Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

AuroraSaab

Pharaoh
So you are content to use the language of and the legal provisions concerning ''proportionate means of achieving a legal aim''?

That's what the EA says exclusion should be. 'Legitimate aim' obviously. Whether service providers accommodations are indirect discrimination under the EA may well end up being tested in court if individual providers decide they are not going to make use of the EA exemptions.

Yes, there are certain situations where only exclusion of certain people guarantees fairness, safety, privacy, or dignity, for others.

I'm not allowed in the under 5's ball pool at IKEA. It's detrimental to me but more detrimental to the toddlers I would be landing on. The scales of justice have not been unbalanced by my exclusion.
 

classic33

Missen
That's what the EA says exclusion should be. 'Legitimate aim' obviously. Whether service providers accommodations are indirect discrimination under the EA may well end up being tested in court if individual providers decide they are not going to make use of the EA exemptions.

Yes, there are certain situations where only exclusion of certain people guarantees fairness, safety, privacy, or dignity, for others.

I'm not allowed in the under 5's ball pool at IKEA. It's detrimental to me but more detrimental to the toddlers I would be landing on. The scales of justice have not been unbalanced by my exclusion.
More likely you're not allowed into the under 5's ball pool due to safety concerns for you, not the under 5's. There's a safe weight on the balls used in those ball pools, and you're over it.
Even the ones supplied to such places as IKEA, are sold with a tested, safe to use weight limit.

The next time you're in a shop that sells those balls, read the small print on the packaging. If it's not visible, ask a member of staff what the safe weight is. They don't know, or are unable to find out, leave well alone.
 
Top Bottom