|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 9:45:49 GMT
Post by bills on May 17, 2019 9:45:49 GMT
I was thinking this morning - as one does - that 'Asian Undertakers' doing it for other faiths, is a bit like those Chinese takeaways that advertise 'English Meals' on their menu. Personally I cannot see connection between Chinese Take aways and an Asian Undertakers... Well - I sincerely hope there is none...
I want to know my pork is pig.
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 10:44:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by thebfg on May 17, 2019 10:44:24 GMT
PS Don't forget the Asian day care centre & care home I also mentioned...π Which is why I wrote what I did. Would have to know more about the day centre, but that has more chance of being discriminating than the funeral place
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 10:53:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by thebfg on May 17, 2019 10:53:42 GMT
To be fair I'd have to read quite a lot to know the answers as it's not a straight forward.
How does saga get away with discriminating against under 65s?
I might try and get a hair cut at a woman's salon and see if I'm discriminated against.
I have been asked by colleagues in the past to ban more than 2 school children at a time in the shop.
They dont understand that, that would be discrimination and possibly an offence under the equality act. Certainly its prejudiced.
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 11:02:27 GMT
Post by JohnV on May 17, 2019 11:02:27 GMT
I have been asked by colleagues in the past to ban more than 2 school children at a time in the shop. They dont understand that, that would be discrimination and possibly an offence under the equality act. Certainly its prejudiced. That catches my interest ...... I didn't think there is any law against discrimination against minors, after all that would mean a hell of a lot of fairground rides would be discriminatory as would playground areas with a maximum age limit and of course Cinemas who enforce a legal minimum age.
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 11:06:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by thebfg on May 17, 2019 11:06:44 GMT
I have been asked by colleagues in the past to ban more than 2 school children at a time in the shop. They dont understand that, that would be discrimination and possibly an offence under the equality act. Certainly its prejudiced. That catches my interest ...... I didn't think there is any law against discrimination against minors, after all that would mean a hell of a lot of fairground rides would be discriminatory as would playground areas with a maximum age limit and of course Cinemas who enforce a legal minimum age. I'll go check however it's about not wanting to be accused and bringing the company name into a dispute that is against its ethics. But I'll check the act. Cinemas enforce an age limit due to the law.
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 11:21:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by thebfg on May 17, 2019 11:21:32 GMT
I have been asked by colleagues in the past to ban more than 2 school children at a time in the shop. They dont understand that, that would be discrimination and possibly an offence under the equality act. Certainly its prejudiced. That catches my interest ...... I didn't think there is any law against discrimination against minors, after all that would mean a hell of a lot of fairground rides would be discriminatory as would playground areas with a maximum age limit and of course Cinemas who enforce a legal minimum age. Yep minors under 18 cant be discriminated against unless it involves race or disability for example. Weird. However it's still prejudiced and unwelcome to do so. We preferred to work with the school and after a while the school were able to stop all shoplifting in my shop.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 17, 2019 12:00:35 GMT
To be fair I'd have to read quite a lot to know the answers as it's not a straight forward. How does saga get away with discriminating against under 65s? I might try and get a hair cut at a woman's salon and see if I'm discriminated against. I have been asked by colleagues in the past to ban more than 2 school children at a time in the shop. They dont understand that, that would be discrimination and possibly an offence under the equality act. Certainly its prejudiced. Discrimination is all around us. Free public transport, regardless of wealth, as long as someone is over 65 or whatever it is. This discriminates against poorer people below this age. A government minister 'Minister for equalities and women'. Given that no post exists 'Minister for equalities and men' this is discriminatory, against the interests of men. Those applying for social housing will be discriminated against, unless they have children. I'd suggest that there's never been as much discrimination as is around these days. The difference, compared to times gone by is that folk are separated, put into categories, boxes if you like. The powers that be decide which boxes are 'worthy' and 'less worthy'. It's perfectly fine, desirable even to discriminate against those 'less worthy' but the merest hint of discrimination against someone who is 'worthy' leads to all hell breaking loose. Folk will be 'outraged', some will even claim to feel offended themselves, even though the accusation of discrimination doesn't affect them. Some examples: 'Worthy': The elderly, disabled and all members of a family that includes children. Immigrants or those who practice a religion, other than Christianity. Those with non white skin and/ or 'non standard' sexual preference/ orientation. Those not comfortable with the gender they were born with. 'Less worthy' Women but more particularly men, of working age,
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 16:12:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by thebfg on May 17, 2019 16:12:04 GMT
There are many exemptions from the act. Saga seem to be one of them.
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 17, 2019 22:40:58 GMT
Post by Telemachus on May 17, 2019 22:40:58 GMT
If Nick thinks he can compare restaurants with funeral parlours,I would not like to go out for a meal with him...Not going to argue with him any more as we all know that he argues for a hobby.*Plus,he can never see any other person's point of view.π But you havenβt actually presented a point of view, you just said (or implied) that you were offended and grossly outraged (or was it grossly offended and outraged, I canβt remember), without actually explaining why. Which I suppose is actually quite a good arguing tactic - if you say you disagree without actually saying why, or proposing an alternative viewpoint, it is pretty hard to argue with that!
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on May 17, 2019 22:48:50 GMT
If Nick thinks he can compare restaurants with funeral parlours,I would not like to go out for a meal with him...Not going to argue with him any more as we all know that he argues for a hobby.*Plus,he can never see any other person's point of view.π But you havenβt actually presented a point of view, you just said (or implied) that you were offended and grossly outraged (or was it grossly offended and outraged, I canβt remember), without actually explaining why. Which I suppose is actually quite a good arguing tactic - if you say you disagree without actually saying why, or proposing an alternative viewpoint, it is pretty hard to argue with that! Nick- never argue with a woman. If you win, things will only get worse.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 18, 2019 6:19:33 GMT
Like when you find a green blob in your porridge and she says she spat in it.
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 18, 2019 8:17:56 GMT
Post by Telemachus on May 18, 2019 8:17:56 GMT
But you havenβt actually presented a point of view, you just said (or implied) that you were offended and grossly outraged (or was it grossly offended and outraged, I canβt remember), without actually explaining why. Which I suppose is actually quite a good arguing tactic - if you say you disagree without actually saying why, or proposing an alternative viewpoint, it is pretty hard to argue with that! Nick- never argue with a woman. If you win, things will only get worse. You are right. I didnβt become a homosexual misogynist in order to spend my time arguing with women.
|
|
|
Post by bills on May 18, 2019 8:23:23 GMT
Nick- never argue with a woman. If you win, things will only get worse. You are right. I didnβt become a homosexual misogynist in order to spend my time arguing with women. I guess that explains why you aren't a Tory cabinet minister.
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 18, 2019 8:31:06 GMT
Post by Clinton Cool on May 18, 2019 8:31:06 GMT
Nick- never argue with a woman. If you win, things will only get worse. You are right. I didnβt become a homosexual misogynist in order to spend my time arguing with women. Is it more 'acceptable' to be a misogynist if you're gay rather than straight? If so, there could be something in this gay thing...
|
|
|
WTF!!
May 18, 2019 8:52:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by Jim on May 18, 2019 8:52:39 GMT
You are right. I didnβt become a homosexual misogynistΒ in order to spend my time arguing with women. Is it more 'acceptable' to be a misogynist if you're gay rather than straight? If so, there could be something in this gay thing...Β It's easy enough to self identify. Or perhaps if you demonstrate mysogyny you will be labelled gay?
|
|