Golf! the exclusion of women.

[RootsBooster]

The act gives a very clear example of the sort of exception that is intended.

 

The broader interpretation you are applying means that no club will ever fall within it, as any club can be simply append "for whatever narrow discriminatory group we wish" on the end.

 

Social club for whites.

Social club for blacks.

Social club for men/women/under 40's/over 40's/gays/straights/folks who don't live in caravans/whatever.

 

In which case the act may as well not exist with regards to private clubs, which surely wasn't the intention.

You'll have to excuse me for being a little confused by your post, "no club will ever fall into it"? My interpretation was literal, you keep talking as though the title of the club is what defines it, which is clearly not the case (the Freemasons are not all masons by trade). How it works is that if the written criteria for membership (of a private club) is that you have to be male/female/black/Christian/straight/Russian etc, then that doesn't breach the equality act, it's pretty clear about that.

 

Can you think of an argument that would show a private club, for a particular group of people, to be in breach of the equality act?

[alchemist]

It's very possible that it'll never be tested in court. Many lawyers might think that a private club intended for a particular group does not contravene the equality act, what with it meeting the criteria word for word.

 

Out of curiosity I'd be very interested to hear an argument against it, can you think of one?

 

They have made a business decision. They have decided that the organisation does not want to host the Open.

 

Although to be fair, I dont know how much the Open is actually worth to a club

[RootsBooster]

They have made a business decision. They have decided that the organisation does not want to host the Open.

 

Although to be fair, I dont know how much the Open is actually worth to a club

 

I would have thought it's worth quite a bit to a club, in which case it shows how stubborn a bunch they are to be carrying out such an autorhinotomy.

[sedith]

But women are excluded from the football league, how do you explain away that one?

[RootsBooster]

But women are excluded from the football league, how do you explain away that one?

 

Maybe this...

 

"Sports clubs can organise separate competitions for men and women if:

 

physical strength, stamina or physique are important factors in deciding who wins, and

one sex is generally at a disadvantage compared to the other.

Separate competitions for boys and girls will be lawful but only if they are at an age or stage of development where there is a real difference in their strength or stamina."

 

I dunno, football leagues aren't my thing and it's not my duty to "explain it away" either.

[Cyclone]

You'll have to excuse me for being a little confused by your post, "no club will ever fall into it"? My interpretation was literal, you keep talking as though the title of the club is what defines it, which is clearly not the case (the Freemasons are not all masons by trade). How it works is that if the written criteria for membership (of a private club) is that you have to be male/female/black/Christian/straight/Russian etc, then that doesn't breach the equality act, it's pretty clear about that.

 

Can you think of an argument that would show a private club, for a particular group of people, to be in breach of the equality act?

 

Well, no, not if you interpret the exclusion as you have.

Any club can simply exclude any group they like by defining the club to be for the people not off that group. Which I doubt is what the act meant, as it may as well simply not apply to clubs if that is the case.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 07:29 ----------

 

Maybe this...

 

"Sports clubs can organise separate competitions for men and women if:

 

physical strength, stamina or physique are important factors in deciding who wins, and

one sex is generally at a disadvantage compared to the other.

Separate competitions for boys and girls will be lawful but only if they are at an age or stage of development where there is a real difference in their strength or stamina."

 

I dunno, football leagues aren't my thing and it's not my duty to "explain it away" either.

 

It's lucky that they didn't just define themselves as a private club for men only really.

[RootsBooster]

Well, no, not if you interpret the exclusion as you have.

Any club can simply exclude any group they like by defining the club to be for the people not off that group. Which I doubt is what the act meant, as it may as well simply not apply to clubs if that is the case.

They've given an example which is a very like for like comparison:

Example

 

You've applied to join an association for Christian women but they've refused your application because you're not Christian. This isn't unlawful discrimination. They could also refuse membership if you were a man whatever your religion.

...replace "women" with "men" and "Christian" with "golfers" and it looks like my interpretation is exactly what the act means.

 

Private clubs can and do exclude people not of their group all the time, it tends to be the whole purpose of the clubs in the first place. Otherwise they might as well just make it an open/public club.

 

What is your interpretation of the act?

[Cyclone]

Can you tell me the rules for playing a round of Christian?

[Zamo]

You're quite right, the WI should not be allowed to exclusively for women as the same argument applies. And religion should be no excuse (Bishops for example) for disallowing a gender from a position or from membership.

 

Clearly it isn't discrimination to select for intelligence if intelligence is required, or education. It's discrimination when it's inherent characteristics of a person, colour, gender, age, these things cannot be changed. It's really not that difficult to understand is it?

 

Yes, it is difficult to understand when there are so many exceptions to the 'inherent characteristics' rule that you claim exists.

 

You've been vocal about championing the rights of women golfers on this thread but where would you be in a debate about gay Muslims not being able to marry in a mosque? Why are Sikhs exempt from wearing motorcycle helmets when riding a motorcycle? Why can the religious wear a head covering in a passport photo but not people who choose no religion? What about 'positive discrimination' being applied when jobs are advertised?

 

There is no consistency in the application. We need to either allow 'inherent characteristic' discrimination or not allow it - one rule for all. What we have now is unacceptable.

[RootsBooster]

Yes, it is difficult to understand when there are so many exceptions to the 'inherent characteristics' rule that you claim exists.

 

You've been vocal about championing the rights of women golfers on this thread but where would you be in a debate about gay Muslims not being able to marry in a mosque? Why are Sikhs exempt from wearing motorcycle helmets when riding a motorcycle? Why can the religious wear a head covering in a passport photo but not people who choose no religion? What about 'positive discrimination' being applied when jobs are advertised?

 

There is no consistency in the application. We need to either allow 'inherent characteristic' discrimination or not allow it - one rule for all. What we have now is unacceptable.

 

You're giving non-comparable examples, that's why there's no consistency. We're talking about the equality act and private clubs.