Tommy Robinson asked to leave a restaurant because staff felt uncomfortable serving him…

[harriethoyle]

… AIBU to enjoy this?!

If you spout objectionable views, don’t be surprised if people object to you!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out-hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html

Unpopular opinion (apparently), but I think that if your job is to serve food in a restaurant, you should do just that, regardless of what you think about the people at the table (obviously assuming they're not being rude or threatening). You don't have to be your customer's friend, but you should do your job, like anyone else has to do.

Everyone is jubilant now because they dislike him but next time what if it someone you like/agree with politically that is publicly being thrown out?

I feel the same

I’m not sure how I feel about this.

My concern is that it is a slippery slope into ‘banning’ or ‘refusing’ anyone you disagree with. It reminds me of Nigel Farage being refused banking because of his political views.

It feels like an infringement on free speech. But then they are private businesses who can serve or refuse whoever they want. I’m conflicted.

People saying it's "a slippery slope", restaurants have always had the right to refuse service to whoever they want for any reason (unless they're discriminating against someone for having a protected characteristic) so this changes nothing.

Why? I’d be concerned he’d use my venue as a background for a social post or video that might give the impression the company supported his views.

I am a firm believer in Making Racists Uncomfortable and Unwelcome. Well done Hawksmoor!

No I don't think it's ok to throw out people trying to go about their lives just because they have opinions you don't agree with. Should outspoken GC feminists, or animal rights activists, or former employees of the Communist Party also be subjected to this sort of treatment? I just can't get behind this sort of mentality at all.

I get that it’s a private business and they can choose to serve or not serve anyone they like but I’m not really on board with the concept of refusing service because you don’t like the opinions someone holds or maybe in this case that you object to his criminal convictions.
If it were the other way round and a far right business owner refused service to a social justice activist would that be ok?

Released last week or maybe the week before. I'm sure I read he's up in court soon though.

He's a far right activist and they obviously didn't feel comfortable serving him. Perhaps some of them were from ethnic minorites or had differing principles. I wouldn't serve the prick either.

I get the slippery slope dilemma, but at the same time as somebody who is self-employed, I choose who I work for, and when I engage self employed people to work for me, they are also free to turn down a job if it doesn’t align with their moral values.

I actually think this is a freedom that ought to be extended to those in employment roles. It is not that the restaurant decided they would not serve him, it was the staff who said they felt uncomfortable. l think it’s good they have this option

because there’s another slippery slope, imagine being forced to serve a paedophile, if you were the victim of child sexual abuse for example..

Now retired but when I was working there were many occasions I had to provide care for people who, in different circumstances I wouldn't have peed on if they were on fire. But I still did. Because that was my job. Everybody seems be offended or triggered by anything now. It's utterly ridiculous.

Where’s the line, though?

Tony Robinson?
Posie Parker?
Nigel Farage?
Kemi Badenoch?
Peter Tatchell?
Jews?
Muslims?

I guess this is why we have protected characteristics? To give us a line.

Agreed. It's all peachy when it's someone you don't like not so peachy when you're next. It reminds me of the 'First They Came' poem.

What's Tony Robinson done?

It’s not whether it’s a protected characteristic or not. I understand the want not to serve him but i don’t want to live in a police state either. So everyone’s going to look up everyone else’s opinions before serving them in a restaurant to see if they agree with them or not based on whatever they find on the internet. In the age of AI it’s not impossible

I don't think you should refuse to serve someone because you dislike their views.

I don't like Tommy Robinson. I don't like his political beliefs. I think he's a grifter and a crook. But I also think he should be able to eat in any restaurant where he can afford to pay the bill.

I get angry when FiLiA or WPUK have struggled to find venues to host them. Ditto GC comics having their gigs cancelled or GC writers being hounded out of their careers.

If it's wrong when it happens to people that I like and with whom I agree, it's also wrong when it happens to people I dislike and with whom I disagree.

I used to think like you OP. But then the tables were turned.

Women were labelled as bigots and Nazis and refused service, had events banned, were forced out of their jobs, all because our ideas were considered offensive and transphobic (which they aren’t).

So whilst I think TR is an appalling man, I don’t think he should be thrown out of a restaurant for his views.

Individual business owners draw the line, and I see no problem with that. He has a right to whatever odious opinions he may hold. He does not have a right to be served by decent people.

They don't want to be associated with this thug, their steakhouse their rules. I don't think it's going to be a problem for them to have the extreme right wing to boycott their place.

Racism is not a legitimate political viewpoint.
It shouldn't be something that people tolerate or 'agree to disagree' on. It should be considered totally and utterly unacceptable in every situation or context.

Do I get to opt out of serving militant trans rights activists?

Just to add, freedom of speech is one of the most crucial parts of a democracy. If you really believe in these principles, you have to accept that you will hear views that you find offensive.

The suggestion being that you have to be white to be racist?