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

McFly85

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.

breezy1985

Zookey123 wrote: »

Oh I totally agree its discrimination but a business owner need to have a risk vs reward strategy. And the risk far outweighs the reward regarding the traveller community. Is it discrimination? Yes. Is it justified?

I've never really worked in an area where I would be dealing with travellers but I have fobbed plenty of potential bookings off over the years because I didn't like the look of people and sometimes that would be based on experience of similar looking people so I get the risk vs reward thing. Most of the time I took the risk it worked out fine a few times it caused annoyance or stress and the most common was just getting ripped off with sneaky naggins

RandRuns

If you want to see why hotels don't want traveller weddings, and you are under some kind of delusion that only some traveller weddings end in mayhem, visit Manns Hotel in Rathkeale, which specialises in traveller weddings.
It is not your average hotel function room, to put it mildly.

Invidious

bubblypop wrote: »

this post trying to cause an issue when there is none.
some people call women 'young ladies' i refer to anyone younger than myself as a young lady, I am 45.

Nope, just trying to show how assumptions about Travellers can creep into posts even by those who insist that nobody should make assumptions about Travellers.

I wouldn't refer to a 45-year-old woman as a "young lady." That would sound a bit odd. Someone in her mid-40s is middle-aged, not young.

TheBoyConor

McFly85 wrote: »

The hotel was being overtly discriminatory so can have no complaints.

But I would like to know, what is the process for hotels if there is serious damage done at an event? I would have assumed the persons booking the event would be liable, but if they cannot pay?

In the ordinary course of events, the hotel would try to identify the persons responsible for the damage, perhaps with the help of the client, and pursue them and (or the client depending on the circumstances) for the cost of the repairs.

That would be difficult enough at the best of times, where the people would have a room booked under an address, a car reg that could be linked back to a name and address if gardai were involved, and the persons responsible might have some sort of face to keep if they were caught for it and *might* pay up.
As said, that would be still difficult to sort out.

As for a traveller wedding where many will be of no fixed abode, everything paid in cash, no point looking at car regs on CCTV cos there's a good chance they are fake, unregistered to the actual owner, wrong name or address, or any number of other irregularities that will make it hard to tie back to the actual owner if seen on CCTV.
So if there is damage, the hotel will just have to suck it up. Not a hope in hell of getting a penny out of them.
Even in the slight chance it got to court, they would just claim to have no money as they are on the dole/disability and can't pay. Despite the fact they might have lobbed €15 or €20k in cash up on the counter to pay for the reception.

BattleCorp

ELM327 wrote: »

A quite reasonable way of avoiding traveller weddings would be to have a no cash payment policy, all funds to be sent by cleared bank transfer.

That wouldn't have prevented the incident in the OP as they were only at the 'looking around' stage and no wedding was even booked.

Also, travellers aren't thick. If they didn't have a bank card, they could get someone else to make the payment for them via electronic means.

RandRuns

BattleCorp wrote: »

That wouldn't have prevented the incident in the OP as they were only at the 'looking around' stage and no wedding was even booked.

Which was where they made the €15k mistake.

JimmyVik

We turned up at a hotel for a week long stay a couple of years ago.
I noticed a bunch of travellers in the lobby. Ended up chatting to one.
He was over from England for a wedding that was in the hotel.
I thought to myself, should we leave now? But then i thought. Well he seemed sound enough. Maybe ive been too quick to condemn them all, since i never had a good interaction with a traveler in all my years before.
So we stayed.
The was loads of noise that night and the wedding hadnt even happened yet. But fine, people get loud at weddings.
We went out all day and came back and the bar was closed and there were to guards in the lobby. Just standing there.
And a bunch of traveler men sitting in a corner of the lobby looking mean, like they wanted to kill someone and drinking away.
A few traveler women in another corner looking like they were really pissed off with their men.

So we went out to east somewhere else as the restaurant was closed to. Receptionist told us there was a big fight.
Anyway later on the wedding party arrived. we came home and the wedding was on.
No sleep that night. We came down and the place was an unholy mess. Windows broken, furniture upside down, blood all over the place, guards everywhere. All sorts of roaring and shouting going on. Several staff crying.
We checked out that day after just 2 nights of our stay and went elsewhere.

Fly_away

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.

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.

Fly_away

JimmyVik wrote: »

We turned up at a hotel for a week long stay a couple of years ago.
I noticed a bunch of travellers in the lobby. Ended up chatting to one.
He was over from England for a wedding that was in the hotel.
I thought to myself, should we leave now? But then i thought. Well he seemed sound enough. Maybe ive been too quick to condemn them all, since i never had a good interaction with a traveler in all my years before.
So we stayed.
The was loads of noise that night and the wedding hadnt even happened yet. But fine, people get loud at weddings.
We went out all day and came back and the bar was closed and there were to guards in the lobby. Just standing there.
And a bunch of traveler men sitting in a corner of the lobby looking mean, like they wanted to kill someone and drinking away.
A few traveler women in another corner looking like they were really pissed off with their men.

So we went out to east somewhere else as the restaurant was closed to. Receptionist told us there was a big fight.
Anyway later on the wedding party arrived. we came home and the wedding was on.
No sleep that night. We came down and the place was an unholy mess. Windows broken, furniture upside down, blood all over the place, guards everywhere. All sorts of roaring and shouting going on. Several staff crying.
We checked out that day after just 2 nights of our stay and went elsewhere.

Thanks for sharing. Sounds absolutely horrific but unfortunately not the least bit surprising.

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

Nope, just trying to show how assumptions about Travellers can creep into posts even by those who insist that nobody should make assumptions about Travellers.

I wouldn't refer to a 45-year-old woman as a "young lady." That would sound a bit odd. Someone in her mid-40s is middle-aged, not young.

not at all, I didnt think he was making any assumptions about traveller brides at all. You did though.

BattleCorp

RandRuns wrote: »

Which was where they made the €15k mistake.

As unpopular as this may be, I don't really blame the hotel to be honest. I worked in hotels in the past that have had traveller weddings and they always ended in disaster. They end up costing the hotel way more than they make from them.

Fly_away

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.

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.

then you are guilty of discrimination. And if you are, you are, don't deny it, stand up and own it.

ELM327

BattleCorp wrote: »

That wouldn't have prevented the incident in the OP as they were only at the 'looking around' stage and no wedding was even booked.

Also, travellers aren't thick. If they didn't have a bank card, they could get someone else to make the payment for them via electronic means.

As per KYC requirements, bank transfer from the person booking the wedding required.


Get creative! It's very easy to not accept business you dont want.

BattleCorp

ELM327 wrote: »

As per KYC requirements, bank transfer from the person booking the wedding required.

Get creative! It's very easy to not accept business you dont want.

What about if Daddy wants to pay for the wedding? This used to happen lots years ago but I'm sure it still occasionally takes place.

Whatever reason you give, it will look like discrimination.

titan18

Would it be acceptable to add a premium on their weddings, like motor insurance companies do with young males as an example?

colm_mcm

titan18 wrote: »

Would it be acceptable to add a premium on their weddings, like motor insurance companies do with young males as an example?

Insurance companies aren’t allowed to discriminate, so don’t load males vs females. Discrimination law is very specific.

suicide_circus

ELM327 wrote: »

A quite reasonable way of avoiding traveller weddings would be to have a no cash payment policy, all funds to be sent by cleared bank transfer.

Very good suggestion actually, never thought of that.

It's discrimination plain and simple but the hotel could well have saved money on the deal unfortunately.

There is no impetus for travellers to address the rampant anti social element within their ranks. Victimhood brings clout.

Overheal

Invidious wrote: »

You assume that a woman organizing a wedding is 30 or younger? It's news to me that women don't get married over 30.

It might surprise you that the average age of an Irish bride is now 34.8, according to the CSO.

For being off by 4.8 years on a hunch he was fairly accurate.

Don’t go telling your missus that 35 is not young though if you like your head

Overheal

bubblypop wrote: »

this post trying to cause an issue when there is none.
some people call women 'young ladies' i refer to anyone younger than myself as a young lady, I am 45.

Bingo.

Fly_away

bubblypop wrote: »

then you are guilty of discrimination. And if you are, you are, don't deny it, stand up and own it.

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.

ELM327

bubblypop wrote: »

then you are guilty of discrimination. And if you are, you are, don't deny it, stand up and own it.

If that's discrimination then I'm fine with it.
It's a rational response to a real risk.

BattleCorp wrote: »

What about if Daddy wants to pay for the wedding? This used to happen lots years ago but I'm sure it still occasionally takes place.

Whatever reason you give, it will look like discrimination.

It doesnt matter if it looks like discrimination, all it has to do is 1) avoid a traveller wedding at your venue 2) not be fined by WRC for doing so.


Whatever about 15k, I'd happily take a 3k fine from the WRC rather than hold a traveller wedding at my hotel.

3DataModem

jiltloop wrote: »

The hotel also didn't help their cause by not turning up at the hearing, they made no case whatsoever giving the judge no option really.

Once the hotel were appraised of the potential liability, they would have been advised not to put any defence / objection. No downside to staying away.

FreudianSlippers

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.

Think about this for more than 3 seconds and you can see how absurd it is to compare on one hand, specific individuals convicted of a crime (i.e. "sex offenders") and an entire group of people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong on the other hand.

I mean it's almost as though you were trying to make the most clear-cut case of discrimination possible with that comparison.

fantaiscool

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.

That would be standard. Say you can't take the booking because of something else like renovations are taking place for example. People could then say that there wasn't any "institutional racism" involved. The place was going to be renovated and they just changed our mind about the renovation. It was nothing to do with the group being travelers. I care about racism, show me an example of racism and I will fight it!!

JimmyVik

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 was in a conversation once and someone said. Has someone ever arrived at you door and asked could they make a phone call? Broke down, phone dead or whatever reason. Have you let them in to make that phonecall and gone off to make them a cup of tea?
Surprisingly most of us had had an experience somewhat similar at some point.
Then the person said - if they were travelers that knocked on the door, would you still let them in while you went off to the kitchen to make tea for them after letting them in.
One person said yes. They were lying to be sure.

fantaiscool

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

Exactly. Refuse them service because they are travelers and then deny the real reason why. They surely wouldn't be able to figure it out.

Thankfully the judge in this case took action. Travelers have been discriminated like this for a very long time.

fantaiscool

TheBoyConor wrote: »

What could they say?

1.Oh sorry, we are all booked up for the next 18 months.
2. Quote them an outrageously inflated price so they won't take it. If questioned, they could quote very large security and bouncer costs.

They were smart enough not to say something explicit like "oh sorry, we don't take traveller weddings" instead, they just opted for the silent treatment and ignore them, but they were not cute enough to give some other claim-proof fobb off.

What could they have said that would have them in the clear? I don't think there is anything easy. Whatever is said, and whatever reason given, anyone looking at the situation will obviously know it is because they didn't want to run the risk of a traveller wedding ransacking the hotel.
If they did allow it and the place was trashed, the manager who took the booking would get an absolute bollocking out of it and possibly let go. Even if it passed off peacefully, it would be bad for the hotel's reputation if it became known as a location that regularly had travellers.

If this is the case then why do some people claim that there is no institutional racism against travelers in Ireland?

breezy1985

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.

Sex offenders have committed a crime.
The woman booking the hotel as far as we or the hotel know never has and she certainly had no previous with the hotel herself so you are working on the assumption based on experience with others which is discrimination.
Your example is wrong and it's more like banning all for example all men between the age of 30 - 60 cause some are sex offenders

It's discrimination just own it. I do

Fly_away

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Think about this for more than 3 seconds and you can see how absurd it is to compare on one hand, specific individuals convicted of a crime (i.e. "sex offenders") and an entire group of people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong on the other hand.

I mean it's almost as though you were trying to make the most clear-cut case of discrimination possible with that comparison.

It wasn't meant as an exact parallel, it was a point made to illustrate that we can make judgments about people and groups and treat them differently as a result. And sometimes that's fine.

But reading the replies from some on this thread, you'd swear that the mere notion of treating anybody or any group even slightly different from others is 'discrimination', regardless of any real life justifications you might have.