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?

We have a mask system and rules which don't work in the UK

The vast majority of people wear masks. The rules people seem to misunderstand are the exemption rules.

some thought it was amusing to pull up their clothing in recognition that they were piss taking

Huh?

@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.

We have a bloody good idea because the government guidance says:

In settings where face coverings are required in England, there are some circumstances where people may not be able to wear a face covering. Please be mindful and respectful of such circumstances, noting that some people are less able to wear face coverings, and that the reasons for this may not be visible to others.

And also:

Those who have an age, health or disability reason for not wearing a face covering should not be routinely asked to give any written evidence of this, this includes exemption cards. No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering.

Some people may feel more comfortable showing something that says they do not have to wear a face covering. This could be in the form of an exemption card, badge or even a home-made sign.

This is a personal choice and is not necessary in law.

And also the legislation makes clear that the only people with powers of enforcement are the police, including PCSOs, and TfL staff.

Shops are not in a difficult position, they have been told exactly what to do in order to comply with the law. It's very obvious that the government has produced these regs having already taken expert advice on equality law. This is unusual for them but understandable after the delivery slots debacle.

The fact that some busybodies don't like the law is neither here nor there. Shops are only in a difficult position if they decide to pander to the busybodies because that puts them at risk of breaking the law.

A lot of women will have mask related anxiety connected to traumatic births.

I hyperventilate on the stuffy humid air. It's never been a strong point of mine, and weak spots have included over heated, poorl ventilated shops (especially if low ceilings or looming high shelves), backs of cars/ coaches (the more people, the more stuffy the air) and swimming pool changing areas. Masks are a very intense way to fast-track through these feelings and end up in a gasping panic attack. (Incidentally my GP has no record of this because I can usually manage my life around this issue without too much impediment).
If I did have to be ventilated, 1) as a youngish, healthy woman with no co-morbid factors, I'd be fucking unlucky, 2) it's helping not hindering me to breathe, 3) I'd be sedated, not lugging myself and a ventilator around the supermarket. I didn't particularly enjoy all the tubes, wires and other accessories while in HDU for a couple of days, but when you're in that kind of state, you just lie there passively and sleep a lot.

Ok, I get it. Non-mask wearers are selfish, pathetic individuals deliberately putting vulnerable people and key workers at risk. I need to accept that while this virus is around I'm unwelcome in public places.

Since this genuinely seems to be the majority opinion I'm going to stop reading now and just stay away from places where I'd need a mask. Then it won't matter whether they let exempt people in or not. This thread's getting a bit too nasty for me to be able to deal with.

@doublehelix

I've not got my point across very well. I am all for accessibility. A shop preventing access to those with disabilities for reasons of convenience/cost etc would be totally out of order. The amount of lobbying and time it has taken to get even as far as we are now with ramps/lifts on public transport is totally out of order.

This is different. Breathing out moisture droplets that could give people COVID and kill vulnerable people is a hazard not merely inconvenient. Workplaces have to protect their staff and customers from hazards - eg passive smoking, paint fumes and now the virus. Your convenience of access to milk at short notice is I'm afraid outscaled by someone else's need for protection from getting a potentially fatal illness.

Similarly, as an extreme example, if you have a severe vision problem or unstable epilepsy the DVLA restrict your access to driving as other people's right to road safety trumps the individual's right/desire to drive.

If you can't wear a mask you shouldn't be housebound - of course not - but it would be reasonable to avoid crowded indoor environments where should you be positive you could transmit the virus to many people - some with disabilities of their own who also don't want to be housebound due to others spreading virus. The shop should make a reasonable work around though - eg true priority rapid access to click and collect, or meet you outside and take a list of urgent items.

Studies show proper mask use reduces transmission by about 80%.

What about us single parents who have to feed our children (and cannot always get delivery slots plus a top up of fresh milk & bread isn't enough to warrant delivery) and collect our prescriptions (certain controlled meds cannot be delivered) and fill up with petrol when there's no pay at pump in your town etc etc.

Sadly I meet every single one of the above examples and given that all my family are dead besides my elderly mother and my only friends live 40 miles away, I have nobody to do these things for me. I HAVE to go out shopping. I HAVE to get my meds. I HAVE to fill up my MOTABILITY car, I HAVE to do the school run. I HAVE to get my autistic child the only food she will eat which typically isn't listed on any of the Deliveroo Grocery Delivery lists.

Do those of you anti-exempt'ers not realise that those of us who are GENUINELY exempt actually wish we could wear a bloody mask!!!!!!!

I work in a supermarket and out policy isl not to question those who are exempts disability and its not our job to either. The police are the ones to enforce it not shop staff. Plus no one should have to explain there reasons to stranger on why they should not wear one.

My dd is exempt and cannot wear a mask due to her disability but has a sunflower lanyard.

As a shop worker I don't have to wear a mask by law and I don't. I'm not near customers in my role and would be dangerous with the equipment I use.

I do wear a mask when I shop tho

Supermarket staff get enough abuse on a daily basis and it's disgusting the way some of my colleagues are treated. If the government want this to be enforced they need la better way to enforce it and not leave it to shop staff.

Iagree that, as customers are expected to wear masks, staff should also have to

Nope customers are there for a short amount of time. Staff are there for 8 hours plus.

@LangClegsInSpace

Nothing that you have quoted below proves that shops have to admit people without masks.

There are two separate issues, which many posters are confusing:

1. do people with legitimate exemptions have to wear masks?

The answer is unambiguously no.

2. do businesses have to allow access to people without masks?

That is not clear at all. Statements from the Government suggest they don't, but it won't be clear until it's tested in a court.

Every single business in the U.K. is inaccessible to some people with disabilities. Some businesses explicitly exclude some people with disabilities. That is not necessarily unlawful if there is a legitimate reason- e.g. many services aren't safe for people who are partially sighted/blind. If there is a good reason ('objective justification' under the EA), this is lawful.

Posters who think that shops are automatically guilty of discrimination if they exclude people with masks are wrong. We don't know this until there is case law. There are far more nuances to this than most posters think.

I am on the OP's side. Rates of Covid are so low in most areas that I don't think it is proportionate to exclude non-mask wearers. But people confidently telling her the shops are violating the EA are talking out of their arse. We do not know until there is case law or the Government amends statutory law to clarify.

"But people confidently telling her the shops are violating the EA are talking out of their arse."

Not in this case if it is confirmed that the shop are allowing children in without masks but are banning people with disabilities.

@Underhisi

"But people confidently telling her the shops are violating the EA are talking out of their arse."

Not in this case if it is confirmed that the shop are allowing children in without masks but are banning people with disabilities.

Again, it's just not that simple. Adults may pose a greater risk than young children. The evidence on this is unclear. So shops may have a lawful justification for treating the two groups differently.

While I am on the OP's side, I doubt we see many successful actions on the grounds of discrimination, as long as businesses can demonstrate a careful risk assessment and that they have made reasonable adjustments where required. Really what we need is for the Government to clarify this through statute law (amending the existing legislation)- it would make everyone's life so much easier.

I’m assuming you wear a face shield?? As someone with 2 serious heart contains and severe asthma I just wear a face shield everywhere instead of a mask and no ones questioned it. As someone who’s vunerable it infuriates me when I see people wearing absolutely nothing, there’s zero excuse for not at least wearing a shield.

"there’s zero excuse for not at least wearing a shield."

My son would not keep a shield on. Surely it is obvious that some people cannot.

@Coconutwinter

I’m assuming you wear a face shield?? As someone with 2 serious heart contains and severe asthma I just wear a face shield everywhere instead of a mask and no ones questioned it. As someone who’s vunerable it infuriates me when I see people wearing absolutely nothing, there’s zero excuse for not at least wearing a shield.

There is if you have trigeminal neuralgia. And that's just one example.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow - You are correct that until there is case law nobody can say for definite that the business is acting unlawfully, however I think they'd have a very hard time showing that banning all those who cannot wear a mask was a proportionate measure.

The small, additional, potential risk can be completely mitigated by ensuring 2m social distancing - which everyone should be doing anyway.

Nobody would bring a case unless they believed the business was acting unlawfully. Posters are not talking out of their arses, they are saying they think she has a case. I hope someone brings one soon.

@Coconutwinter

I’m assuming you wear a face shield?? As someone with 2 serious heart contains and severe asthma I just wear a face shield everywhere instead of a mask and no ones questioned it. As someone who’s vunerable it infuriates me when I see people wearing absolutely nothing, there’s zero excuse for not at least wearing a shield.

What's the point of that? Might as well draw one on with face paint.

This seems to be an exclusively English/British issue. In France and Spain where I live, masks are obligatory for all, no one is exempted, including children in schools.

I suggest the OP shops online if they don't want to wear a mask to protect others.

The point of wearing a visor is to protect you from the judgey arses who will ask you why you're not wearing a mask.

We know it's pointless. We know it's probably as effective as wearing nothing at all. But it give you the confidence to go about your daily business without attack from the self-appointed covid stasi.

@JeanneFrench

This seems to be an exclusively English/British issue. In France and Spain where I live, masks are obligatory for all, no one is exempted, including children in schools.

I suggest the OP shops online if they don't want to wear a mask to protect others.

Why do people keep posting the “no exemptions” thing as if it’s something to be proud of? I’d be ashamed to live in a country with no compassion for the disabled and victims of abuse.

As for France hahaha. They can hardly be held up as a shining example. I’ve seen the scenes from the Tour de France. It’s an absolute disgrace.

Also yes @JeanneFrench that case where the bus driver was murdered for challenging a group of youths without a mask was terrible. What part of the U.K. did that take place in again? Oh no wait, that’s right, it was France.

[quote LangClegsInSpace]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow - You are correct that until there is case law nobody can say for definite that the business is acting unlawfully, however I think they'd have a very hard time showing that banning all those who cannot wear a mask was a proportionate measure.

The small, additional, potential risk can be completely mitigated by ensuring 2m social distancing - which everyone should be doing anyway.

Nobody would bring a case unless they believed the business was acting unlawfully. Posters are not talking out of their arses, they are saying they think she has a case. I hope someone brings one soon.[/quote]
I agree. I think that shops would be up against it in establishing that denying entry to non mask wearers was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim as the government guidance presumably already contains that consideration hence why the exemption in the first place.

In terms of the reasonable adjustments argument, I agree that the mask exemption is the appropriate adjustment as this enables a disabled person to fully access the shops’ services. Click and collect does not.

I posted this upthread but I'll post it again. Look how 'protective' face shields are.

That's if you can wear one in the first place. To reiterate - many who are exempt can't. They'll be the people you see out and about without masks.

Don't you think we'd rather be able to wear a mask than put up with all the abuse we get? Life would be so much easier if we could. But no, we're just not trying hard enough, are we.

You know some law but I don’t think you understand it as well as you do @MissLucyEyelesbarrow particularly on reasonable adjustments.

As well as you think you do. Bloody phone.

@JeanneFrench

This seems to be an exclusively English/British issue. In France and Spain where I live, masks are obligatory for all, no one is exempted, including children in schools.

I suggest the OP shops online if they don't want to wear a mask to protect others.

But that's simply not true, is it. I have a friend in France who suffers from the same condition as me. She's exempt and doesn't wear a mask.

Those of us who have to pick up medication that can't be posted - how can we do that online? Or nip to the shop for stuff we've run out of? Or top up our key meters?

Also, lots of us need to use public transport to get to work. I've asked this countless times on this thread but nobody has addressed it (I wonder why). How are we to get to work? Are we supposed to give up our jobs and be unable to pay our bills because a few people don't like the fact that there are government-stated exemptions? Will you pay me my salary?