[cub]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Any business owner should have the right to refuse to offer their services to whomever they want to refuse - without all the pc brigade sh!t that inevitably follows. I realise this is prompted by the ECHR but it's only a matter of time.

If a straight couple don't want to accomodate gays, if gay owners don't want to accomodate hetros, if Mr & Mrs Traditional Whatever Business They Run don't want to accomodate x/y/z.... its their business...THEIR business, not Joe Publics.

It's time people stopped talking fecking huff, stop throwing court actions all over the place because they want to force others into doing something they don't want to do. If a business owner doesn't want to do business with any type of person (whether it be gender, race, sexual orientation etc) - they shouldn't be forced to. It might not make them business person of the year, but it's their business and they should be able to run it as they wish to - not because some arsehold joe public throws a strop because they cant get their own way or the ECHR wanting learning to get a grip.

So where do you draw the line. If small businesses - like B&Bs - can discrminate, why not large busnesses? Why not companies?

You have to have anti-discrimination procedures across the board. Therefore anyone that opens a registered business CANNOT discriminate.

It's quite simple. But people still can't grasp it.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by cub

So where do you draw the line. If small businesses - like B&Bs - can discrminate, why not large busnesses? Why not companies?

You have to have anti-discrimination procedures across the board. Therefore anyone that opens a registered business CANNOT discriminate.

It's quite simple. But people still can't grasp it.

Really? The simple truth is: no one should have anything rammed down their throats or forced to accept clientele that they don't wish to have on their premises. Very very few small businesses are so select that the public does not have an alternative choice. So it's only the 'consumer' or the 'end user' that is allowed the choice - going bywhat is going on here.

What about the human rights of the small business person then - who cater for and to a very specific market - clearly that means nothing then, as does THEIR own rights to cater to a specific market of their chosing. It's only the end user that gets the choice. Isn't that discrimination in reversal?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Really? The simple truth is: no one should have anything rammed down their throats or forced to accept clientele that they don't wish to have on their premises. Very very few small businesses are so select that the public does not have an alternative choice. So it's only the 'consumer' or the 'end user' that is allowed the choice - going bywhat is going on here.

What about the human rights of the small business person then - who cater for and to a very specific market - clearly that means nothing then, as does THEIR own rights to cater to a specific market of their chosing. It's only the end user that gets the choice. Isn't that discrimination in reversal?

Funny thing is it all started of with the gay couple and the christian B&B naturally the gay couple didnt "entrap" the christians by ignoring the "married couples only" bit.

Now because someone has pointed out to the EHRC(Equality and Human Rights Commission) that they have to be balanced and fair, they are instigating an investigation into gay only businesses. Obviously this isnt just "being seen to be fair" or justifying their own existence.

The law is a double edged sword, sometimes it cuts the users.

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by cub

So where do you draw the line. If small businesses - like B&Bs - can discrminate, why not large busnesses? Why not companies?

You have to have anti-discrimination procedures across the board. Therefore anyone that opens a registered business CANNOT discriminate.

It's quite simple. But people still can't grasp it.

So what about Diamond insurance, and other companies like that, who are specifically for woman drivers? Surely that is discrimination by a large businesses. And Stu made the point about barber shops as well, the same applies there.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So what about Diamond insurance, and other companies like that, who are specifically for woman drivers? Surely that is discrimination by a large businesses. And Stu made the point about barber shops as well, the same applies there.

Been done to death that argument.

Sheilas wheels etc offer lower premiums for women because statistically women cause and get involved in fewer accidents. All insurance companies actually quote women drivers lower than same age etc males. Its a marketing ploy is all.

If a man rings up and asks for a quote they transfer you to another part of their company, they technically dont refuse to insure males.

Most Barber and hairdressers are unisex hair salons in the UK, if a shop advertises itself as a barber shop its actually guiding the customer not to go in and ask for layered and coloured styles. Again they arent refusing opn the grounds of sex rather staff ability. Many women you know want a short back and sides or flattop and slopwalls?

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Been done to death that argument.

Sheilas wheels etc offer lower premiums for women because statistically women cause and get involved in fewer accidents. All insurance companies actually quote women drivers lower than same age etc males. Its a marketing ploy is all.

If a man rings up and asks for a quote they transfer you to another part of their company, they technically dont refuse to insure males.

Most Barber and hairdressers are unisex hair salons in the UK, if a shop advertises itself as a barber shop its actually guiding the customer not to go in and ask for layered and coloured styles. Again they arent refusing opn the grounds of sex rather staff ability. Many women you know want a short back and sides or flattop and slopwalls?

Yeah fair enough, I see your point there

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Been done to death that argument.

Sheilas wheels etc offer lower premiums for women because statistically women cause and get involved in fewer accidents. All insurance companies actually quote women drivers lower than same age etc males. Its a marketing ploy is all......... etc.

Say it was statistically proven that black people had fewer accidents than white people. Would it be okay, do you think, to use that same marketing ploy to advertise themselves as giving preferential treatment to black people?

If we're all striving to be equal, some cannot be seen to be more equal than others, surely. And that, to me, includes offering a hotel service that picks and chooses which guests it will accept.

[cub]

Originally Posted by Livia

Say it was statistically proven that black people had fewer accidents than white people. Would it be okay, do you think, to use that same marketing ploy to advertise themselves as giving preferential treatment to black people?

If you look at advertising you'll see discrimination all the time. Daytime TV adverts showing 'useless men' and women rolling their eyes.

A good way to spot descrimination to to reverse the roles.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by cub

If you look at advertising you'll see discrimination all the time. Daytime TV adverts showing 'useless men' and women rolling their eyes.

A good way to spot descrimination to to reverse the roles.

Just look at the way women are perceived, packaged, marketed, portrayed in the media, the demeaning way they are talked about by otherwise supposedly intelligent and enlighted males,(this forum itself is a case in point), and then tell me that misogyny and sexual discrimination has been eradicated, and that women are viewed as equals in our society. You can't.
Just judging by the way they are talked to, and about, on this forum alone, it is sad to see attitudes towards women over the past 50 years have hardly changed at all. Men pay lip service to sexual equality, that's all.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Livia

Say it was statistically proven that black people had fewer accidents than white people. Would it be okay, do you think, to use that same marketing ploy to advertise themselves as giving preferential treatment to black people?

If we're all striving to be equal, some cannot be seen to be more equal than others, surely. And that, to me, includes offering a hotel service that picks and chooses which guests it will accept.

Insurance companies were allowed a let out of part of the Equality Act when it was initially enacted as their lobbyists put up more convincing arguments is all.

Its not as black and white as women copping for cheaper car insurance, after the woman reaches pensionable age the premiums rise sharply, due to women living longer etc.

But we may not have to worry about women drivers having cheaper premiums it may end soon anyway. There is a test case currently awaiting judges ruling that may make it illegal for insurers to differentiate on premiums based on gender. An excuse for the insurance companies to put up everyones premiums no doubt.

PMSL again it is at the European Court of Justice, so whatever they decide, the UK government could refuse to accept it. More debates on here about it no doubt.