Is your establishment a 'gay bar'? The right to refuse goes both ways.

originally posted by: crazyewok
It is when not asking could land your company in thousands of pounds of law suites from the pissed off religious people.

Sorry, I'm a little confused... Are you suggesting that the religious people would sue the organizer if their party ended up being at a gay bar?

The party was already booked. Some employees heard a rumor that the place was "gay" (it is not) and the organizer called to confirm. Not to prevent lawsuits, but to let the religious employees know.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
It may be legal, but it wasn't right.

Yeah, I'm not commenting on whether I think it's "right" or "wrong". I say it's his company. If he wants to give up the revenue, it's his choice. I'm just talking about the legal aspect.

Is he playing the victim? Considering it's not even a gay bar, I'd have to say no. He's got a diverse group of employees and customers and probably didn't want a scene... I don't really see him playing the victim. Maybe I'm missing something?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
I guess Alex Proud just didn't like the idea that many religious people think it's OK to discriminate based on someone's sexual preference. The organizer asked about it, as if it was a perfectly acceptable thing to say. It's really not.

Why isn't it? It could have opened up a can of worms if they organised a party and some Christian/Muslim attendees later found out it was a gay bar and sued their employer.

It is not against the law to enquire about the nature of an establishment. In fact, there are no laws saying what customers can do in this respect, it is their choice whom to offer their custom to. The business, however, cannot choose who to offer service to.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Absolutely! But if I had planned a party and I called to see if the place was "urban" because some of the white people in my party wanted to know... I would fully expect somewhat of a terse response. Especially if some of my employees and customers were black.

Race relations are somewhat more evolved in the UK than the US and this would never be a problem. Even if some employees did have a problem going to an "urban" locale, they'd never say anything or they'd be sacked. They'd simply not attend. Besides, there are no "black" or "white" venues, anywhere - you find black and white people everywhere in the UK - from the poshest wine bar to the most working class pub, you'll have black and whites freely mingling. It simply is not an issue in the UK the way it is in the US.

originally posted by: stumason
It is entirely against the law to discriminate against anyone based on their sex, sexual preference, colour/race, religion or even age (age restricted products such as Alcohol notwithstanding)

In the same way it would be illegal to deny service to a Gay couple, it is also entirely illegal to deny service because of perceived religious bigotry (it wasn't even confirmed, the first e-mail merely stated that some employees might be uncomfortable with a "gay bar" and was seeking confirmation so they could be advised of the facts)

Along with sex, sexual preference, colour/race, religion or age, does the law mention bigotry? Can you link to the anti-discrimination laws there?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Along with sex, sexual preference, colour/race, religion or age, does the law mention bigotry? Can you link to the anti-discrimination laws there?

What's the difference, BH? Discriminating against anyone based on religion, race, sex etc is bigotry.

The latest Act - The Equality Act 2010 - Link here to the Government website pretty much codifies the whole lot of previous Acts into a single set of rules. I think the specific rules that are pertinent here are Chapter 2, section 13.

originally posted by: stumason
What's the difference, BH? Discriminating against anyone based on religion, race, sex etc is bigotry.

Agreed. But as I have said, I'm talking about the LAW, not whether it is right or wrong. Like it or not, the law protects people of certain groups or qualities.

The latest Act - The Equality Act 2010 - Link here to the Government website pretty much codifies the whole lot of previous Acts into a single set of rules. I think the specific rules that are pertinent here are Chapter 2, section 13.

From your link:

The following characteristics are protected characteristics—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
pregnancy and maternity;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

It's not really clear why Alex Proud cancelled their reservation, though we can have our suspicions.

(1)Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2)Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief.

a reply to: cuckooold

Double standards as far as i can tell.

A gay customer being refused service because he or she were gay would complain, perhaps taking legal action, it wouldn't be the first time. Often, the business owner will be told they have to serve the gay person, otherwise it is discrimination.

Now we have a gay business owner, essentially refusing service on the grounds that at least some of the customers are against homosexuality.

People can't have it both ways. (Unless they happen to be Bi!)

It's not a case of banning straight religious people from the bar, I'm sure plenty of straights visit proud most weekend, surely just a case of the owner thinking what's best and not having to deal with a group of religious folks who could potentially be offended by the goings on in his establishment. , a case of blowing things out of proportion, by white straight men, who feel it's their turn to be recognised as a persecuted minority after all the struggles they have had to endure over the past decades.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

You are very probably right there, WW, but regardless it is against the law for "not having to deal with a group of religious folks who could potentially be offended by the goings on in his establishment"..

Regardless of motivation, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

A few thoughts from the thread:

1. Since when are Christians and LGBTQ+ in some way "opposite" forces? Is that like the Sith and the Jedi? Crips and Bloods? Matter and anti-matter, fire and water, sugar and spice, salt-n-pepa? (Okay, okay, the last is a musical group, but still.)

What about Gay Christians?

2. I think the bar owner is risking a civil suit by arbitrarily cancelling a reservation. Whatever the reason.

On the other hand ...

3. What if the bar is not strictly speaking a "gay bar" but merely has a sizable gay clientele? What if he tells them that his bar is not a gay bar, and they find some gay folk there ... did he commit fraud? Is the bar owner supposed to guarantee that the company group will see no gay people in his bar, on the streets to get to his club, on the underground on the way there? What are the criteria for a place being a "gay bar" anyway? Rainbow flag out front? Men who know how to dress and take care of themselves? What exactly is the criteria? (I can see why the bar owner would hesitate to answer the question and might cancel to allow the group to find a more ... neutral location)?

4. If the venue is announced in advance, I can't see that the company would have any liability to the employees because they didn't like some aspect of the location. If you don't like it, don't go. If you get there and don't like it, don't stay?

5. Public accommodation laws exist in America because they were part of the English Common Law. No, public businesses do not have the right to "serve or decline to serve anyone for any reason."

originally posted by: MysterX
Now we have a gay business owner, essentially refusing service on the grounds that at least some of the customers are against homosexuality.

He is not a gay business owner. He is not gay and the bar is not a gay bar. And we don't really know why he refused the customers. I'm only assuming he sees them as bigots.

There's nothing illegal about refusing customers because they are against homosexuality. Being against homosexuality is not a legally protected group.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh it's not a gay bar?

I honestly thought it was.

Hm.

Well I still think it was silly of him to automatically assume prejudice, vs an employer wanting to give all the info to his employees.

But Ok, I see your point a bit better now.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
1. Since when are Christians and LGBTQ+ in some way "opposite" forces?

I have asked that same question...

2. I think the bar owner is risking a civil suit by arbitrarily cancelling a reservation. Whatever the reason.

Could be. I'm not very familiar with the laws there.

3. What if the bar is not strictly speaking a "gay bar" but merely has a sizable gay clientele?

Yeah, it is not a gay bar and his employees and clientele are diverse (just from my reading)

Is the bar owner supposed to guarantee that the company group will see no gay people in his bar, on the streets to get to his club, on the underground on the way there?

That could very well be why he cancelled. Gay folks are everywhere. No guarantees.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Oh it's not a gay bar?

I have done a lot of searching and I can't find ANYTHING (including pictures) that even suggests it's a gay bar. Just a very cool place with a very diverse staff and clientele.

OK, we can assume he cancelled because the people were "homophobic"... NOT a protected group in UK Law.

In a second tweet he said: “Homophobia is homophobia, I don’t care what religion you are.”

Writing in his column in The Telegraph, Proud explained why he went public with the exchange.

He said: “A few months ago, I was having a chat with a couple of gay friends. We were talking about the casual, yet abusive use of the word “gay” (as in “that’s so gay”). I’ve said this without believing myself to be homophobic and, I imagine, there’s a good chance that many people reading this will have done so too.

“When I put this to one of my gay mates, he said, “Next time you do it, mentally substitute the word ‘gay’ for ‘black’ or ‘Paki’, then ask yourself how OK it is? This was, I’ll admit, a bit of an eye-opener. Not least because it works so perfectly when you remember how casually these terms were bandied around in the 1970s. How acceptable would it be if the company email had read, “Some of our staff have been told that Proud is a Paki bar” – and then went on to explain that some people found this intolerable because of their religion?”

Source

My take on this is that it has nothing to do with gay or religious. I think Proud just didn't want to deal with this guy. Don't blame him.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Boadicea
We all have the right to choose with whom we associate, whether in business or personal dealings, for whatever reason we choose.

I don't know if you're talking about the UK or the US, but in the US, business owners do NOT have the legal right to turn people away "for whatever reason" they choose.

I was actually referring to natural law and those pesky inalienable rights endowed by our Creator and enshrined in our founding documents. I should have been clear about that and I apologize for the inevitable confusion.

Indeed, you are correct that U.S. civil law does use the color and force of law to coerce people to act against their own will and conscience. But in the end, natural law and free will always prevail -- whether it's the person allowing himself to be "bought" so to speak, or the person simply finding a legally acceptable reason to refuse service, or just no longer providing the service, or (fill in the blank).

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Not sure i follow his point. Gay is not in itself an offensive word, is the description prefered by most gay people.
Paki Is a highly offensive derogatory term.

a reply to: Boadicea
Could you point to what part of the US constitution protects a business's right to discriminate?

a reply to: cuckooold

Gays want it both ways and most the time they will get it because the NWO has a plan for them that will include hosting state made test tube babies

Pregnant men ! you see