Jump to content

Can you ban people from a shop or workplace for covering their face?

Recommended Posts

Face covering and mode of dress are not a protected characteristic. What you claimed though is that a business can refuse to serve someone for any reason

 

You're wrong. As usual. There are reasons for which it would be illegal to refuse to serve someone.

I don't think that face coverings of any kind fall under the religious protection angle, so you could refuse to serve someone who was covering their face.

You couldn't refuse to serve someone because they were black, gay or Buddhist or all three.

 

Not quite, however much you'd like me to be:DD

 

I've never actually said anything about refusal to sell on the grounds of being black, white pink or yellow. You did that off your own back (well, from Google at least)

 

After many years in retail, I can assure you that a shopkeeper can refuse to sell to anyone, for whatever reason he/she deems fit, on the proviso that he/she has used the invitation to treat model for the refusal to serve, and that is acceptable in law.

To stand there and refuse on the grounds of reasons that clearly breach the Equalities Act 2010 would be social suicide, and something that is wrong and as you say, illegal.

 

You ought to accept that whilst you may be fully conversant with all things that wobble, some of us actually understand subjects that don't require googling by a part time wiseacre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If somebody did get refused for any reason, it would be a customer service issue, not a legal issue

 

Perhaps "any" means something different in your world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite, however much you'd like me to be:DD

 

I've never actually said anything about refusal to sell on the grounds of being black, white pink or yellow. You did that off your own back (well, from Google at least)

 

After many years in retail, I can assure you that a shopkeeper can refuse to sell to anyone, for whatever reason he/she deems fit, on the proviso that he/she has used the invitation to treat model for the refusal to serve, and that is acceptable in law.

To stand there and refuse on the grounds of reasons that clearly breach the Equalities Act 2010 would be social suicide, and something that is wrong and as you say, illegal.

 

You ought to accept that whilst you may be fully conversant with all things that wobble, some of us actually understand subjects that don't require googling by a part time wiseacre.

 

This is all semantics. If you refuse to serve someone thats one thing, but your reason for refusing to serve them can then be challenged. Your reason needs to be non discriminatory legitimate and proportional.

Considering you said

Any shop can refuse to serve anyone. All this discrimination stuff is in the eye of the beholden.

 

Its incorrect discrimination is in the eyes of the law and should you refuse someone and they wish to make a complaint then they will have the law applied as to whether your refusal was legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After many years in retail, I can assure you that a shopkeeper can refuse to sell to anyone, for whatever reason he/she deems fit, on the proviso that he/she has used the invitation to treat model for the refusal to serve, and that is acceptable in law.

 

Still not true. Demonstrated already to be complete nonsense in fact. There are a list of reasons for which you cannot refuse legally to sell to someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still not true. Demonstrated already to be complete nonsense in fact. There are a list of reasons for which you cannot refuse legally to sell to someone.

 

Demonstrated in what's nonsense in compilers what????? What on earth are you dribbling on about now?? You obviously haven't got a clue what PROVISO means, have you Google boy??

 

You are wrong and you don't like it.

 

Take it on the chin, and move on. Stick to your laptop job, and leave retail to those who actually do the job, and try to learn some self discipline.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 16:20 ----------

 

Perhaps "any" means something different in your world.

 

I ignored this first, as its the worst comeback I've ever read.

 

Very poor.

Edited by scania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Demonstrated in what's nonsense in compilers what????? What on earth are you dribbling on about now?? You obviously haven't got a clue what PROVISO means, have you Google boy??

 

You are wrong and you don't like it.

 

Take it on the chin, and move on. Stick to your laptop job, and leave retail to those who actually do the job, and try to learn some self discipline.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 16:20 ----------

 

 

I ignored this first, as its the worst comeback I've ever read.

 

Very poor.

 

But you are wrong. Try not serving a customer because they are black tomorrow. In fact, how about I come and try to buy something off you tomorrow and you refuse to serve me because I am gay. Then I shall prove you wrong in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite, however much you'd like me to be:DD

 

I've never actually said anything about refusal to sell on the grounds of being black, white pink or yellow. You did that off your own back (well, from Google at least)

 

After many years in retail, I can assure you that a shopkeeper can refuse to sell to anyone, for whatever reason he/she deems fit, on the proviso that he/she has used the invitation to treat model for the refusal to serve, and that is acceptable in law.

To stand there and refuse on the grounds of reasons that clearly breach the Equalities Act 2010 would be social suicide, and something that is wrong and as you say, illegal.

 

You ought to accept that whilst you may be fully conversant with all things that wobble, some of us actually understand subjects that don't require googling by a part time wiseacre.

 

I wouldn't fret. You seem to be dealing with a pedant.

 

In the real word our local Spar shop is close to a school. They have someone on the door when the schools kick out. They only allow a few kids in at a time because of shop lifters. They have a list of kids who are banned from the store. You can't police that if the kids are allowed in wearing hijabs, crash helmets, annonymous masks or full face balaclavas. They don't

 

The shop is run by asians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't fret. You seem to be dealing with a pedant.

 

In the real word our local Spar shop is close to a school. They have someone on the door when the schools kick out. They only allow a few kids in at a time because of shop lifters. They have a list of kids who are banned from the store. You can't police that if the kids are allowed in wearing hijabs, crash helmets, annonymous masks or full face balaclavas. They don't

 

The shop is run by asians.

 

There seems to be intentional miscommunication on this thread. Noone is saying you cannot stop serving someone wearing a helmet, a balaclava or a niqab. However if you try to stop serving someone only in a niqab because they are a muslim then you are in breach of the law. It's so sodding simple I cannot comprehend how this thread has gone on so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There seems to be intentional miscommunication on this thread. Noone is saying you cannot stop serving someone wearing a helmet, a balaclava or a niqab. However if you try to stop serving someone only in a niqab because they are a muslim then you are in breach of the law. It's so sodding simple I cannot comprehend how this thread has gone on so long.

 

Well neither can I. Last year a woman went to the European Court over the banning of full face coverings ON THE STREETS OF FRANCE. The court ruled it was acceptable to ban coverings as it was not on religious grouns but all face coverings.

 

That is the ruling of the European Court. It therefore stands that should anyone wish to ban a person from entering their premises due to a full face covering that is acceptable under EU law.

 

It is just about covered by this report.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/world/europe/european-rights-court-upholds-frances-ban-on-full-face-veils.html

 

"The court said in a statement that the “ban was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face.” The 17 judges said the applicant had not been a victim of discrimination."

 

It continued: “While the court was aware that the disputed ban mainly affected certain Muslim women, it nevertheless noted that there was no restriction on the freedom to wear in public any item of clothing which did not have the effect of concealing the face and that the ban was not expressly based on the religious connotation of the clothing in question but solely on the fact that it concealed the face.”

 

The court also said it was “able to understand the view” that, in the interests of social cohabitation, the wearing of such face-covering veils might be perceived as thwarting “open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, formed an indispensable element of community life within the society in question.”

Edited by exxon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you are wrong. Try not serving a customer because they are black tomorrow. In fact, how about I come and try to buy something off you tomorrow and you refuse to serve me because I am gay. Then I shall prove you wrong in court.

 

To be adult sgtkate, I've never even said you cannot serve a person because they are black, gay or just plain ugly. Yes, you may pop in tomorrow for something,, but if your mannerism is anything as blunt as your reply, then no, I won't serve you. And it's not because you are gay, it's because I didn't like your attitude, and to prove me wrong in court would be difficult, as yet again the discriminantion card has been played to prove a point that was never there in the first place, yet again in the eyes of the beholder only.

Have you ever thought that minorities may have chips on their shoulders that the majority might not even have thought about?

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 17:15 ----------

 

I wouldn't fret. You seem to be dealing with a pedant.

 

In the real word our local Spar shop is close to a school. They have someone on the door when the schools kick out. They only allow a few kids in at a time because of shop lifters. They have a list of kids who are banned from the store. You can't police that if the kids are allowed in wearing hijabs, crash helmets, annonymous masks or full face balaclavas. They don't

 

The shop is run by asians.

 

It's crazy that some get so uptight about issues that seem to be in their own minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be adult sgtkate, I've never even said you cannot serve a person because they are black, gay or just plain ugly. Yes, you may pop in tomorrow for something,, but if your mannerism is anything as blunt as your reply, then no, I won't serve you. And it's not because you are gay, it's because I didn't like your attitude, and to prove me wrong in court would be difficult, as yet again the discriminantion card has been played to prove a point that was never there in the first place, yet again in the eyes of the beholder only.

Have you ever thought that minorities may have chips on their shoulders that the majority might not even have thought about?

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 17:15 ----------

 

 

It's crazy that some get so uptight about issues that seem to be in their own minds.

 

 

You said

Any shop can refuse to serve anyone. All this discrimination stuff is in the eye of the beholden.

 

Which gives the impression that the shop can refuse to serve anyone for whatever reason, which is ofc balatantly untrue. The reason you choose not to serve someone is very important.

 

In the case of a balck person you would have to test that v your version it was merely because they had bad manners and theirs in thoery becayse it was based in race, which would be illegal. So the discrimination stuff as you put it is not in the eye of the beholder its in the eye of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be adult sgtkate, I've never even said you cannot serve a person because they are black, gay or just plain ugly. Yes, you may pop in tomorrow for something,, but if your mannerism is anything as blunt as your reply, then no, I won't serve you. And it's not because you are gay, it's because I didn't like your attitude, and to prove me wrong in court would be difficult, as yet again the discriminantion card has been played to prove a point that was never there in the first place, yet again in the eyes of the beholder only.

Have you ever thought that minorities may have chips on their shoulders that the majority might not even have thought about?

 

 

And that is fine and completely within the law, but that is clearly not the point you were hinting at. If I have misunderstood you then my apologies, but you were implying that you were legally within your rights to refuse to server anyone you liked for whatever reason you liked and that is incorrect as there are some groups in the UK that have protected status (rightly or wrongly, not debating that on here) and if you decide not to serve someone for a reason on that list then you are breaking the law.

 

Does that clarify my point?

 

Not everyone on here is prepping for a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.