Right to refuse admission,where does it stop

sexmag

Ok so I'm opening up a can of worms here but it needs to be asked, where does the right refuse admissions end?

There are certain rules that fall under the discrimination act that make it illegal to refuse access based on
GenderCivil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
ReligionAge (does not apply to a person under 16)
DisabilityRace
Membership of the Traveller community.

Which pretty much leaves you with the option to refuse everyone else which in hindsight is everyone that doesn't fit into that box which in turn can be considered discrimination.

Which ultimately means yous can't refuse anyone or at least if you Did they could find an argument against discrimination based on being alive.

Or if you refuse service to someone as long as you don't say why you're ok?

Here we go

I’m pretty sure you can refuse any of those poeople just not being one of the for mentioned minority’s so if a trans,gay,black,Asian,Muslim,catholic, etc is being rude drunk or what ever you can refuse them just not because of something they had no control over as in how they where born

Peregrinus

sexmag wrote: »

Ok so I'm opening up a can of worms here but it needs to be asked, where does the right refuse admissions end?

There are certain rules that fall under the discrimination act that make it illegal to refuse access based on
GenderCivil status
Family status
Sexual orientation
ReligionAge (does not apply to a person under 16)
DisabilityRace
Membership of the Traveller community.

Which pretty much leaves you with the option to refuse everyone else which in hindsight is everyone that doesn't fit into that box which in turn can be considered discrimination.

Which ultimately means yous can't refuse anyone or at least if you Did they could find an argument against discrimination based on being alive.

Or if you refuse service to someone as long as you don't say why you're ok?

Refusing entry (to premises normally open to the public) is a form of discrimination. However discrimination is generally lawful unless is it discrimination on one of the prohibited grounds which you have listed. So refusing entry to someone because they are drunk, for example, is fine. That's not one of the prohibited grounds.

Refusing entry to someone without saying why is not OK. What makes your discrimination lawful or unlawful is not the reason that you say is motivating you; it's the reason that is actually motivating you. So if your policy is to refuse entry to (say) women, that policy doesn't become OK simply because you don't admit that this is what you are doing. Your silence on the subject creates a problem of evidence - how is the complainant to show that the refusal is based on gender, if you haven't admitted that? But if they can show it - by pointing, for example, to a consistent pattern of refusing admission to women, while admitting men, then the fact that you failed to say why you were refusing certain people and admitting others will not save you. It may, indeed, make matters worse; the fact that you refuse to say why you are turning people away might give rise to an inference that you are refusing because you know that if you admitted to the reason it would cause you problems.