Q&A thread for New Posters

[CharlieParley]

Welcome to the FWR board and welcome to the debate. If you're new here and have been told your questions might be better on their own thread, but you're not comfortable starting your own, then please feel free to ask your question here.

I'll try my best to answer and some of our other regulars might pop in too.

Is it no longer true that a publican or landlord can ask any person whatever to leave his premises for any reason or none?

I'm pretty sure that if it was proven the reason the person was barred from entry was because of direct discrimination (e.g. race, sex, religion) then no that wouldn't be legal. I think there have already been some legal challenges (at least in the US) where there was evidence that AirBnB hosts had rejected bookings because of racism.

Would it not need to be because of direct discrimination against a group actually mentioned in the EA? And provably so rather than just "This person argued with me and became a nuisance, disrupting my pub, so I asked them to leave and not come back"?

Haha yes I don't think "being an arsehole" is a protected characteristic. Otherwise Peggy Mitchell would have had some issues.

Not a lawyer though so happy to be corrected...!

Unless there are special rules for pubs, you can't refuse service if the reason is illegal discrimination.

"Gay snub Cornish B&B owners lose Supreme Court appeal"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

On the other hand I'm not sure how the following case will be decided given that equalities legislation specifically allows single sex clubs.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/08/businesswoman-launches-legal-action-against-the-garrick-club

The B&B case does show that when cases aren't straightforward it's often because the needs of people with different protected characteristics needed to be balanced.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/legal-work-scotland/bull-v-hall-why-supreme-court-found-direct-discrimination

Although not directly applicable to this thread, I think this is quite interesting as an example of how different rights are weighed against each other, and how direct and indirect discrimination is ascertained.

The mistake is clearly in telling someone that you are discriminating against them because of a protected characteristic.

The mistake is clearly in telling someone that you are discriminating against them because of a protected characteristic.

No, because indirect discrimination is also illegal. The B&B owners claimed that they would refuse service to any unmarried couples on religious grounds. At the time same sex marriage was not available so it was held that this was discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The mistake was in giving any reason at all. As far as I know you don't have to. And if you haven't given any reason, it can't be argued about, can it.

As far as I know you don't have to. And if you haven't given any reason, it can't be argued about, can it.

No reason is necessary if discrimination is indirect.

It would also be discriminatory if it were clear that a particular group were being treated differently for no fair reason e.g. re equal pay claims.

I suppose that now same-sex marriage is possible, the "our religion doesn't allow the unmarried to share a bed" reason would once more be valid if an unmarried same-sex couple wanted to rent their double bedroom.

[quote Helen8220]@Ereshkigalangcleg

Sex is defined in the Equality Act as a "female of any age" or a "male of any age". Gender reassignment as a protected characteristic is defined in terms of "transsexual people". Obviously the GRA muddies the water in terms of the sex characteristic.

Could you point me to the relevant provision in the EA please? I looked at the index in schedule 28 but that only points me to s11 which says something different[/quote]
Section 212 "General Interpretation"

(1)In this Act—
“armed forces” means any of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown;
“the Commission” means the Commission for Equality and Human Rights;
“detriment” does not, subject to subsection (5), include conduct which amounts to harassment;
“the Education Acts” has the meaning given in section 578 of the Education Act 1996;
“employment” and related expressions are (subject to subsection (11)) to be read with section 83;
“enactment” means an enactment contained in—
(a)an Act of Parliament,
(b)an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c)an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, or
(d)subordinate legislation;
“equality clause” means a sex equality clause or maternity equality clause;
“equality rule” means a sex equality rule or maternity equality rule;
“man” means a male of any age;
“maternity equality clause” has the meaning given in section 73;
“maternity equality rule” has the meaning given in section 75;
“non-discrimination rule” has the meaning given in section 61;
“occupational pension scheme” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;
“parent” has the same meaning as in—
(a)the Education Act 1996 (in relation to England and Wales);
(b)the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (in relation to Scotland);
“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations;
“profession” includes a vocation or occupation;
“sex equality clause” has the meaning given in section 66;
“sex equality rule” has the meaning given in section 67;
“subordinate legislation” means—
(a)subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978, or
(b)an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament or an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;
“substantial” means more than minor or trivial;
“trade” includes any business;
“woman” means a female of any age

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/212

Thanks @MoleSmokes!