a place these people frequented, people would avoid the place like the plague

Physicskid9

breezy1985 wrote: »

No blacks
No dogs
No Irish

So what?

People would vote with their feet by not giving them any business.

breezy1985

Physicskid9 wrote: »

So what?

People would vote with their feet by not giving them any business.

That's very hard to do for a minority who won't do much damage to the bottom line

fantaiscool

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Imagine the loss of business if it became known as a place these people frequented, people would avoid the place like the plague

And at the same time claim there is no institutional racism/discrimination if a traveler brought it up.

McFly85

Physicskid9 wrote: »

I think private businesses should be allowed to refuse custom as they see fit, especially when said customers are all but guaranteed to ruin the place when they end up feuding amongst each other.

This is the bit that's impossible to prove. There's no guarantee that there would be any damage to the hotel.

Having said that, considering the hotel are being asked to accept the risk, then there needs to be some way to guarantee that they get compensated for any material damage caused. It's completely unfair to ask a business to accept that they have to host an event but may have to pay for repairs out of their own pocket.

But how do you do that? Ask for a massive security deposit? Request the couple have a specific form of wedding insurance?

Physicskid9

McFly85 wrote: »

This is the bit that's impossible to prove. There's no guarantee that there would be any damage to the hotel.

Having said that, considering the hotel are being asked to accept the risk, then there needs to be some way to guarantee that they get compensated for any material damage caused. It's completely unfair to ask a business to accept that they have to host an event but may have to pay for repairs out of their own pocket.

But how do you do that? Ask for a massive security deposit? Request the couple have a specific form of wedding insurance?

Don't be ridiculous, they aren't being turned away for no good reason.

neris

Free legal aid service representing her, anything that that shower dont get for free?

freshpopcorn

Of course this happens a lot. I worked in hotels in the past and still have friends that do.
If you took a booking for a wedding or checked travellers in for a night into a room and the owners found out you'd get a bigger bollixing than if you blew the place up.
Even if there's a wedding or funeral on locally. The Gardai will call around and basically tell you to close up for the evening.

Ginger83

Two personal experiences....

My wife worked in a bookies for years next door to a pub both used by travellers and the level of abuse she faced doing her job was unreal. She certainly does not miss them.

Another relative was working in a hotel when a lovely well to do couple arrived to arrange and pay a deposit for their wedding. Come the big day a traveller couple turned up and not the couple that booked it

I know it's not fair on the good ones if there are any but what's the alternative?

breezy1985

neris wrote: »

Free legal aid service representing her, anything that that shower dont get for free?

Free legal aid is a great service that many need in this country given the extortionate rates charged by the legal profession. Whatever about other areas of life it's wrong to shame people on this one

Zookey123

breezy1985 wrote: »

No blacks
No dogs
No Irish

Ok, lets be clear here. The traveller community identify as a different ethnic group not a race. It is not racist to have a poor opinion on travellers. Also comparing travellers to the plight of the black community is ridiculous. The reason people have a distrust of the traveller community is due to their constant disregard for the laws of the land. This is a cultural thing (something learned) not a racial thing (something inherent within you). Stop this race baiting.

end of the road

McFly85 wrote: »

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

But for that to happen, there needs to be engagement from the Travelling community. There needs to be an acknowledgement of why these attitudes exist instead of just shouting discrimination. There are issues on education, the treatment of animals, the treatment of women within the community that exist that are completely at odds with societies standards that need to be addressed I believe before you will see any change in attitude towards the community.

While it's terrible to tar them all with the same brush, as long as the community remains a closed shop on these things and is resistant to change then it's very difficult to see how many people feel about them could change.

for attitudes to change requires nothing more then making discrimination so socially unacceptable that people dare to just not do it, nothing more.
it will require legislation and harder punishments depending, all similar to how we did it with other minority groups.
what the travelers need to address within their community is a separate issue and has nothing to do with discrimination against them, for which those issues are just used by those discriminating against them to justify their bigotry, and if it wasn't those issues it would be something else.
discrimination against travelers exists because people get away with it, it's still somewhat socially acceptable.

Fly_away wrote: »

I don't agree with those who say it was blatant discriminatory practice from the hotel.

Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.

which is what happened here ultimately.

Fly_away wrote: »

To make the assessment that the risk of hefty damages would be far too high to allow a Traveller wedding at a hotel is entirely justified and therefore not discriminatory IMO.

i'm afraid it is discrimination and is in no way justified, whether you agree with it or not is of no consequence.
the only way it could be justified is if the individual had caused trouble at the particular business refusing service before, for which that wouldn't be discrimination as there is already proof the individual is an actual risk.

pwurple

Zookey123 wrote: »

Ok, lets be clear here. The traveller community identify as a different ethnic group not a race. It is not racist to have a poor opinion on travellers.

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.


By definition, it is racist to have a poor opinion of an ethnic group.

y0ssar1an22

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.

sometimes honesty just aint the best policy.

staff left her feeling “devastated, humiliated and like a second-class citizen”.

sign me up if that is the low bar to get 15k.

She filed a formal complaint under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 in October, 2019 seeking an explanation from the hotel as to why it did not respond to her queries over a possible date for the reception.

Later that month, she received an email from the wedding coordinator in which she apologised for the delayed response “and indicated that there seemed to have been a misunderstanding as she (Ms A) was waiting to hear from the complainant following their initial meeting on 21 July 2019”.


someone not responding to your email. sounds like a solid case of discrimination to me.

”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.”

these judges need to learn that correlation does not equal causation.

mfceiling

Ginger83 wrote: »

Two personal experiences....

My wife worked in a bookies for years next door to a pub both used by travellers and the level of abuse she faced doing her job was unreal. She certainly does not miss them.

Another relative was working in a hotel when a lovely well to do couple arrived to arrange and pay a deposit for their wedding. Come the big day a traveller couple turned up and not the couple that booked it

I know it's not fair on the good ones if there are any but what's the alternative?

I did a few months construction work on a hotel in Meath and the exact same thing happened. Couple paid the deposit but a traveller family appeared after the church.
When we were leaving on the Friday evening the car park was full of jeeps, vans etc. Some of them parked on the grass even though the car park would have held twice the amount of vehicles there.
Saturday morning and the function room had been wrecked. Tables upturned, glasses smashed the floor covered in glass, food etc.
The hotel lost a fortune because they barely bought a drink all night....they were sneaking bottles of wine and beer in and quite a few just drank outside and launched the bottles as far as they could throw them!!

You can see why hotels/businesses are loathe to let them through the door.

fantaiscool

pwurple wrote: »

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.


By definition, it is racist to have a poor opinion of an ethnic group.

lol, good post

ELM327

pwurple wrote: »

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.


By definition, it is racist to have a poor opinion of an ethnic group.

rotfl


A white irish person cannot be racist against a white irish person.

pwurple

ELM327 wrote: »

rotfl


A white irish person cannot be racist against a white irish person.

Go re-write the dictionary there.... they'd love to hear it.


Or, understand the words you use.


Your call.

Zookey123

pwurple wrote: »

Racism
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.


By definition, it is racist to have a poor opinion of an ethnic group.

A quick google search isn't really the best way to argue a point. The definition of Racism has been changing for years. People will disagree on the what the exact definition is. I would not include an ethnic group in the definition of racism. It is not a physical characteristic that you can't change. It is a culture that you can.

breezy1985

Zookey123 wrote: »

Ok, lets be clear here. The traveller community identify as a different ethnic group not a race. It is not racist to have a poor opinion on travellers. Also comparing travellers to the plight of the black community is ridiculous. The reason people have a distrust of the traveller community is due to their constant disregard for the laws of the land. This is a cultural thing (something learned) not a racial thing (something inherent within you). Stop this race baiting.

I was replying to a post that said it should be legal for a business owner to discriminate so I was giving a historic example of how that might not be a good thing.

Black people were not really what I was getting at. The comparison was more about the Irish who were barred from UK pubs because we all would wreck the place according to the stereotype

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

rotfl


A white irish person cannot be racist against a white irish person.

If that's what you think, then a member of the human race cannot be racist against another member of the human race