GLASGOWOODS Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 All the time! what's your point??? Whoooosh! Methinks his sense of humour never left the placenta. Does look like a bloke Chelle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) The real problem is we have no consistency when it comes to deciding what is legitimate discrimination and what isn't. It is illegal to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet... except if you make a particular religious/cultural choice. You will not be issued with a passport if you wear a head covering in the photo... unless you make a particular religious/cultural choice. It is illegal to bar people from employment based on gender... except if it is for religious purposes. It is a news story when a golf club bans women members but somehow different when the WI do the same. It is acceptable for a sports centre to have women only swimming sessions without providing men with equal access to a men only session. Boys can be barred from outstanding all girl schools and vice versa. We have gyms that only Muslim women can use. And it is apparently accept for the BBC to discriminate on racial lines for statistical purposes - a tactic that only masks a potential discrimination problem (ironically by discriminating) in order to avoid the more challenging business of addressing the root causes. How can it be right to outlaw discrimination but allow all these exceptions? Surely, it is either wrong or it isn't. Would the woman in question be welcome at this gym in Cardiff? It is a commercial business just like the barber shop isn't it? Would those decrying the barber care to step forward and decry the owner of this gym?!? I doubt it. Yet, if someone opened a gym for white only men, targeting a 'niche market' of sexists and racists men uncomfortable sharing the facilities of the local gym with women and ethnic minorities, they would be most vocal. I am sorry but it is hard to get animated about the injustice of a woman being declined a haircut in a barber shop when those making the case are all over the place with their argument. No consistency, no credibility... not interested. Edited June 3, 2016 by Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 So now you're retreating a bit. If a business receives money from the government then you would exclude them from your freedom to discriminate? You do realise that all businesses receive money from the government, so where are you going to draw the line? How much money does Boots receive from the Government that excludes them from being able to discriminate, compared to a barbers that may have a grant or a rates free period? What differentiates the highest paying bid train company in your head from any other business, it's certainly not public money as you think. One of my friends is a diabetic, he also conveniently for this example happens to be gay. We were out in the middle of nowhere on a walk when he unexpectedly went into hypoglycemic shock. He used to manage his diabetes very well, but this time did not. We managed to drag him to a small local shock, use their telephone, and I kid you not when I say his life was saved by the purchase of a Mars Bar. In your world the shopkeeper could say, "sorry I don't serve gays". I wouldn't give public funds to any business or organisation that discriminates against anyone for any reason, that would mean no money for faith schools. And I wouldn't force any private business to serve someone they don't want to serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomjames Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 The real problem is we have no consistency when it comes to deciding what is legitimate discrimination and what isn't. It is illegal to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet... except if you make a particular religious/cultural choice. You will not be issued with a passport if you wear a head covering in the photo... unless you make a particular religious/cultural choice. It is illegal to bar people from employment based on gender... except if it is for religious purposes. It is a news story when a golf club bans women members but somehow different when the WI do the same. It is acceptable for a sports centre to have women only swimming sessions without providing men with equal access to a men only session. Boys can be barred from outstanding all girl schools and vice versa. We have gyms that only Muslim women can use. And it is apparently accept for the BBC to discriminate on racial lines for statistical purposes - a tactic that only masks a potential discrimination problem (ironically by discriminating) in order to avoid the more challenging business of addressing the root causes. How can it be right to outlaw discrimination but allow all these exceptions? Surely, it is either wrong or it isn't. Would the woman in question be welcome at this gym in Cardiff? It is a commercial business just like the barber shop isn't it? Would those decrying the barber care to step forward and decry the owner of this gym?!? I doubt it. Yet, if someone opened a gym for white only men, targeting a 'niche market' of sexists and racists men uncomfortable sharing the facilities of the local gym with women and ethnic minorities, they would be most vocal. I am sorry but it is hard to get animated about the injustice of a woman being declined a haircut in a barber shop when those making the case are all over the place with their argument. No consistency, no credibility... not interested. Right. No consistency. So I guess men can now rock up to female only gyms and demand service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Right. No consistency. So I guess men can now rock up to female only gyms and demand service? Or one of the many ladies only hair salons that can be found all over the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chelle-82 Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Whoooosh! Methinks his sense of humour never left the placenta. Does look like a bloke Chelle. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomjames Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Or one of the many ladies only hair salons that can be found all over the country. And come out looking like dolly Parton, no thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 (edited) The real problem is we have no consistency when it comes to deciding what is legitimate discrimination and what isn't. It is illegal to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet... except if you make a particular religious/cultural choice. You will not be issued with a passport if you wear a head covering in the photo... unless you make a particular religious/cultural choice. It is illegal to bar people from employment based on gender... except if it is for religious purposes. It is a news story when a golf club bans women members but somehow different when the WI do the same. It is acceptable for a sports centre to have women only swimming sessions without providing men with equal access to a men only session. Boys can be barred from outstanding all girl schools and vice versa. We have gyms that only Muslim women can use. And it is apparently accept for the BBC to discriminate on racial lines for statistical purposes - a tactic that only masks a potential discrimination problem (ironically by discriminating) in order to avoid the more challenging business of addressing the root causes. How can it be right to outlaw discrimination but allow all these exceptions? Surely, it is either wrong or it isn't. Would the woman in question be welcome at this gym in Cardiff? It is a commercial business just like the barber shop isn't it? Would those decrying the barber care to step forward and decry the owner of this gym?!? I doubt it. Yet, if someone opened a gym for white only men, targeting a 'niche market' of sexists and racists men uncomfortable sharing the facilities of the local gym with women and ethnic minorities, they would be most vocal. I am sorry but it is hard to get animated about the injustice of a woman being declined a haircut in a barber shop when those making the case are all over the place with their argument. No consistency, no credibility... not interested. Fantastic strawman, not only inventing a sexist/racist gym, but also inventing the reaction to it. The barber didn't have a reasonable justification why he wouldn't cut the hair of the woman concerned. It's pretty simple to understand. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what_equality_law_means_for_your_business.pdf Edited June 3, 2016 by SnailyBoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berberis Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Or one of the many ladies only hair salons that can be found all over the country. This is a militant feminazi. If it does not directly affect her, it doesnt matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomjames Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 This is a militant feminazi. If it does not directly affect her, it doesnt matter. I had to lol! I know it's wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts