Cambridge student barred from pub over views on gender

This thread has sent me back to a recent series of posts from the Free Speech Union on X about what people are calling the "Banter Ban", which refers to Clause 20 of the Employment Rights Bill 2025, which is currently going through the House of Lords.

The Banter Ban is coming to a pub near you. But what does it actually mean?

Employers will be required to take “all reasonable steps” to protect their employees from third-party, non-sexual harassment. That includes conversations, remarks and jokes that aren't directed at an employee, but which they overhear and find offensive or upsetting. Bonkers right? How are publicans supposed to shield employees from overhearing the banter of drunk customers?

The government has quietly published an 'impact assessment' estimating it will cost small business owners £23.7 million just to familiarise themselves with their new legal duties under the banter ban — plus £124,000 a year in ongoing costs for a decade. Total could be as high as £59 million, according to the Government.

But, of course, that's a woeful underestimate. The assessment claims it will take business owners just 30 minutes to understand these burdensome new obligations. Oh yeah?

To give just one example of what publicans will have wrestle with: they'll have to work out whether to allow transwomen access to the women's lavatories. Under this new law, female employees could sue for harassment if they find themselves in a loo with a man, but transwomen could also sue for discrimination if they aren't allowed to use the ladies.

The legal complexity of that situation, involving a conflict of rights under the Equality Act, is Bridget Phillipson's excuse for delaying issuing EHRC guidance about access to single-sex women's spaces. Yet the Government is asking us to believe that publicans will be able to get their heads around this legal minefield in half an hour?

The legal and compliance costs for landlords — not to mention the financial risk — could be the final nail in the coffin for the British pub -- and 540 are predicted to close this year.

https://x.com/SpeechUnion/status/2015809726110478439

Given how fragile so many employees in the hospitality industry appear to be, how long do you think it will take for people like Thea Sewell to be considered a risk to the easily offended?

In theory, could they have a pub for people who share a particular religion or belief and exclude everyone else? Or would that have to be a club?

I was glad to find from this thread that there have been sucessful cases.

I was just reflecting that on previous threads many would post about how a licensee could bar anyone they want. Not necessarily in relation to what could be said to be discrimination but more like the pub was their personal space and didn't have to let everyone in!

So its good to hear this isn't true, and also that a court has made clear it isn't true.

Also good to know that there are some younger women standing up for their rights, and brave enough to do it in public.

well quite, which is why it was utterly daft to use those terms to tell her she's barred.
There are probably plenty of ways the LL or staff could have worded it, that the law would have said "yeah, on balance probs for the best"

So we will see what happens.

the comparisons with football fans was to give ways LLs can bar people who aren't (yet) causing trouble. When i was in the army we were automatically barred from loads of pubs. (easier for us than the lads to ignore that tho)

I don’t think it is true that a licensee can choose who they serve.

Public houses have very specific licenses which are not the same as private bars or clubs.

For example, it is illegal to serve someone intoxicated, underage etc but they can’t just refuse to serve you or let you in because you have a particular politcal view, or because you are a certain nationality for example.

It's so tedious having this discussion every time! I am bored with people trotting out the "Pub landlords can ban anyone they like" line. Yes, they can ban anyone they like but not for any reason.

You can ban a gay person for being a Labour MP, or for supporting Spurs, or for having a funny walk, but you can't ban them for being gay. Just as you can't ban them for being Jewish, or Christian, or black or Muslim or over the age of 40 or believing that there are only two sexes, because those characteristics are all protected under the Equality Act.

I realise not everyone is as au fait with the law as Mumsnet regulars, but still. They could at least check before posting.

Who knows. I personally think they have discriminated due to her GC beliefs

The football team you support isn't a protected characteristic under the EA2010. You don't even have to wait for your staff to be unhappy with serving a Spurs fan, you can tell them to leave.

Religion is a PC. You absolutely can't turn away a Jew because your staff don't want to serve her.

It's preposterous. Sure, if she was provoking arguments with TRAs or ratting out staff by berating them, but sitting down to have a quiet drink or meal, and staff are too sensitive to pull her a pint, pour a G&T, serve her a burger?
Snowflakery to the max.

But what would their claim be for her making them feel 'uncomfortable' if not for her GC views, surely that's the only reason she's known to them.

They could claim it wasn't due to her GC beliefs - that would be their only defence

Yes, I am very aware of that, of course.
Too bad when those Jew-excluding businesses get sued.

So, there really is no defence in law?
Another wasted time, legal fees?
Another own goal for TRA?
And then onto the next case,,and the next?

Turning away Jewish people due to them being Jewish would be unlawful discrimination

Being a supporter if a particular football club isn't a protected characteristic so you are not unlawfully discriminating against them if you don't allow them in the pub.

Belief and religion is a protected characteristic so you would be unlawfully discriminating against then if they weren't allowed in the pub due to those beliefs

Ok, but doesn't the same apply...an Arsenal pub staffed by Gunners, and a recognisable Spurs fan walks in. If the publican feels, or argues that, the bar staff would be unhappy, is he or she within their rights to turn said Spurs fan away?
Aren't some London businesses turning Jews away to prevent Omnicausers inside from taking offence, and I'm sure this has included restaurant staff as well as diners.

It's always best to pander to the violent males objecting to a woman being in the same room as them because they don't like what she thinks

Because this publicans defense might be they don't want trouble kicking off if Thea spotted by trans hotheads always in his gaff.

Recognizing that we're using hypotheticals to understand the law better, the newspaper article suggested the problem was that her presence was making the staff uncomfortable, not the other customers.

"My employees will kick off if that person is in here" won't play.

you'd have to hope that a court would side with Thea. But if there was a time, for eg, when she went in, the trans people kicked off and said it was because she was there? I'd wager he would be able to do that. Unless Thea could show that she and her fellow GC friends had been going there at the same time as the trans patrons for years and years with no problems.

I would guess the LL would get away with that, unfortunately.

ETA. It is a LONG time since i worked in a pub, but we had 2 people try to get us to rescind a ban by getting lawyers involved. We were very clearly, say, a City pub with banners inside, scarves, photos of players etc etc. Fairly close to the ground On derby day a, say, United (to be clear: it was not in Manchester but a city with 2 teams) fan came in singing their terrace songs, wearing scarf, hat and shirt etc and generally going up to locals and getting in their faces. And one of the city fans finally threw a punch.

So the city and the united fan were kicked out - the city fan could come back after that day, but the united fan was banned. He found that unfair, but he provoked and provoked. The ban stood because the LL couldn't guarantee his presence wouldn't lead to a fight (in a well established City pub)

The second was a chap who was deffo a few french fries short of a happy meal, who used to hassle our weekly blue-grass band - who all worked for a (then) well-known eco charity. It was clear, they had 2 banners and sang songs about saving the earth and how bad nuclear power is. And this guy used to just shout abuse at them and nuclear is great and all that. Banned. Lawyered up, and his own lawyer told him to knock it on the head.

I think a LL trying to "keep the peace" - no matter how spurious the grounds - may win if there is evidence of previous trouble or definite threats? IANAL

Obviously my devil's advocate post was a little too subtle, lol.
This is like saying the publican can't bar Thea for her protected views (evangelical cake maker can't refuse custom of gays full stop), but she can't insist on him agreeing with her GC views or run publicity in the pub to this effect (just as said cake maker can't be forced to write "gay marriage is swell")?

So, what if the landlord has a lot of young trans patrons, knows that they'll recognize Thea, and bars her/insists she leaves, before likely trouble kicks off?
Is it ok for an Arsenal pub to prevent access to a very well recognized Spurs supporter?
Because this publicans defense might be they don't want trouble kicking off if Thea spotted by trans hotheads always in his gaff.

if you get kicked out of a West Ham pub (and it will be clear that it is for WH supporters) because you turn up with Spurs regalia, for sure they can bar you because it is likely to lead to immense trouble.

You can't kick out a transwoman for walking into a WH pub wearing Spurs regalia because they are trans though. Just for the likely to cause trouble because of Spurs.

that would be misunderstanding the law as much as IW does.

You can be kicked out at the landlord's discretion for, say, being someone who attracts trouble (prob need evidence) but simply "being trans" is a protected characteristic and so no you can't.

You’re very much misrepresenting that case. The baker didn’t refuse the custom of the gay couple: he was happy to bake them a cake, but not to decorate it with a slogan that went against his beliefs.

The law found that he couldn’t be compelled to say something (or in this case, write something) that he felt very strongly about not supporting.

Just like you couldn’t be compelled to decorate a cake for a customer with the slogan “trans women are men”.

I’m sure you appreciate the clarification - you wouldn’t want to be spreading misinformation, after all.

Sure, I'm just surmising the thinking for those unaware of the law here.