Modern Life Is Rubbish

[Annie Bynnol]

10 minutes ago, trastrick said:

You ok with a religious nut, refusing to bake a wedding cake, or sell flowers to a gay couple?

    These and other 'cakes' examples have involved 'disclination' laws. Swimming pools don't make laws.

[Delayed]

7 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

What reason can they use to refuse to provide goods or services ?

It's interesting actually because those ludicrous signs in shops "we have zero tolerance to abuse", if taken to the Nth degree (and they sometimes are), would discriminate against many people with mental health issues.

Yes it is because you said the business owner should be able to decide what happens in their business. And, somewhat inconsistently, I agree with you. I just happen to know that any pool banning videoing of swim galas is over reacting to a massive extent.

Quote from swim England BTW :

 

"Swim England do not wish to stop parents photographing their children if they wish at their “moments of glory”

It's not the same comparison as restrictions regarding photography doesn't constitute discrimination of any kind. 

 

So yes, providing businesses are not discriminating they can put whatever restrictions they seem suitable 

[leviathan13]

31 minutes ago, Hecate said:

Which is an entirely different thing, as sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and as such refusal of provision of goods and services on that basis is unlawful.

 

So is religion...

 

But, obviously, within the oppression Olympics there are going to be winners and losers where one person's protected characteristics trump someone else's. 

 

I wonder if a gay couple approach a Muslim bakery and they refuse service? Who is right?

[trastrick]

11 minutes ago, Hecate said:

Which is an entirely different thing, as sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act and as such refusal of provision of goods and services on that basis is unlawful.

Not really.

 

The poster is claiming "it's Venue Owners/Management that make the rules", but if fines can be levied against the public for disobeying their "rules", it becomes "unlawful", by government edict.

 

Like the principle of railway safety regulations. Not too many severed heads found by the tracks.

 

On the other hand, shoppers with baby carriages, seniors in mobility scooters, and pedestrians, bicycles and cars are allowed to wander over super tram tracks in town, at will, with sometimes unfortunate results.

 

It is inconsistent, and not about safety at all.

 

Are transgender men required to leave their smartphone cameras outside female bathrooms that little girls use?

 

Do you stop parents from photographing their kids (and others) on swings in park playgrounds?

 

Sometimes the inconsistent absurdities of an over regulated society contrasts, in a nation that is hobbling from Crisis to Crisis, including spiraling, unsustainable National Debt, and even War.

 

Nothing wrong with pointing that out on a public forum.

 

 

 

 

[Chekhov]

19 minutes ago, Delayed said:

It's not the same comparison as restrictions regarding photography doesn't constitute discrimination of any kind. 

So yes, providing businesses are not discriminating they can put whatever restrictions they seem suitable 

Since the definition of discrimination has expanded to cover so much in this woke world of ours, I am saying that they're discriminating against me as a parent.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Chekhov

[harvey19]

Only law abiding people take notice of certain laws.

Ban on handguns. Legitimate shooters stopped having handguns whilst gun crime by criminals is higher than ever.

Ban on certain knives, Knife crime has increased.

Regarding the taking of photographs of children. Blanket bans will not stop the wrongdoers.

The only consideration is when a family do not want to be recognised.

The need is to stop those who are committing the offences to punish them and deter others instead of blanket bans on the innocent.

[Annie Bynnol]

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Since the definition of discrimination has expanded to cover so much in this woke world of ours, I am saying that they're discriminating against me a s a parent.

    Under which Laws are you  "...saying that they're discriminating against me a s a parent."?

 

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

So is religion...

 

But, obviously, within the oppression Olympics there are going to be winners and losers where one person's protected characteristics trump someone else's. 

 

I wonder if a gay couple approach a Muslim bakery and they refuse service? Who is right?

If a bakery owned by a member of any religious group refused to sell a cake to someone because they knew or believed that person to be gay, the bakery would be wrong according to the Equality Act. 

 

You might be thinking of this case, which was rather less straightforward.

 

 

56 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Not really. ...

 

[waffle removed]

None of that has anything to do with the point to which I replied, or my reply to it.

[Irene Swaine]

1 hour ago, leviathan13 said:

So is religion...

 

But, obviously, within the oppression Olympics there are going to be winners and losers where one person's protected characteristics trump someone else's. 

 

I wonder if a gay couple approach a Muslim bakery and they refuse service? Who is right?

The bakery would be in the wrong for discriminating based on sexual orientation.

[Delayed]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

Since the definition of discrimination has expanded to cover so much in this woke world of ours, I am saying that they're discriminating against me as a parent.

The law disagrees with you.