Banned From a Pub in Aberdeen

[Raphael]

FYI: Scotland lost to Belarus on October 8th.

[Silverlake_Punk]

From www.scotsman.com , here's a longer article on the same incident:

Thu 20 Oct 2005
Kilt-wearing footie fan in pub ban
A Scotland football fan was banned from a pub because he was wearing a kilt, it emerged today.

Robert Grant was told by doormen at Aberdeen's Soul bar that he was not allowed in because he was wearing the traditional dress.


Mr Grant, who was wearing the kilt to show his support for Scotland in their recent qualifying match against Belarus, intended to go into the bar to speak to a friend.

He was eventually told that he could go in, but on the condition that he left as soon as he met his friend.

Mr Grant told the Evening Express newspaper: "We weren't particularly bothered because there are plenty of other bars that would welcome our money.

"But I imagine they'll be pretty quiet at Hogmanay. I'm sure they wouldn't stop another national in their national dress."

Management at the bar said they had nothing against the kilt but people wearing kilts or football tops would be turned away during games.

General manager of Soul, Kevin McIntosh, said: "We would rather direct anyone with a kilt or football top on to go to our other bar, The College, which is geared more towards football fans.

"We had a few guys in here during a Rangers match who were shouting and swearing loudly at the screen, and that is not something we want to encourage, as some of our family customers have felt intimidated due to people coming in who have had a few drinks.

"At other times we might also use it as an excuse - the doormen will say we don't allow kilts rather than get into a confrontational situation with a group of lads who have had too much to drink."


http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2119272005

[Freedomlover]

Well. Business owners can do as they please within the bounds of the law. In fact, I would go so far as to have very few restrictions on owners. Their success will reflect their choices. But it is too bad that certain sports thugs are so common that ordinary citizens are painted with the same brush.

[Shay]

Well. Business owners can do as they please within the bounds of the law. In fact, I would go so far as to have very few restrictions on owners. Their success will reflect their choices. But it is too bad that certain sports thugs are so common that ordinary citizens are painted with the same brush.

Assuming they are- we don't know if maybe this guy was being belligerant.

[MacConnachie]

Pretty much everywhere you look in Montana, if it's just a bar or tavern, without any food being prepared for patrons, there's more than likely a sign with the following, posted somewhere behind the bar:

"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Noone tends to question these, at all.

Another one, perhaps more to the point for those rowdies wishing to carry their celebrations beyond the bounds of reason and fairness to others, are occasionally brought up short by the following brief missive:

"Behave, or begone."

[Graham]

I suspect it had little to do with the kilt, but either his attitude or the reputation hooligans have won for themselves.

Those kind of sports tend to bring out the worst of human nature.

[Freedomlover]

Pretty much everywhere you look in Montana, ...

Yep, that's true. Back in the mid 70's I lived near Lewistown and every bar I went into (now don't get the wrong idea ) had that sign. From 1979 to 1985 I worked (oil field) in Dagmar, Sheridan County, Montana, and the local saloon had the same sign. But I question the legal effect. The fact of the matter is that a public accomodation needs to have an overarching reason to deny service. Lack of shirt or shoes has already been shown in open court to be unenforcable because rules on strictly private property are one thing, but rules for public accomodation are another. In other words, the personal preferences of the business owner do not, and can not, disrupt the natural rights of the customer.

I know that others will disagree. That's fine, I'm not looking for argument.

My only point is that if the gentleman was denied service soley because he was wearing a kilt then I believe legal action would be appropriate. Further information indicates that Mr. Grant was not too put out because he said, {paraphrase} 'other places will be happy to have my business'. Quite right. My personal opinion is that we would all be well advised to take our business where it will be appreciated.

[Ugly Bear]

Maybe it was just the kilt, or maybe it was something else -- attitude, drunkenness, whatever. Either way, by saying that he's not welcome in his kilt, what does that say about Scotland?

To me, it says, in this tiny example, that Scotland is forsaking its national dress. It means that if I hear some Scotsman complaining about me stealing his national identity, I'll have just that much more doubt about the legitimacy of his complaint.

Evidence is mounting that the kilt doesn't belong to Scotland any more.

[Bob C]

The fact of the matter is that a public accomodation needs to have an overarching reason to deny service.

Nonsense. These are not public facilities. They're privately owned property.

I'll decide who has entry to my property, and I'll respect the right of these folks to do the same, in Montana, Aberdeen or elsewhere.

[Freedomlover]

Assuming they are- we don't know if maybe this guy was being belligerant.

I suppose we don't. But the link to the article gave no hint of obnoxious behavior.