Pregnant Woman Told To Leave Pub

[stinkymonkey]

the nanny state continues

I can understand where the landlord is coming from, though I don't agree with what she did.

There are exceptions in employment law - particularly around suitability of jobs. So you're allowed to advertise for a female carer for a female. You're also allowed to ask for a Chinese man to play the part of a Chinese man in a film. The document I linked to didn't mention any exception for provision of goods and services.

exceptions to provision of goods and services

Sorry Stealth, I can't fine the link (god this thread is long..) can you link to it again?

What about the beard thing, as an example then? If a man were sent home from work for having a beard? Why is this not sex discrimination?

Sorry - xpost, but thank you!

that wasn't the original one - I just found that. The original one was very dull though.
Not sure about the facial hair thing, that does sound like discrimination to me. Has that happened?

ooh just been looking up facial hair around sex discrimination - looks as though that would be bad on religious grounds as well!
Missed religion off my list, think ethnicity and race go together?

Happens all the time.

I wouldn't be 100% sure that bars come into 'goods and services' either, though I would need to check.

They are licensed premises and do hold certain exemptions than shops, for example. I do know that an off-licence is not legally allowed to refuse service to anyone, however a bar is. Its to do with holding a personal license, as opposed to the off-license which only requires a premises license.

Yes it is their bar. But in the same way as you can't nowadays put up signs saying 'no coloured or irish' you can't discriminate against pregnant women.

Or you shouldn't be able to. No one else's business.

RIght - I just saw that and assumed that's what it would fall under.
I'm going to keep searching on the facial hair thing!

Sorry - I meant the beard thing happens all the time. In 'high class' establishments, they usually have certain standards - no jewellery other than earring studs and wedding bands, must be clean shaven, must have hair tied up in a certain way...

I used to work for a 5 star hotel in Edinburgh and the rules were incredible. And females are not permitted to wear trousers.

I know of many occasions where men are sent home for not being clean shaven, thus losing a days pay. Some get sacked for repeated 'offences'.

well no other jewellery would definitely come under religious discrimination!

But, the pregnant woman was allowed in, and she was served, and then the manager, for whatever reason, decided to stop serving her because he felt she had had enough.

If she had been refused entry - discrimination.
If she had been refused initial service - discrimination.

But the manager felt she had enough to drink, and that is her prerogative, to anyone, pregnant or not.

I have refused service to people who were very far off being 'too drunk', because I felt that if they did continue to drink, they might become a problem. (I used to work in a pretty rough bar in Leith, and you get used to knowing what to look for.)
Technically, that is discrimination, because at the time, they were doing nothing wrong. But I felt that it was in the best interests of my pub, to stop serving them then.

Does that make me an idiot as well? Or is it only when someone refuses to serve pregnant people that they get called such names? (I am aware that you didn't do that name calling, BTW )

Ooh, really? Why? Might be a bit stupid here, but what religious jewellery would be considered 'essential' wear?

No, unless they could prove discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, religion...etc (i.e. showing you would have treated someone the same ... in the same way) it's not discrimination. Doing nothing wrong doesn't come into it.

Don't sikhs wear jewellery? And Christians wear crosses.

Well... in that case, surely if the licensee can say he or she would have treated every pregnant woman the same way, then it isn't discrimination?

What about refusing entry/service to someone from Germany, wearing a Germany football top? Could they claim they were being racially discriminated?

Not sure about Sikhs, but I am a christian and do not wear a cross. Nor do moat people I know, and the ones that do will happily take it off if need be.

no, it's the fact that every pg would be treated the same that makes it discrimination. If she'd thrown her out for being abusive, her pregnancy wouldn't have been a factor (although would have muddied the waters!)
German football fans - if because of football, then no, but German, then definitely! So for example if someone said "We don't take Germans because they're all football fans"

NO, but I think the difference is that the cross is a symbol of the faith, so saying no jewellery is not allowing someone to express their faith in the way they choose. Do you remember the French headscarf girl from a couple of years ago?

You can refuse to serve someone because you believe they are intoxicated but she wasn't I shouldn't think.

I can't be bothered to argue all this but either alcohol is legal or it isn't. And if it is legal, it's up to you how much you drink when you're pregnant, whatever government advice is. It's advice, not the law.

She wouldn't have refused to serve her if she hadn't been able to tell she was pregnant so it's absurd.

Yes, I remember that. From what I remember they didn't allow other jewellery, and I didn't notice anyone wearing anything else. Of course it was a while ago . They may well have changed the rules for such things.

Is it really discrimination though, when she was permitted entry, and served, but then when the licensee deemed she had enough she as refused service. he can do that to anyone on the grounds that he feels they have had enough to drink. He felt she had enough.

I am really shocked that so many posters are so accepting of this kind of informal policing of pregnant women's choices. Do you not see the implications? Someone joked earlier about waiters refusing to serve stilton to pregnant women but surely there is nothing to stop this happening either, nor the informal enforcement of any other of the multiple (and very dubious) health rules for pregnant women. This is profoundly intolerant of women's choices and presumes most women are irresponsible and ignorant of their baby's welfare. This is just not borne out by any commonsense experience or evidence. Come on, a bit of solidarity with womankind, please!

No, she lost her case anyway, didn't she?
I don't really know - don't know a lot about it. I think her argument would be that on that ocassion she refused to serve her because she was pregnant - no other reason (assuming there wasn't, tbh I think I'd be drunk after a pint of full strngth lager)

DSM - so you agree with the law as it stands: that a fetus has no legal rights until birth and that women should not be banned from drinking. And yet you believe it is right that a publican by virtue of the fact that she sat some exams on licensing laws should be able to decide that a fetus's rights not to be exposed to alcohol supercede a woman's rights to drink alcohol. That sounds rather undemocratic to me.

I could accept that this wasn't sex discrimination if the publican also decided to refuse to serve any man who had already had a pint to drink. The fact that this woman was pregnant is surely totally irrelevant in law as the fetus has no rights, but she as a woman does have the right to be treated equally to men.