Banned From a Pub in Aberdeen

[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.

[Freedomlover]

Here is an extended version of the original article.

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

[macwilkin]

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.

I don't think it's fair to lump the whole nation in with one publican in Aberdeen, though, and say that Scotland is "forsaking its national dress", or that the kilt doesn't belong to Scotland anymore because of one incident.

Besides, I think, as Daz and others have pointed out, that this has more to do with the football aspect than the kilt per se -- and many football fans do wear the kilt, good and bad. This may be a case of "guilt by association".

Cheers,

Todd

[Ugly Bear]

I don't think it's fair to lump the whole nation in with one publican in Aberdeen, though, and say that Scotland is "forsaking its national dress", or that the kilt doesn't belong to Scotland anymore because of one incident.

True. This is just one incident, and hardly conclusive. But it is an indicator. I haven't seen it with my own eyes, of course, but I get the impression that the Scots hardly wear the kilt any more. I believe it's been relegated to special occasions (football matches, weddings and so on) and the tourism industry. Very few wear it casually or day-to-day.

I don't have any statistics, but I'd bet real money that the majority of kilts produced in Scotland today are for export abroad.

The story is a piece of evidence, nothing more, that kilts are not strictly Scottish. I've never given much credence to the "kilts-are-Scottish-and-Scottish-alone-so-foreigners-can't-wear-them-and-certainly-can't-dicker-with-the-design" position. Less so, because of stories like this.

[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.