Supermarket refuses service without mask

[torn2020]

The supermarket in my small town has taken the decision to refuse entry to anyone without a mask, even if they're exempt/carrying a card/wearing a lanyard etc. Apparently the exemption cards "were being abused".

Judging from comments on the local Facebook group, there's overwhelming support for this.

I'm horrified/disgusted at the overt discrimination and lack of empathy. Would say I'll boycott but actually have no choice since I'm unable to wear a mask (due to PTSD from being choked and strangled as a child, for those who like to jump in and say I should just put up with it for a 5 min shop). Apparently mask exempt people "don't have the right to just go wherever they want".

AIBU at despairing at humanity just a little bit more today?

“Actually a 'mask exempt' hour might be a good solution”

This is getting ridiculous.

As others have said, OP, I'm not sure how the supermarket can do this legally. There is legislation requiring the use of face covers in shops. Legislation
This states certain people are exempt from the need to do so, either because of who they are (children, shop workers, on duty police officers etc) or because they have "reasonable excuse" including the fact they can't wear one. These exemptions aren't conditional on anything like "unless the shopkeeper says so" or "unless a service can be provided in another way". They are just exemptions, full stop.

Of course, a shop can make additional rules, but as I understand, these cannot discriminate against people on the basis of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. So a rule of "no more than 3 people" should be OK, but a rule of "no gays, no blacks, no Irish" wouldn't be. A rule of "no-one without a mask" would surely discriminate against those unable to wear one for reasons of disability (including mental health). In fact, the "reasonable excuse" section in the face cover legislation even references the Equality Act when it defines "for reason of disability".

So my 2 questions (which I honestly don't know the answer to as I'm not a lawyer!) are:
a) Can the shop choose to ignore (part of the) legislation that clearly states some people are exempt? (presumably a shop couldn't choose (legally!) to say "masks are banned in this shop" so why can they ignore the exemption bit?) and
b) if they can, on the grounds they have "better" rules, how can these new rules comply with the equality act when they are replicating another piece of existing legislation, but with the "non-discriminatory bit" (not a technical term...) of the existing legislation taken out?!

'My mask protects you, your mask protects me'. You cannot expect people willing to wear masks to accept the risks from people who are not willing to wear them for whatever reason. The reality is that there are very few people who genuinely cannot wear one, they do not restrict breathing, they are not comparable to being choked. No-one likes wearing them but we do it to protect others.

"You cannot expect people willing to wear masks to accept the risks from people who are not willing to wear them for whatever reason."

Firstly the use of the word willing is incorrect.
Secondly if you go into a public place you have to accept there are risks from being around others and just as they may be a risk to you, you may be a risk to them.

@Redburnett

'My mask protects you, your mask protects me'. You cannot expect people willing to wear masks to accept the risks from people who are not willing to wear them for whatever reason. The reality is that there are very few people who genuinely cannot wear one, they do not restrict breathing, they are not comparable to being choked. No-one likes wearing them but we do it to protect others.

People who are exempt are not unwilling to wear a mask. We are unable to wear one. And for many who are exempt, the exemption has nothing to do with breathing difficulties. And who mentioned anything about being choked?

That is the crux of the argument, those of us who wear a mask consistently in the required situations do not accept that many of those not wearing one are 'unable to'. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation - it is just a bit of fabric or similar, that you can breathe through. Every asthmatic I know wears one.

Of course, a shop can make additional rules, but as I understand, these cannot discriminate against people on the basis of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. So a rule of "no more than 3 people" should be OK, but a rule of "no gays, no blacks, no Irish" wouldn't be. A rule of "no-one without a mask" would surely discriminate against those unable to wear one for reasons of disability (including mental health). In fact, the "reasonable excuse" section in the face cover legislation even references the Equality Act when it defines "for reason of disability"

The Law is far more complicated and uncertain that most people on here are suggesting. You usually cannot discriminate against people with protected characteristics, including by indirect discrimination. However, many exceptions are allowable on the grounds of safety. For example, most NHS services cannot discriminate against gay people, but the blood donation service is allowed to refuse donations from gay men who have recently been sexually active. The duty to reduce the risk of HIV transmission outweighs the duty not to discriminate.

Also, it is not necessarily discrimination to provide a service that some people with disabilities cannot use. Almost every service you can think of will have some people unable to use it because of their disabilities.

Shops are in a difficult position because they are trying to balance two legal duties that are currently in conflict: the rights of disabled people and the duty to keep their staff and the public safe. Until a case gets to court, no one can really say what view the Law will take of how they should balance those two obligations. It is simplistic to assume that they will be found to have breached the EA, simply by insisting on masks, especially if they offer alternative services to people who cannot wear masks. We just don't know, until it's tested in court.

And who mentioned anything about being choked?

I think what @Redburnett means is that they don't believe me when I say that wearing a mask triggers memories of being choked.

Physically, I am able to wear a mask. I am unable to wear a mask without experiencing vivid flashbacks of trauma. These make me unable to move or speak, and so understandably make it difficult to shop.

Obviously, my rational mind knows that I'm just wearing a mask and not actually in danger. But literally the whole point of PTSD is that when I hit certain triggers (such as something feeling restrictive around my mouth) my brain is involuntarily hijacked by the past experience. I'm trying really hard to recover but I'm not there yet.

RedBurnett - do you also refuse to believe that ex-servicemen with PTSD can be triggered by loud noises? Since obviously the loud noises aren't actually gunfire...

Sorry didn't read the whole thread.
I am currently in a country where mask wearing is compulsory. To be exempt, you need to have a special Dr certificate, not easy to get hold of! If you walk in a busy, public area without a mask, you will be stopped. I haven't really seen anyone without a mask.
I really think people need to wake up to the new reality of mask wearing. The amount of people who genuinely don't need to wear a mask should be minimal. The amount of people not wearing a mask in the last UK shop I visited was about 1/3 - No way are these people all exemp.

"That is the crux of the argument, those of us who wear a mask consistently in the required situations do not accept that many of those not wearing one are 'unable to'."

You mean you don't accept. You can't speak for others. You don't speak for me.

Reading slowly through this godawful thread

But to be honest I think reading the responses (on local FB group more than on here) has put me off going regardless of whether I'd be allowed through the door since the majority would consider me a pathetic snowflake . But hopefully others with a thicker skin than me can continue shopping if the manager does a U-turn.

The Equality Act says that harassment based on a protected characteristic is prohibited conduct.

Harassment under the EA is where a person engages in unwanted conduct, related to a protected characteristic that has the purpose or effect of violating your dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

This branch of Budgen's policy on face coverings has created an intimidating environment for you which has put you off visiting the store.

Perhaps you have never before thought that you have a disability because you've been able to continue with your day to day life, despite your PTSD, until now. But society has moved the goalposts and now your access to shops, public transport, healthcare and a load of other public indoor spaces and services depends on your ability to wear a face covering.

For anyone who has ever struggled to understand the social model of disability, here is a beautiful, horrible real-time example.

OP has been disabled by Budgen's shit, discriminatory rules.

@Redburnett

That is the crux of the argument, those of us who wear a mask consistently in the required situations do not accept that many of those not wearing one are 'unable to'. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation - it is just a bit of fabric or similar, that you can breathe through. Every asthmatic I know wears one.

Do the people you know with TN wear one? Rape survivors? Those with severe skin conditions?

Just because you don't know anyone who's exempt doesn't mean exemptions don't exist.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Of course, a shop can make additional rules, but as I understand, these cannot discriminate against people on the basis of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. So a rule of "no more than 3 people" should be OK, but a rule of "no gays, no blacks, no Irish" wouldn't be. A rule of "no-one without a mask" would surely discriminate against those unable to wear one for reasons of disability (including mental health). In fact, the "reasonable excuse" section in the face cover legislation even references the Equality Act when it defines "for reason of disability"

The Law is far more complicated and uncertain that most people on here are suggesting. You usually cannot discriminate against people with protected characteristics, including by indirect discrimination. However, many exceptions are allowable on the grounds of safety. For example, most NHS services cannot discriminate against gay people, but the blood donation service is allowed to refuse donations from gay men who have recently been sexually active. The duty to reduce the risk of HIV transmission outweighs the duty not to discriminate.

Also, it is not necessarily discrimination to provide a service that some people with disabilities cannot use. Almost every service you can think of will have some people unable to use it because of their disabilities.

Shops are in a difficult position because they are trying to balance two legal duties that are currently in conflict: the rights of disabled people and the duty to keep their staff and the public safe. Until a case gets to court, no one can really say what view the Law will take of how they should balance those two obligations. It is simplistic to assume that they will be found to have breached the EA, simply by insisting on masks, especially if they offer alternative services to people who cannot wear masks. We just don't know, until it's tested in court.

The problem for the shops is that there are already government rules and guidance in place permitting exemptions without the disabled person having to provide proof. The shops would have to justify why they have deviated from that. I’ve already explained why offering “click and collect” isn’t a reasonable adjustment.

I really think people need to wake up to the new reality of mask wearing. The amount of people who genuinely don't need to wear a mask should be minimal. The amount of people not wearing a mask in the last UK shop I visited was about 1/3 - No way are these people all exempt

And mask wearing is working with the rise of cases I'm.vallong bullshit on it

I know two people who can wear a mask who can wear a mask for a very short period of time

So fine to pop into one stop but they would struggle doing a weekly shop or going to a shopping centre or using one at work

@darkwader

Nightclubs can have dress codes, and shops (without any government rules) can choose to have a no mask, no entry rule if they want. They can choose a no exemptions policy if they want.

The risk of anyone not wearing a mask is the same irrespective of who the person is, and this approach is a proportionate aim of not infecting other customers - so it is not illegal. The fact the governments scheme decided to make an exemption is only relevant to the criminal offence, not the schemes and decisions by businesses or private individuals.

Nightclubs can have dress codes but they can't include anything that would discriminate against someone because of a protected characteristic.

Shops cannot have a no exemptions policy to face coverings because that would discriminate against disabled people, which is unlawful.

and this approach is a proportionate aim

No it isn't, there is no such thing as a 'proportionate aim', you are mixing up two different things.

For indirect discrimination to be lawful it has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Preventing transmission of the virus is a legitimate aim.

Refusing admission to people who are unable to wear a mask is not a proportionate means of achieving that aim because masks don't make that much difference and the detriment to disabled people is huge.

Bugger why did i feel the need to say’ can wear a mask’ twice

@Redburnett

That is the crux of the argument, those of us who wear a mask consistently in the required situations do not accept that many of those not wearing one are 'unable to'. I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation - it is just a bit of fabric or similar, that you can breathe through. Every asthmatic I know wears one.

Well if you don't accept it you need to stay away from shops, public transport and other indoor settings because disabled people are still allowed out in public and the EA has not been cancelled because of the virus.

I'm asthmatic and can't wear a mask. I'm happy to demonstrate the effect that wearing a mask has on me - as long as the shop ensures that they have a handy ambulance ready to take me to hospital when I collapse from the inevitable asthma attack.
A rare migraine disorder also means I can't wear visors.

I don't enjoy not being able to wear a mask. As a doctor who hoped to pursue a career as a surgeon it was highly inconvenient to me when I discovered that my inability to wear a mask impacted on my chosen career path.

I don't consider myself disabled and hadn't really thought about masks for years until now. Now I'm understanding disability discrimination in a whole new way and there are many people out there like me.

I'm angry. Angry at the people who implemented this stupid law as the masks that people are wearing in supermarkets are not protecting people. I'm angry at the people who think wearing a mask is a substitute for not doing the things that actually do prevent the spread of the virus; but mostly I'm angry at the arseholes who do not have the intelligence to understand that people may have valid reasons for why they cannot wear a mask and seek to exclude us from society.

If any shop refuse entry to myself and other people who cannot wear a mask that I hear about I will pursue them for disability discrimination through the courts. I will seek to shut them down and destroy them. I have the money, the time and the fury now to do so.

The problem for the shops is that there are already government rules and guidance in place permitting exemptions without the disabled person having to provide proof. The shops would have to justify why they have deviated from that. I’ve already explained why offering “click and collect” isn’t a reasonable adjustment.

In your opinion. The courts may disagree. I don't think shops should be insisting on masks btw. I agree with everyone saying it's disproportionate, and I have every sympathy with the OP.

But I don't think that it's at all clear that shops that insist on masks will be found to have discriminated. The Government has said that some people are legitimately exempt from wearing masks, but it doesn't follow that shops have to let those people in. When the policy was announced, Matt Hancock (for what that's worth ) specifically said that businesses could refuse entry to people without masks.

Well if you don't accept it you need to stay away from shops, public transport and other indoor settings because disabled people are still allowed out in public and the EA has not been cancelled because of the virus.

Exactly this, id you are that afraid stay indoors that's on you.

Government guidance states:
'Premises where face coverings are required should take reasonable steps to promote compliance with the law.'
That is exactly what the shop staff in the OP's post was doing.
There are videos online posted by surgeons clearly demonstrating that wearing a mask does not inhibit breathing. Nothing on this thread convinces me that most people who refuse to wear masks have a valid reason for doing so. I wear a mask to protect others and I expect them to reciprocate. I have no sympathy at all for mask refusers, and i have yet to encounter anyone wearing an exempt badge.

i hate the masks but have worn them. i think i'll just be exempt from now on though

@LouiseNW

“Actually a 'mask exempt' hour might be a good solution”

I wouldn’t work that shift.

Me neither

@WellRiddleMeThis

i hate the masks but have worn them. i think i'll just be exempt from now on though

What's your exemption?