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

[cassity]

You misunderstand what everyone else can see.

 

No he isn't, he's being a what rhymes with ' a bat'.

[scania]

You misunderstand what everyone else can see. If you choose to refuse to serve someone then it depends what the reason is. If the courts find it was for a reason that is judged as discriminatory and illegal under the act then you would be breaking the law.

 

You make light of your use of saying any and Any shop can refuse to serve anyone. All this discrimination stuff is in the eye of the beholden. when it clearly is not and therefore your statements were false. You have difficulty accepting you were wrong on the basis of what you wrote. Everyone else can see it.

 

Invitation to treat is merely a way to identify at what stage a seller is making a formal offer and will be bound v an invitation to enter into negotiations. Its basic contract law.

 

You cannot refuse to serve if the reason for not serving was a discriminatory one under the act. The situation is black and white.

 

But who says it was discriminatory? Who??

I gave an example earlier, and how would that example stand?

I really want you to tell me who would say it was discriminatory, and under the example of a possible case, how on earth could you apply the "Act" in that scenario?

[Andy76]

But who says it was discriminatory? Who??

I gave an example earlier, and how would that example stand?

I really want you to tell me who would say it was discriminatory, and under the example of a possible case, how on earth could you apply the "Act" in that scenario?

 

A county court does if there is a case to answer. And the onus is on the complainant to prove they were discriminated against because of a protected characteristic rather than a non protected reason.

 

Realistically there are only two ways that can happen, the business overtly refers to a protected charecteristic while refusing service (eg'we don't want chinese / deaf people in here' or it can be shown that the level of rudeness displayed by the deaf chinese guy is tollerated from non deaf/Chinese customers.

[scania]

A county court does if there is a case to answer. And the onus is on the complainant to prove they were discriminated against because of a protected characteristic rather than a non protected reason.

 

Realistically there are only two ways that can happen, the business overtly refers to a protected charecteristic while refusing service (eg'we don't want chinese / deaf people in here' or it can be shown that the level of rudeness displayed by the deaf chinese guy is tollerated from non deaf/Chinese customers.

 

That is how straightforward it is Andy76. I think that any possible case of contravening of the act would rely heavily on being able to prove that the shopkeeper/staff member was indeed discriminating. I expect without good evidence, it would be pretty difficult to prove.

[Cyclone]

A county court does if there is a case to answer. And the onus is on the complainant to prove they were discriminated against because of a protected characteristic rather than a non protected reason.

 

Realistically there are only two ways that can happen, the business overtly refers to a protected charecteristic while refusing service (eg'we don't want chinese / deaf people in here' or it can be shown that the level of rudeness displayed by the deaf chinese guy is tollerated from non deaf/Chinese customers.

 

Or a clear pattern.

 

Most prejudiced people seem to be a bit dim though, so they'd probably just come out and make it clear. Perhaps they wouldn't even understand why their behaviour was wrong.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2015 at 09:24 ----------

 

That is how straightforward it is Andy76. I think that any possible case of contravening of the act would rely heavily on being able to prove that the shopkeeper/staff member was indeed discriminating. I expect without good evidence, it would be pretty difficult to prove.

 

Nobody has disagreed that it could be difficult to prove.

 

A clever prejudiced person (I guess a few exist) could get away with it all the time by just using different "reasons" for why they won't serve whoever.

And we've long ago established that you can ban face coverings.

 

---------- Post added 01-12-2015 at 09:27 ----------

 

Some people suggested (back on page 2 I think) that face coverings should be banned in public entirely. I disagree with that, I think it should be legal to dress how you like. Go out naked right now in the cold and rain for all I care, but don't expect a shop to serve you if they have a "must be wearing pants" rule. (You'll see in tourist towns on the continent a rule saying that people must not be topless actually).