No equality for this man

[L00b]

How are they allowed to get away with age discrimination like this?

 

<...>

 

Age

LOL, good one

[Cyclone]

Seriously, age discrimination is illegal. So if <18's are allowed in on there own and >18's not... Then that is age discrimination isn't it?

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 20:32 ----------

 

Another sign of the emerging Nanny Fascist State

 

The state didn't make these rules... It's a private park.

[Harleyman]

Seriously, age discrimination is illegal. So if <18's are allowed in on there own and >18's not... Then that is age discrimination isn't it?

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 20:32 ----------

 

 

The state didn't make these rules... It's a private park.

 

Then his bet is to sue for discrimination and possible damages for defamation of character since the parks policy was to assume that being alone he was possibly a pedophile

[GLASGOWOODS]

Why couldn't kids enjoy luxury resorts in far-away and highly-exotic places?

 

It's a business decision concerning a private location ...no different to other decisions e.g. banning certain garments, restricting forms of payment, disallowing own drinks and food <etc.>

 

With reference to that car-crash of a thread that the burka one degenerated into, you can't have your cake and eating it: either the State legislates (bans/allows and enforces) in which case the legal situation primes and that's that; or it's (liberally-) left to the discretion of individuals (persons/business), in which case it's their decision and that's that.

 

Hey Loob.

 

Clear up my confusion if you will.

 

So this park can refused to do business with a single person and get away with it. But, the Christian couple who refused to bake a cake for 2 gay men are thrown to the Wolves.

[milquetoast1]

Seriously, age discrimination is illegal. So if <18's are allowed in on there own and >18's not... Then that is age discrimination isn't it?

 

There's an exemption in the Equality Act 2010 for holiday and leisure providers to cater for certain age groups.

 

"age discrimination will still be permitted if the provider can objectively justify its actions (i.e. where there is good and sufficient reason for

doing so)."

 

Talk about wishy washy, but still good enough to allow companies specifically catering for kids to be able to discriminate against single adults, but not single children. There might be other laws preventing single children of course. It would also allow companies specifically catering for adults to be able to discriminate against children, but children do not get protection from the Act anyway.

 

Of course if the wording is "must be accompanied by a child", then that achieves what is required without any wishy washy skating around what is allowed.

 

---------- Post added 10-11-2014 at 20:53 ----------

 

Hey Loob.

 

Clear up my confusion if you will.

 

So this park can refused to do business with a single person and get away with it. But, the Christian couple who refused to bake a cake for 2 gay men are thrown to the Wolves.

 

Single people are not a protected demographic in law, neither are people wearing hats or football fans.

 

Sexuality, religion, race, disability, sex, and (usually) age are protected demographics.

[andil]

No, it quite clearly says "with twenty kids", I even highlighted for you.

 

Yes it does and in that sentence it means he has twenty kids.

[cgksheff]

Do you think that Runaround or Monkey Business should be required to admit any adult wanting to go there with any connection to any child present?

[L00b]

Then that is age discrimination isn't it?

how can it be discrimination, in this fair green land in which the Gvt bans nothing and people are free to do what they want?

 

including the freedom to impose a blanket presumption of paedophilia guilt on single adults for conditioning entry into a private property?

 

Good luck to that guy finding a solicitor willing to take this on a CFA

 

@ GLASGOWOODS. The answer is elementary, my good man: homosexuals are worthy of special protection under the law, single grandfathers with an interest in falconry are not, and white right-of-thinking Christians are to be vilified on sight. Such is our fair green land after years of enforced affirmative action, political correctness and, generally, elevating hand-wringing into a service industry.

 

Edited November 10, 2014 by L00b

[cgksheff]

That's how the rule works.

 

This man has children (adult ones) and grandchildren (who he's taken to the park before). He couldn't enter because he was an adult on his own, no other reason..........

 

No he wasn't.

 

He was denied entry because he was an adult on his own that had not made a prior arrangement.

[milquetoast1]

@ GLASGOWOODS. The answer is elementary, my good man: homosexuals are worthy of special protection under the law, single grandfathers with an interest in falconry are not, and white right-of-thinking Christians are to be vilified on sight. Such is our fair green land after years of enforced affirmative action, political correctness and, generally, elevating hand-wringing into a service industry.

 

 

He he he.