Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6403523)

The point is one glass of wine a week is not going to harm your baby and that stranger had no right to refuse to serve that lady.

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6403523)

The point is one glass of wine a week is not going to harm your baby and that stranger had no right to refuse to serve that lady.

Originally Posted by Lee. (Post 6403524)

I drank wine when I was pregnant, I chose not to breastfeed... I demanded to be pumped full of drugs during labour, I even ate barbecued food every week :eek:
I don't feel any guilt or embarrassment whatsoever.. They're all MY decisions and I have two beautiful healthy and well looked after kids :)

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6403526)

It's PROBABLY not going to harm the baby, I have no idea where this certainty comes from, there is NO way to be 100% sure that it won't.

He also had every "right" to choose to do whatever he wanted to do. You might not like him for it, his boss might not like it and might fire him, but that doesn't equate to him having "no right". He is not a slave and is entitled to not take part in anything - anything at all - that he isn't comfortable with. As are we all.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 6403527)

Sounds familiar. I was all 'ah I will do it with no drugs, better for baby'...until it happened :joker:

Oddly enough, it was always male doctors that I saw that pushed the no drugs angle. My MW and my consultant said basically that you get no extra for doing it drug free..so take what you need, or something like that.

Originally Posted by Lee. (Post 6403524)

I drank wine when I was pregnant, I chose not to breastfeed... I demanded to be pumped full of drugs during labour, I even ate barbecued food every week :eek:
I don't feel any guilt or embarrassment whatsoever.. They're all MY decisions and I have two beautiful healthy and well looked after kids :)

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 6403528)

No he didn't have every right at all, what if he didn't like black people would it be "his right" to not serve them? No, it wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6403530)

That's great. No one was asking you to justify yourself. As someone who is comfortable with her choices, you should have no problem with others pointing out the facts.

No one has a problem with you making your own decisions for your family. What I have a problem with, is people who want the facts buried because it "makes them feel bad" to hear it.

Or in this case, a mardy cow who has decided to set out to demonize a young barman because he "dared" to try to do something good and embarrassed her in the process. Whether or not he was right about alcohol being harmful, he was TRYING to do the right thing by this woman's baby. What an arsehole, eh? String him up! He's probably a serial embarrasser. He's done it before, and he'll no doubt do it again!

Originally Posted by Zee (Post 6403541)

Exactly. He wasn't doing it to upset her, he was doing it because he thought it was the right thing to do, regardless of his company's policy. Would you jump off a cliff because your employer told you to? No. Truth be told I doubt they even have a policy for this kind of thing because as I said before, I can't imagine it's all too common for visibly pregnant women to be ordering wine.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 6403582)

He never claimed it was company policy. He said he didnt want it on his conscience

Was the manager in their apology who came out with the ridiculous notion of him thinking it was the licensing law :joker:

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 6403582)

He never claimed it was company policy. He said he didnt want it on his conscience

Was the manager in their apology who came out with the ridiculous notion of him thinking it was the licensing law :joker:

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6403671)

It's really simple. He had no right to refuse service to her because of the reason he gave, and people shouldn't be supporting him in it either.

What about personal liberty and freedom?

She wasn't hanging off the bar snorting coke, and banging slammers. Citizens don't get the right to start dictating what other citizens should be able to do.

Originally Posted by Nedusa (Post 6403646)

was she just being bloody minded and trying to prove a point....???

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6403682)

Almost certainly. It obviously wasn't about embarrassment as she chose to announce it to the world. It was about the fact that some "lowly barman" dared to not do as he was told. A prideful person who couldn't take the dent to her ego without kicking off. That's the world we live in these days, unfortunately. The issue was between her and the barman and she would have been well within her rights to have it out with him, or better still, just calmly discuss the issue with him. But no, she stropped off blubbing to the media, and no doubt tried to get him fired. It's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 6403679)

This is a contradiction in itself. You ttalk about liberty and freedom, yet claim he has neither the liberty nor the freedom to refuse to do something that he doesnt want to do.

You say "citizens don't get the right to start dictating what other citizens should be able to do" whilst in the same breath dictating what a citizen (the barman) should have to do.

Its not about him dictating whether or not she should be able to pour herself a drink and consume it. It's about him saying that HE will not pour the drink for her.

If you truly believe in individual freedoms and liberty, then surely you can't honestly believe he should feel obliged or forced to do something that he doesn't want to do? This flies completely in the face of freedom?

He is not stopping her from having a drink, he is simply refusing to participate in the act. It's well within his individual rights.

Originally Posted by Zee (Post 6403505)

By refusing to serve her though? It doesn't say that he lectured her in front of lots of people, he just didn't serve her a glass of wine - she comes across as attention seeking to me by virtue of going to the press over such a minor incident. Kizzy seemed to think I was being patronising when I suggested that the woman is possibly very hormonal, hence having such a reaction to being refused service and going to the media over it... I doubt that's something she would have done normally.

Originally Posted by Jesus. (Post 6403688)

You misunderstand what liberty and personal freedom actually are. The civil rights act in America actually abolished the the policy of allowing businesses to choose their clients based on superficial reasons. Civil liberties, and the issues of people employed to provide a service are completely different things. If he had such a problem with it, then his freedoms and liberties enable him to resign from his post and find a new job. No one is restricting his freedom.

But he tried to dictate that his morals are more important than anyone else's. That is the opposite of freedom.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 6403736)

Hold the phone......
I did not think you were being patronising zee, I did post a smiley face... does nobody understand the significance of a smiley face anymore?
I knew you had the wrong end of the stick the other day, when I mentioned 'ignorant and uneducated views' I meant the barman too, not you.
I did say ben was sanctamonious and said sorry, I'm not doing it again it's a once in a lifetime
offer :D
As MTVN said there was a similar case in the news concerning staff and their personal opinion, the consensus then was if you can't do the job you are paid to do....leave.

Originally Posted by Zee (Post 6401703)

I agree with the barman, it's general knowledge that pregnant women shouldn't be smoking or drinking. Only a pregnant woman is going to know that it's okay to have a small glass of wine every now and then (I didn't know that until I read this) and seeing as she's nine months pregnant it's not like the barman could ignore the fact she was pregnant. I would have done the exact same thing - I wouldn't want to be knowingly giving alcohol to a pregnant woman - how am I supposed to know this is her one and only drink of the week and that it's not damaging to an unborn child? I've heard of foetal alcohol syndrome, I haven't heard her wisdom that it's fine for a baby every now and then...

Basically think she's being massively hysterical over something that she must know that most people have been taught that smoking and drinking are bad for unborn children. Have your glass of wine at home. You're nearly about to give birth, I'm sure you can go another week or two without having wine in a bar/restaurant.