//A genuine Muslim wouldn't be there. Alcohol is haraam.//

But going to the pub is not. It's not actually a legal requirement to consume alcohol in licensed premises.

//The only person worthy to walk in the pub is Jesus Christ Himself.//

Jesus is already barred. He kept getting free glasses of water and turning them into wine, so the publican told him to 'Buy something or piss off, I'm not running a bloody charity here you tight-fisted Jew.'

//Why bar the worst? I would bar the best and let the worst drink themselves to death!//

The best people in society and you wouldn't let them have a beer? Harsh, dude.

//Toni, I would have to say the rapist should be barred, as he is the only known criminal amongst the group.//

No, the junkie is a known criminal as well: use and possession of heroin are illegal.

//There is no way any of these people can be barred legally before they enter the place//

Never worked in hospitality, ttbn? Do you know why licensed establishments have dress codes? It's not because they want their patrons to be in uniform and they will very often turn a blind eye to their own dress code. I often go to my local club straight after work, still in my uniform. In summer I often go in thongs. Both breach the dress code and nobody cares. Dress codes are there so you can bar anybody you don't like the look of BEFORE they cause any trouble.

For the purposes of this exercise, everybody is wearing thongs.

Toni Lavis, "Dress codes are there so you can bar anybody you don't like the look of BEFORE they cause any trouble"

That may be the case and often security or other staff have information about previous problematical behavior.

However the winds of change are blowing and the opportunist professional litigants and ambulance chasing lawyers are always at the leading edge where there is any prospect of getting a cool $30,000 legal settlement. Any who can represent themselves as to be a victim can claim discrimination on that basis even though it was likely never a consideration in the refusal of entry or service.

I often worked in hospitality as a student. Still have unpaid roles in services affecting the public. Yes, 'injury' claims and insurance are increasingly the subjects of concern in management meetings. As well as the ever-increasing range of regulatory risks, there is the ever-increasing prospect of prospecting professional litigants.

There are people in taxpayer funded advocacy services who actually advise their clients how to set up and take advantage of vulnerable businesses. A topical example is rental housing where the over-supply of lawyers is encouraging them (lawyers) to build a new industry for rental lawyers. That is NOT good news for the bulk of responsible tenants and providers, driving up the costs of overheads and insurance.

The public can expect the Parliaments that are filled with lawyers and the courts of course, to support more regulation, which is always complex.

The answer to the OP is that the 'philosophers' pub needs to revise its risks assessment. Because there are only some of its clientele who could be refused anyhow, even where there are reasons for doing so. The others could easily construe any refusal as discrimination.

While the litigant might not be able to win a case, the various costs of defending a suit that is being sensationalised in the media and pushed from behind by taxpayer-funded advocates will increase the incentive for the luckless business to make an out of court settlement.

Ever wondered why services are withdrawn and prices go up?

Tony Lavis "But going to the pub is not [haraam]. It's not actually a legal requirement to consume alcohol in licensed premises."

But it is a requirement of entry that you "associate" with sinning infidels.
Why would a genuine Muslim, or any other puritanal type, want to do that?

The "worst" types listed fall into two basic categories: those who are defined as "sinners" and those doing the defining.

So, the real question is which of these types does the owner want excluded.

Easy enough. Answer this question before entrance permitted: Do you believe there is a true and good way for humans to live?

If he wants the puritans, the correct answer is yes.
If he wants the sinners (and they will probably spend more), the answer is no.

Dear Toni,

If I had to choose one to ban - it would be the rapist.

Why?

Because rape is forcible sexual intercourse against the
will of the victim. It is a terrifying, brutal, and
sometimes life-threatening crime, one that often leaves,
deep, long-term psychological scars.

One reason that rape is so under-reported is that many
victims are unwilling to relive the experience by
submitting to police interrogation, medical examination, and
court proceedings.

Foxy, I was wondering who would state the obvious.

But...

If he's walking free that means (a) he's already served his time or (b) nobody knows he's a rapist.
So how could you ban him in either case?

A rapist can do a lot of harm.
To one person at a time.

Puritanical believers can harm hundreds, thousands, even millions of people, devastating entire nations, even to the point of genocidal extinction.

No rapist could cause an equivalent tragedy.

Dear Shocker,

Of course you're right.

People have done a great deal of damage
in the name of religion. However, we can't blame
religion for the actions done in its name by
people.

And seeing as I only had what was given in the opening
post here - the rapist seemed to be the logical choice
to ban.