To think that the landlord of the pub in Soho was within his rights to ask the couple to leave?

[CUKAmbassador]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13103647

We've all seen the story. It seems to me that it's completely blown out of all proportion in exactly the same way that the couple with the B&B did not want gay couples staying under their roof.

If you were sat in a pub/restaurant and a heterosexual couple started getting steamed up, kissing passionately, hands all over each other, you'd be like 'Get a room' or 'take it outside'. I personally would move to another seat, I don't want to see it, straight or gay.

I think you should be allowed to ask people to move/leave for whatever reason if there is no prejudice and think this is another classic example of bleeding heart lefties using tactics to make the majority feel like the minority.

AIBU?

I think you're attacking LOTM now, some of you.

Please stop.

Hazel I have made it very clear that I do not agree with the public humiliation aspect of it, so no I don't agree with the LL. I support the fact that ANY landlord can kick ANYONE out. And he did so.

LOTM, why do you keep making the same factually incorrect statement? A landlord cannot kick anyone out. If you have evidence to prove that pubs are exempt from abiding by the equality act, you need to link to it.

Repeatedly saying that a landlord can kick anyone out does not make it true. If it were true, the police would not be investigating the couple's complaint.

He can kick him out for anything barring being gay, of a race and disabled...correct?

Then he will SELECT something else barring those reasons. He can conclude anything;

"Shifty behaviour"

"Suspicious behaviour"

Spending too long in the toilets can get you kicked out of some places for suspicion of drug use. Don't be so naive and think he won't use another excuse. "Obscene" covers a multitude of sins, he could say they were swearing or rude to the barman.

LOTM the fact which you support is not a fact.

millyR, landlords and hoteliers have the right to refuse service to anyone. what they cant do is discriminate. so you can say "I'm not going to serve you and I would like you to leave" without giving a reason. but you cannot say "I'm not going to serve you because you are snogging up a member of the same sex/are black/are disabled". there is a fine line. it may be wrong, and the reason behind refusal may well be bigotted, but as long as the licensee doesnt air those reasons they are within their rights.

Anybody can make up lies to support their behaviour, no one usually openly admits discrimination. Yet people are convicted of it. That's because the authorities have the sense to speak to witnesses etc and find out the truth.

this says it better

The problem that the landlord might have is that the pub is owned by a chain, who might not be happy to be hauled into a barney about rights because of the lack of discretion on the part of the landlord.
He may dislike the idea of homosexuality, but he's one of the public faces of the chain, and so he should keep his prejudices to himself.

CCLL, that is not the case. The landlord's behaviour would have to be discriminatory. If he (or actually in the case of this thread, she) was asking a black person to leave on the grounds that they were wearing a hat, without referring to their race, but allowed white people in hats to remain, then he could be prosecuted, despite him never having mentioned race when asking the people to leave.

Similarly if a landlord repeatedly asked disabled people to leave, and gave no reason, but allowed able bodied people to stay, that would be grounds for prosecution.

If however a disabled person was asked to leave and given no reason, but there was no other evidence of the same thing happening to others, then I can't see grounds for a case. But then why would the person with a disability bring a case, when they would have no reason to believe it was because of their disability?

Just to say I worked for years around the corner of the John Snow and I have seen loads of couples having a kiss in there and other bars, it wasn't lunch time it was 9pm! It is situated in the heart of media land and there are journalists everywhere. It seems to me it was because they were gay they were asked to leave. They were not heavy petting they had their hands on the table, witnesses vouch for this.

milly, no! as long as there is no reason given, the landlords rights remain the same. they can lie to a disabled person and say "we dont have the facilities, you will have to leave" they can just say "I am not going to serve you alcohol" and they are within their rights. its not right, and I dont agree withn it, but there are many ways around the laws. I have refused to serve alcoholics many times, because the terms of the license allows me to. but I have refused to do so without actually giving a reason, thus leaving myself open to prosecution.

sorry, NOT leaving myself open to prosecution

yes but this couple were asked to leave because they had been kissing and were gay, the reason has already been given and witness agree to that.

microfight, the landlord is obviously in the wrong (imo) but Im correcting those saying that licensee's have to serve anyone. they dont. its only when they give a reason that it becomes discrimination.

the landlord could have said "I am not going to serve you, and I would like you to leave... I feel that you have had enough to drink/I suspect that you are under the influence of drugs/your behaviour is suspicious" and he would have been within his rights. what he couldnt say is "I am not going to serve you, and I would like you to leave because you are two men kissing and it offends me". that is where discrimination comes into play.

CCLL, the Equality Act covers seven different types of discrimination. By not giving a reason, you could potentially avoid being accused of direct discrimination, but a case can still be brought against you for other forms of discrimination.

You can also be prosecuted for allowing other customers to behave in a discriminatory manners. So even if other people had objected to the couple and referred to them as obscene, the landlady would be responsible under the Equality Act if she had not dealt with the other customer's behaviour.

LOTM if you are saying that the LL can lie about his reasons that is obviously true. If you are saying that not liking gay people is a good enough reason then you are wrong.

I have a feeling that if you were thrown out for being Christian you'd be in here posting soon enough and believe it or not I'd defend you even though I despise all religions. Discrimination just for being something is wrong.

Oh and CUKAmbassador you say completely blown out of all proportion in exactly the same way that the couple with the B&B did not want gay couples staying under their roof.

All those B&B people wanted was the right to break the law whenever they wanted because they were Christians. There are places for people with that attitude. They are called prisons.

Soho is full of tourists, the john snow pub is very well known, the landlord has the right to throw out anyone he wants and if several customers complained he has every right to ask the pair of em to stop it or leave.

You can't have everything in life, you can't have a society be tolerant to all religions and gays, it wouldn't surprise me if they had a coach load of Americans from the deep south or a group of Islamic people in the pub etc who complained because they found it offensive, after all it is as I said a very well known pub in Soho frequented by all sorts.

Onagar, from what I have read the LL did NOT say;

"You have to leave because you are homosexual". Therefore he is not breaking the law.

Ryoko, see MillyR's post in which she explains that it would be the landlord's responsibility to deal with the discriminatory behaviour of other customers not to pander to it.

While I'm not a legal expert I do believe that to be correct. After all you only have to recall why these laws first came into existence. Bigots used to say "I'm not staying in here if you're letting blacks in"

Hands up who wants to go back to that?

Actually Ryoko The John snow is usually packed in the evening mainly with local workers, I know because it's my local.

OP: what sort of action or response do you consier as IN proportion if someone's civil rights are being denied?
Was the response 'competely blown out of all proportion' when Rosa Parks declined to get off the bus, would you say?

but milly, if you refuse service without giving a reason, and stick to that, you cannot be charged with discrimination. I agree, the discrimination laws are very important, and I personally feel that if you dont approve of homosexuality, are intolerant of religions and/or are racist, then the hospitality industry is not for you, BUT no licensee has to serve anyone they dont want to.

It's a question of numbers isn't it, you get enough complaints you should act, and it's not the same as the no blacks signs or anything, they where not kicked out for being gay they where kicked out for kissing, if people complain that is the way of things people have been kicked out of pubs due to others complaining about their screaming children, people kicked out because they smell etc. a man and a woman could be kicked out for kissing as well if people complained about it.

nice place to have as your local BTW.