Kicked Out of a Bar for Wearing a Kilt

[Spartan]

Jim,

We're with you. Thanks for sharing your experience with us. It helps each of us to think through various situations and how to handle them.

It is unfortunate that Kildare's is basing a policy on an unfortunate incident. People do stupid things when they've had too much to drink. It is when they do something inappropriate that they should be removed by the bouncers, not before. We might guess how many females have been in Kildare's regimental or commando. Kildare's appears to be trying to cover themselves from a liability standpoint. Unfortunately, they are painting all kilt wearers with the same brush.

Going regimental or not is a personal choice, and no one else's business (except in my case, my wife's).

It's too bad that your roommate doesn't get it.

[Kilt TN]

I would be concerned with the legality of their policy, if men are prohibited from wearing a kilt then the same policy should or could apply to the female patrons. We all know they would have been sued if he had asked a female the same question. In most states he could be charge with sexual harassment for just asking the question to a female or a man as long a you interpreted as such, feel embarrassed or harassed. I understand their intentions with their policy, but legally in trying to protect the other patrons they could be setting themselves up for far worst problems. (I have worked in HR to much) To my knowledge there is no law requiring you to wear underwear and beside I have seen a zipper come down just as fast a kilt can go up in a bar.

[beloitpiper]

I bet people have gotten drunk and been in fights there...are they going to stop selling alcohol too??

[sathor]

On a good day, with the right pair under the kilt, I can almost forget if I even have some on. Almost. My wife still makes it a point to check most times before going out, a bit haphazard on that end though...

[Phogfan86]

KiltTN -- Keep in mind that they don't prohibit kilts; they just require underwear when you're wearing one.

I got basically the same e-mail response. My re-response (?) back was that I understood the policy, and that it was unfortunate that one idiot has spoiled it for everyone. I said I was, however, concerned that (1) it is just not professional to ask The Question in that context, and (2) if the reason for the policy had been explained, then everyone would've been saved a lot of anger, frustration and time.

Unless the bouncer gets fired if someone comes in regimental, I think the bar would be better served to discreetly tell kilted patrons, "Kildare's requires that you have someone on under your kilt. We've had problems in the past." Then it's up the individual. And if it turns out the kiltie is a problem child, then you run 'em.

[Kilt TN]

I am sorry I should have been clearer with my statement "if men are prohibited from wearing a kilt regimental then the same policy should or could apply to the female patrons." My point being if they are going to ask men what is under their kilts, the women should also be asked what they have on under their skirts. You can't establish one policy for only one gender, group, or race that isn't in forced equally to the other gender groups, or races. In other words if you are go to prohibit men from wearing earrings in your establishment then you have to prohibit women from also wearing earrings. (HR also, I have learned from my mistakes and was nailed with trying to prohibit men wearing earrings) Also I don't understand how a bar could be blamed for the stupid act of a patron. Unless they didn't remove the person from the establishment.

[CDNSushi]

We'll see what kind of answer I get form my own e-mail... However if it's anything resembling what some have already been told by this establishment, I have a ready reply.

Here in Japan, the EXACT SAME DEFENSE is being used to justify racism. The country is full of "Japanese Only" and "No foreigners allowed" signs presumably on the basis that management has had problems with certain individuals in the past.

The problem with such categorical rule-making is that you are really starting down a really slipperly slope. So, what if it weren't a kilted man with no underwear that was the cause of a disturbance at my bar. What if it were, oh, I dunno, an African-American. Does that mean that I'm justified to put up a "No Blacks Allowed" sign on my door based on that incident? Bloody hell, people! Use some common sense!

What's the difference?

[Scotus]

Am I the only one in this forum that understands their policy and agrees with it? I think you should have waited for a response and done as he suggested; that is, called him and gone over to talk, rather than posting it on this forum.

And to compare this to discrimination of blacks and other minorities is way over the top.

[CDNSushi]

And to compare this to discrimination of blacks and other minorities is way over the top.

I don't see what's so over-the-top about it. The bar's rationale is that since they've had a bad experience with a kilt-wearing customer that wasn't wearing underwear, henceforth all kilt-wearing customers must wear underwear.

Here, in Japan where I live, numerous bar owners have had a bad experience with a foreigner, henceforth only Japanese people are allowed in. It's not nearly as over-the-top when you start seeing it on a regular basis.

Try this website on for size if you think I'm exaggerating:

http://www.debito.org/roguesgallery.html

The site is a little dated, but for what it's worth: Yes. I HAVE been kicked out of a couple places because I was WHITE. That's why this hits awful close to home for me when I read it.

[lammy d]

God only knows what would happing if the tartan army came over! The way I see it coming from Edinburgh is yes people show there **** so what! your not punching someone in the face worse things happing. Poland are trying to stop stag partys from scotland going because someone might show there ****