The question of equality

seamus

Carrying on from here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134812

Victor posted a link to a news story today: http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2351237?view=Eircomnet

Basically, two women successfully sued a club who refused them on the grounds of being too old.

Does our constitution not say "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."?

So I don't see how it's constitutionally legal to rule that it's not right to refuse people for being too old to enter a premises, but it's ok to decide to refuse people for being too young to enter a premises (legally permitting that they are of age to drink).

Now this doesn't really affect me, but I'm still not mad about flagrant hypocrisy taking place within our legal system, and with gung-ho Justice Ministers legislating with little thought.

(Damn, sorry, maybe move this to Politics?)

dr_manhattan

well this is a strange one:

I have to say I've never read such a tirade of sad male angst as that thread about the 'ladies in free' night... jesus.

As if us men were being ripped off by some lesbian consipracy, damn you guys should grow up and walk the walk: women who scab drinks from men and then just walk off... all I can say to that is, tell me when you're going out next, and I'll point and laugh, you must be so gullible, hahahahaha...

"at last" - yeah, like men in ireland have been downtrodden for centuries by the notorious matriarchasl irish society... bunch of mothers boys, honestly.

Buuuuuuut anyways, this new thread has a different angle. And very briefly, I'm wondering what happened to R.O.A.R? (right of admission reserved)

Fair enough, these are cases of discrimination. But to be honest, my way of doing things is, when told I'm not wanted somewhere, to go somewhere else. I'm not a fan of tying up discrimination legislation for essentially trivial BS which it is not there to enforce.

Discrimination laws are not there to allow us to sue pubs that won't serve us: some people need these laws so they can avoid being fired, put out of a home or otherwise disenfranchised by other peoples' decisions.

As far as I'm concerned, if a venue manager wants to streamline his or her pub crowd based on age, then they can knock themselves out: older men and younger women sounds like a complete grease trap to me, so who cares?

If a venue doesn't want me, then I don't want that venue, and being awarded compensation for that, whilst technically within the law, is just such a pathetic whinging 'the state must fix my life' thing to do.

So in answer to your quizzer, seamus, yeah I think a manager can do what they want, and because my local fills up with teenagers on the weekend, I wish more places bloody well would - it's getting to a point where you can't just say to people "you're not wanted", they have to exercise their so called right to be somewhere that doesn't want them. Great.

So now there's no refuge from chronic pains in the ass like that prick with ears from limerick who went off crying cos he had to pay on ladies night. Cheapskate.

I'll tell you anotherb thing, too, ugly people sahould be grateful for those ladies nights, cos the 2 extra drinks that women get with their unspent entrance fee has been getting ugly people laid for years. Poor beggars are screwed now ;-)

Victor

Originally posted by seamus
Does our constitution not say "All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law."?

Yes it does, but in the very next paragraph it says "This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function." Further sections of the constitution provide fr the protection of the family, the common good and children.

The courts would quite quickly and rightly rule that a minor does not have the capacity to demand the right to buy alcohol and based on the images (scarred onto my brain) of drunk 15-17 year olds they don't have the capacity to drink it either.

dr_manhattan

yeah but I think he meant those refused who are above the age: i.e. 18-25, 25 and over being the oldest I've seen... and tbh in this regard, I apply the rules of R.O.A.R.

Now, if this was brought to issues of colour I'm not sure how I'd stand, as a number of times in the past I've been refused admission (actually mostly in the UK) to clubs because I've been with black or asian people, and that's got me *really* angry...

but I never tried to make said venues let me in: I always just figured, if I'm not welcome, then why push it...?

Maybe I'm wrong ;-)

Victor

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
and tbh in this regard, I apply the rules of R.O.A.R.

And while this would be consitant with the Property rights in the constitution, it would be generally against the concept of a "public house" (albeit that is a statutory not constitutional matter).

dr_manhattan

Fair enough, but not all the cases (okay, at least not the ladies night case) were involved with public houses: the very fact that admission was involved throws that one out...

I'm not sure if a nightclub is just a common name for a venue that is legally described as a 'public house', but either way, is one of the definitions of a public house somewhere that everyone must be admitted to, regardless of the reservations of the management?

I doubt it. Certainly the issue of being served or not has always been at the management's discretion, and I've never seen any obligation to provide a reason if you're refused.

And, as is said above, I would never imagine a 23 year old, denied access to an over 25s bar, taking that bar to court and winning a discrimination suit: and the principle here is the same.

To my mind, two women denied admission to a bar should just graciously go drink somewhere else - these are not national laws of discrimination here, just private rules of management. If you're not welcome somewhere, then go somewhere else. Period.

To me, it's not a question of right or wrong - I think it's terrible to deny people access because they're too old and you want some schoolgirl talent for your sleazy barfly customers, of course. i think it sucks ass. But bringing that bar to court and forcing them to serve you isn't going to change a ****ing thing, except make you a few euro richer.

Meanwhile the PNI have yet to catch a single person involved in the disgraceful racism going on in belfast. ( http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24&art_id=vn20040113015532576C855235&set_id=1 )

Funny how discrimination warrants different levels of attention on this island, huh?

Victor

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I'm not sure if a nightclub is just a common name for a venue that is legally described as a 'public house', but either way, is one of the definitions of a public house somewhere that everyone must be admitted to, regardless of the reservations of the management?

Actually one (not necessarily the only one) of the lines between public and private is the paying of an admission fee. Certainly in the past pubs and clubs have been separated by an admission fee, although with late opening hours, the definition has blurred greatly due to fewer clubs demanding admission fees.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Certainly the issue of being served or not has always been at the management's discretion, and I've never seen any obligation to provide a reason if you're refused.

If refused admission to a place providing goods or services, under the Equal Status Act, you are entitled to a reason, although the proprietor is entitled to decline to give that reason there and then (to avoid escalating the situation).

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
If you're not welcome somewhere, then go somewhere else.

What? No dogs, blacks or Irish?

DadaKopf

The whole age thing is down to the Equal Status Act 2000, not the Constitution as such.

While the Constitution provided us with a basic law, many articles and sections contain the addendum "save in accordance with the law".

This phrase, applied to many such articles, provided the legal system with a fundamental base but also an element of flexibility to deal with a changing society.

The age issue in the Equal Status Act has been amended recently either because it went too far or the publicans made things difficult for the government, whichever way you're persuaded.

Personally, I think it should be 18 and over, full stop.

Imposter

I think the only way to solve this effectively is to grant pub/club licences based on their admissions policy as well as the other current considerations. So when applying for a licence the pub must say:
This pub is:
Over 25's with ID.
Under 100kg
No dogs/children/grannies
etc...
Then the court should decide if they get their licence based on discrimination etc and then people should be given a reason if refused. Alos changing these rules just because it's a quiet night should not be allowed.

If these rules of entry are clearly displayed then everyone knows where they stand.

seamus

Originally posted by Victor
The courts would quite quickly and rightly rule that a minor does not have the capacity to demand the right to buy alcohol and based on the images (scarred onto my brain) of drunk 15-17 year olds they don't have the capacity to drink it either.

Completely missed my point Victor.

As far as I'm concerned, if a venue manager wants to streamline his or her pub crowd based on age, then they can knock themselves out: older men and younger women sounds like a complete grease trap to me, so who cares?

If a venue doesn't want me, then I don't want that venue, and being awarded compensation for that, whilst technically within the law, is just such a pathetic whinging 'the state must fix my life' thing to do.

While I totally subscribe to the "If they don't want me there, I don't want to be there" ideology, there has to be some control over how much pubs 'streamline' their clientele. If they start demanding certain ages can only enter, how long before they start demanding no blacks, no disabled, no people under 6' tall?
Age is a little different, because unlike being black or disabled, your age does change, albeit slowly. So while a "no disabled" policy restricts all disabled people forever, and "under 25's" policy only restricts under 25s until they grow older.

But my fundamental question is - how can pubs justify (based on statistical, i.e. legal evidence) that they are better off by restricting one age group from entering their premises? We can all tell our horror stories about the young fella who puked all over your shoes and started a fight with your chair, but how can the law define one age group as being more deserving of entry than another? If they can put up signs saying "Over 25's only", why can't they put up a sign saying "Under 30's only"?

dr_manhattan

"What? No dogs, blacks or Irish?"

Well, as adressed by seamus also, this is obviously a point: however on at least three occasions I've been made to feel unwelcome in bars because of my nationality, and another few times because of friends of mine's melanin quotient (aka skin colour) and have simply left: I'm not claiming this is *the way* to react, and I'm certainly not proposing it as a solution - however, with regard to the entrance fee paying night clubs, I would unfortunately say that what the (scumbag profiteering slave driving) management says, goes.

The thing is that the punters most powerful tool is their wallet. There are publican who run pubs for their customers and not their own profit: and you can generally tell those pubs because they're not the most 'exciting', and they're not full of young things trying to get as many bacardi breezers into them as possible. I say vote with your feet, and stop trying to make the state cover for your insecurities.

Ever notice the way that it takes ages to get served in these trendy, age-stremaed bars? That's because the management hate you, and as far as they're concerned you can pay up and **** off.

If you don't like the attitude you're given at a venue, then leave: but if you want to trade that off against being in some trendy, overdecorated, overlit place surrounded by morons (again I say: 'our policy is older men and younger women' - bleeeeeugh), then make your own choice.

"If they can put up signs saying "Over 25's only", why can't they put up a sign saying "Under 30's only"?"

Well, ya see, IMHO they can, if they want. Ya see, this society, like it or not, places HUGE premiums on age: and people spend millions every year covering up or adding to physical evidence of age with cosmetics and every manner of insanity. In many ways, with its fetishisation of youth, and it's witch hunt attitudes towards paedophiles, this society shows a lot of evidence of being extremely sick in the head. And these attitudes extend everywhere, agism, sexism, racism... all part of a society which *we* have designed which looks only skin deep to determine a person's value:

are you sexy? Then you are valuable.

And it's sick, but we all participate - we all dress everything up to be what it's not, make these value judgements and effectively *want* to be a part of it, want to be younger than we are, or older than we are, or blacker or whiter or whatever. And we only complain when people wn't let us play anymore, which I think is just pathetic.

At the end of the day these places (public houses) belong to all of us, and so inevitably some of them will only want some of us: if you had a child who kept trying to hang out with people twice his age, would you sue those kids for not wanting him, and make them hang out with him?

However, it is also a point I would like to make that a lot of venue owners (and not all), IMHO, are a scourge on our society as much as heroin dealers are (the drugs they sell kill more people annually than all illegal drugs put together) and to expect them to behave reasonably and socially responsibly, let alone fairly, is like expecting crack dealers to contribute to a local pension fund. These people are not here to serve us, they are here to profit from our basest needs/desires/wants by selling us overpriced drinks at events that tempt us with either sex, social status, or the promise of a cheap drunk (haha, mostly 1 and 3 there)

So rant over, and cutting a long story short, I think that age streaming is wrong, but to expect it not to happen in this world is hiding ones head in the sand, and yes I do think venue owners can say whatever they like. (the scumbags LOL)