...
The holder of a public licence does not reserve the right to refuse who they wish. They may only refuse those who are underage, drunk or violent, and so the "the management reserves the right to refuse admission" signs are not actually legal.
If I am a sober, non-violent 21 yr old from Ballymun, under the laws of this land, which the publican is bound to adhere to under the terms of his licence, I cannot be refused access to a public house simply because the publican believes I would be bad for business.
jem, whether you think its right or wrong, the publican has a public licence and so must adhere to these terms. Yes the publican is a businessman (and God knows they make enough money), but like all other businesspeople, publicans are bound to the laws of the land. However, it appears that they believe they can flout these laws and handpick their clientele.
I agree that publicans have to make calls of judgement to "keep an orderly house". This should be done based on peoples' actions, and not merely based on their appearance when they get to the pub (unless, of course, their demeanour indicates they are excessively drunk or violent/agreesive). The former is totally reasonable - if someone is or is threatening to cause trouble, by all means kick them out.
However, the latter is totally prejudicial based on appearance and as I mentioned before (interestingly noone has challenged this) this is elitist and if it were based on a person's skin colour there would be an outrage. To me this attempt at social apartheid (for examples just see several pubs on Dawson Street who are prime examples of pubs which try to handpick their clientele) is equally appalling.