Kicked Out of a Bar for Wearing a Kilt

[CDNSushi]

McClef: Well, in that case, require the bouncer to bring the sign to the attention of everyone entering the establishment regardless of what they're wearing.

(And see how quickly that silly rule disappears. My bet would be a week. Tops.)

[dtandthekilt]

Stating to the bouncer that it is none of his bussiness is a good response as you could argue it is an invasion of your privacy. If it was me I would inform the bounce that if there were problems in the past that you would not be one to initiate any problems. If he still didn't let you in then go for the attorney general. The pub is considered a private bussiness and have a right to their own rules up to a point. The pub is still public unless it requires a membership. If all else fails there are many ways to publicise how fake the place is. It would interest me what nationality owns the joint.

[Spartan]

Stating to the bouncer that it is none of his bussiness is a good response as you could argue it is an invasion of your privacy. If it was me I would inform the bounce that if there were problems in the past that you would not be one to initiate any problems. If he still didn't let you in then go for the attorney general. The pub is considered a private bussiness and have a right to their own rules up to a point. The pub is still public unless it requires a membership. If all else fails there are many ways to publicise how fake the place is. It would interest me what nationality owns the joint.

Isn't "pub" short for "public house"?

[meinfs]

...

No Shirt
No Shoes
No Undergarments
No Service

Questions to the rabble:

1. While regimentally kilted, would you still ENTER an establishment that has such a sign, on principle? (that is, that you are a gentleman and have no intention of exposing yourself).


2. Say you're now inside the establishment and some drunken miscreant lifted your kilt and patrons saw IT! The management then decides to kick you out because you violated the dress code; and, does not kick out the miscreant. Would you consider that fair?




I initially thought that adding an extra line into such a sign may take care of (or prevent) some problems but alas can create potential others. It could be slippery.


My humble opinion is that the right to privacy should be respected. Any misbehaviors should be handled on a case to case basis. Basic decency is your basic guiding principle. Throwing a blanket judgement on kilt wearers as having a bigger, uhm, propensity to misbehave is something that I resent and I believe that it is prejudiced. The bouncer had no right to question your garments especially at a place that is not exclusively private/members only.


Just my two cents.
(though you could still say Póg mo thóin!

[GreenDragon]

jpo,

Thank you for posting the manager's response.

As I thought, their policy is a reaction to a previous incident.

The individual who wore a kilt to this establishment did not show good judgement and has made things very difficult for the bar and for other kilt wearers.

That person may be at fault but because of them the establishment has to try to figure out how to prevent further incidents.

I certainly understand you not wishing to give your patronage to this bar, but on the other hand I certainly understand their policy.

Hopefully there will be more kilted gentlemen willing to make small compromises who will frequent the bar and show that this other fellow was the exception and not the rule.

Cheers

Jamie

There's always somebody that makes an *** out of themself and ruins it (whatever it is, in this case kiltwearing at the aforementioned pub) for others.

[Colin]

To those clamoring for me to contact the management, I already had before I started this thread, the text is posted somewhere in the early pages of this thread.

Anway, I got a response from Newark, but none from corporate yet:


I am composing a response at the moment, addressing the fact that just because someone is wearing a kilt doesn't make them a deviant, and the fact that it is regardless unacceptable to ask such questions in a civilized setting.

I will keep everyone posted.
jim

After reading original post and their response to you, it sounds like it wasn't the kilt that caused the denied entry (as the title of the thread suggests), but what was under (or not under) the kilt that caused the denied entry. They don't say anything about having an issue with the kilt at all.

Does it suck that one moron ruined it for others? Yes, but that is usually the case with life. Why do you think half the "rules" at Xmarks are here!

Is it fair?No, but they have the right to put in place any reasonable policy they like for their pub. I find the chain pubs are often more likely to base policy on experience as a chain based on problems rather than on individual pub experiences based on the patrons.However they also need to find a way to make the pub a safe and enjoyable environment for everyone. How would you feel if your wife/sister/daughter was one of the women the first kilted jack *** exposed himself to? Anyone's concern would be for them not the kilted community.

I do think it is a strange double standard that the guy would ask a guy in a kilt if he was regimental, just as easy for an **** in jeans to do that same thing if he is commando. Especially given that they don't ask people in pants the same question. It sounds like a band aid solution to me.

You said you were not a fan of the place anyway, so my advise is either put on boxers under the kilt when you go to this pub or find a better pub that doesn't care what you are wearing under your kilt.

[jpo]

But it still implies a prejudgement on the part of the security guy unless he were to point it out to all patrons whether male or female, kilted or not.

I agree, it would still be discriminatory, but at least people in my situation wouldn't be blindsided by what appears to be a standard question but is in fact a condition of entry.

1. While regimentally kilted, would you still ENTER an establishment that has such a sign, on principle? (that is, that you are a gentleman and have no intention of exposing yourself).

If it were Kildare's pre-incident, and it was under the same circumstances as that night (going out for a night of drinking with friends) then yes, I would "run the risk" of breaking the dress code.

2. Say you're now inside the establishment and some drunken miscreant lifted your kilt and patrons saw IT! The management then decides to kick you out because you violated the dress code; and, does not kick out the miscreant. Would you consider that fair?

If we both got kicked out, that would be fine. While it has never happened in a bar, there have been several times with an inebriated (female) friend could restrain her curiosity no longer and has preformed an uninvited kilt check. Fortunately I don't have any embarrassing size/shape/color issues, so in a living room it isn't a problem. In a bar on the other hand . . .

If only I got kicked out however, that would be unacceptable. That person violated my rights. Even if I was wearing boxers I would not have protested the kilt inspector being removed from the bar.

jim

[Macman]

Is it fair?No, but they have the right to put in place any reasonable policy they like for their pub.

I agree with that, Colin, but I think for the place to go after the guy in the kilt (without underwear) is not really reasonable. We've had other threads about kilt-wearers being refused entry, and I have to say this place is at least letting kilters in.
But, if they want to have a policy, why not just "No public nudity" and "No indecent assault" to cover both types of bad behavior - the flashers and the lifters?

[Colin]

But, if they want to have a policy, why not just "No public nudity" and "No indecent assault" to cover both types of bad behavior - the flashers and the lifters?

I agree 100% percent.

[McClef]

McClef: Well, in that case, require the bouncer to bring the sign to the attention of everyone entering the establishment regardless of what they're wearing.

(And see how quickly that silly rule disappears. My bet would be a week. Tops.)

But he would not feel bound to obey your request and how would you police it anyway? Only if the owners, the people paying him, required this as a matter of policy would you feel that you are not being discriminated against.