It's wild speculation.
Same as the OH NOES MOWOs AND NWPA WOULD CAUSE RIOTS that we see day in and day out in these parts.
B&B Discrimination Case Ruling
- Thread starter Narj
- Start date
It's wild speculation.
Same as the OH NOES MOWOs AND NWPA WOULD CAUSE RIOTS that we see day in and day out in these parts.
Nope, as I said previously its a prediction based on fact (previous evidence and legal precedents set in english law). If you visit Google you can find many on-line dictionary's that you can use to discover the difference.
What utter rubbish. What legal precedent shows that one minority is subject to laws that another minority is not?
The equality laws are not specific to Homosexuals, they have as little right to exclude people because of their sexual orientation as do the Christian couple in relation to running a business.
This is what the EHRC is looking at, how the recent precedent affects the law in relation to Gay Only hotels, this will inevitably end up the same as Gay Only clubs, in that they are contrary to the Legislation and hence they must not discriminate.
It says much that a gay couple complained about a Christian couple not allowing them a double room (not refusing them altogether) and no one complaining that Heterosexuals are banned from Gay only Hotels, as I myself was refused a booking when I tried earlier in this thread.
They wish to have it both ways, well that will only breed more intolerance and will not address the problem of inequality. I am afraid the Gay Community will just have to get used to the fact that Equality is a double edged sword and that they may have just cut themselves with it.
Last edited:
What legal precedent and evidence are you referring to specifically that supports your prediction?
or is it as Vonhelmet states, wild conjecture.
Well the case were discussing proves my "gay rights > beliefs of Christians" comment, and the case where a Muslim group were allowed to hold their "gays are evil and should be killed" seminar in a hotel despite protests and a legal challenge form gay rights activists backs up the "Beliefs of minority's > gay rights".
Together that supports the "Beliefs of minority's > gay rights > beliefs of Christians" formula, ill admit as the is no history of the formula in its entirety it is just theory however it is theory based on facts, legal precedent and an understanding of the English legal system. I guess we will have to wait for that gay couple to try their little compo claim stunt in a Muslim hotel to find out how the court would swing on it.
Can you give citations rather than vague descriptions of incidents?
No group advocacy ideology wants actual equality - they want more for the group they're advocating for and are merely abusing "equality" as a tool.
We have a society in which it's both legal and generally considered a good thing to openly prevent people of the "wrong" sex from having a chance to be elected to parliament (in the name of "sexual equality") and you're asking for legal precedent? Where have you been for the last 50 years?
Neutral language does not mean neutral intent nor does it mean neutral implementation is inevitable.
The question is whether or not homosexual group advocates have enough power as an approved special interest group to get the legally mandated preferential treatment they're campaigning for, not whether or not approved special interest groups can do so. That's not in question, as it's happened repeatedly. I think they do, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion yet.
You think I'm talking utter rubbish. I think you're talking utter rubbish.
On paper, it's possible to do that. In practice, you have to be prepared to be able to prove that you didn't do it for any illegal reason.
So, for example, a bar could refuse entry to people without giving a reason, but people in protected groups could take legal action claiming that the actual reason was illegal discrimination. It wouldn't be an open and shut case, but they could win, especially if there was a clear pattern. So a B&B that refused custom to every homosexual couple "for no reason" would probably lose the case anyway on the basis that it wasn't really for no reason.
It was raining inside the shopping centre?
You are referring to SIG's when the EHRC is a statutory body, not a SIG or advocacy group.
Which law then openingly prevents people from a specific sex from being elected to parliament? before you refer to AWS, you may want to be aware that is a political process and not a legal one.
As for Gay rights, the equality laws are not written specifically for homosexuals are they? Neither do they advocate discrimination in favour of Homosexuals, they are designed to prevent discrimination against any specific group and not a legal framework to allow discrimination for any specific group.
For example they are designed to stop a company from only employing heterosexuals and discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation or preference. This doesn't follow that you can employ only homosexuals however or actively discriminate against heterosexuals in favour of homosexuals, only that you must consider each equally and without reference to their sexual orientation.
They do not allow for any minority group to actively discriminate against any other group.
You may wish to actually read the Equality Act 2010 before jumping to such conclusions however:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...idance/protected-characteristics-definitions/
You will note that the protected characteristic regarding sexual orientation includes heterosexuals as well as homosexuals.
And it is in light of the 2010 legislation that the EHRC is looking at discrimination in Gay-Only hotels against heterosexuals. The precedent was set with the B&B case, it is not as you say looking at whether Homosexuals have the right to discriminate, but how the ruling affects the practice of Gay-Only resorts etc. As the advocacy groups admit, it looks like they will have to abide by the legislation and not actively discriminate against heterosexuals, in the same way as exclusive gay clubs and bars have already been told.
Last edited:
You are referring to SIG's when the EHRC is a statutory body, not a SIG or advocacy group.
When you state something irrelevant and then roll your eyes, you're making it very clear that you're lacking a proper understanding of what has been said and the subject in general.
I did not say that the EHRC is a SIG. So your comment is irrelevant.
You may want to be aware that it's an explicitly sexist process that is legal because SIGs promote prejudice and discrimination and the law was changed to make it legal.
As I said before:
If homosexuality SIGs get enough power in the future, even the neutral language will be discarded, but it's an extremely useful pretence to begin with.
And once again:
You think it does. I think you're wrong, in the context of rules and laws created in the interests of SIGs for the benefit of a specific group of people. Right from the ground up, these things are not meant to be neutral. So why would they be implemented in a neutral way?
You do realise the the Equality Act 2010 doesn't assume that Homosexuals are a SIG, so you entire argument is a nonsense.
It assumes protected characteristics which includes Heterosexuality as well as Homosexuality.
Hence the reason why the EHRC has to look at how it is applied.
Read the Act.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,629
Wooohooooo argument!!!
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
But will it turn in to a fight.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,629
Why???
Well your "mam" is not a muslim and cant get away with her "hooded coat" being religious attire...
You do realise the the Equality Act 2010 doesn't assume that Homosexuals are a SIG, so you entire argument is a nonsense.
It assumes protected characteristics which includes Heterosexuality as well as Homosexuality.
Hence the reason why the EHRC has to look at how it is applied.
Read the Act.
I'll say it again:
Neutral language (assuming the language actually is neutral) does not mean neutral intent nor does it mean neutral implementation is inevitable.
See what happens. I won't roll my eyes at you if you're wrong, because I'm not interested in making myself look bad.
because the reason no hoods are allowed is because its difficult to see the persons face
yet people can walk around with no more than a letterbox opening and thats ok?
also im not allowed in the petrol station with my helmet on but same letterbox people are!
The funny thing is i can tell you looked me up, you were looking for things i posted on to try and troll me!
are you trolling me on here now because i found you out on another forum for being a returnee as you like to advertise your buisness on other peoples bandwith and you are now banned again?
TBH you were getting banned anyway over on the other forum due to your constant trolling on there.
Didnt you just get a month holiday for trolling on here aswell?
is your objective in life to troll everwhere you go?
NOBODY likes a lier james and you have proved to be just that on several occasions!
How can you be trusted on areas like Members market when nobody knows who you realy are with your diffrent accounts and email adresses
Can you drop this now as tbh I dont want more trolling from you and yet another persons thread getting trashed because of your stupidity
thanks
Last edited:
The bold part is not what he EHRC is doing, it is not looking at the ruling to see if homosexuals are able to ignore the 2010act, they are looking to see if they are COMPLYING with the act.
Homosexuals are not a state-endorsed protected group, they are protected because sexual orientation is a protected characteristic, the same as heterosexuals. If it is found that Gay only Hotels are discriminating against Heterosexuals then they will have to abide by the 2010 act just like everyone else. This has already happened for exclusive Gay clubs and Bars, and there is legal precedent to rule the same way for the hotels.
If you read the act there are some specific exceptions notably for women, but they do not include actively discriminating against ANYONE because of their sexual orientation.
Last edited: