Golf! the exclusion of women.

[Cyclone]

I'd certainly support the right of gay Muslims to marry. I can't remember if we force Christian churches to marry gay Christians, but whatever rule applies should apply to all religions.

I disagree with positive discrimination as a general principle.

And I can see why exclusions to allow religious headgear exist, and since they only endanger the person involved I don't really care, although it is special treatment as you say.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 08:30 ----------

 

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

 

Given the exceptions, they might have well have written "the act does not apply to private clubs", because it basically doesn't from what has been described at the moment.

[RootsBooster]

Given the exceptions, they might have well have written "the act does not apply to private clubs", because it basically doesn't from what has been described at the moment.

 

Of course it does. If a private club refuses you membership because you're not a woman, but the rules/criteria for joining do not require you to be a woman, then the equality act kicks in and smacks you with a discrimination mallet.

 

If you are refused membership because the criteria for joining is that you must be a woman (but you're a man) then that's permissible, as given in the example linked to earlier.

This is made very clear on the Citizen's Advice page.

 

What is your interpretation of the act with regards to private clubs?

[Cyclone]

It's so trivial to change the criteria to exclude any group that it's meaningless. If they want to exclude women generally, they just write it down and it's legal. If they want to exclude a specific woman then they don't even have to do that as they aren't excluding her for being female.

 

I don't have another interpretation, I have an opinion about what is right and being able to define membership to include protected characteristics isn't, IMO, right. It does appear to be legal though. Unless or until a court rules that the act doesn't mean that, or the government changes the act.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 08:52 ----------

 

Gender discrimination is illegal in the workplace and should be illegal in private clubs and sports facilities IMO.

 

If you go back, you'll see that I never made a statement about what the law was.

 

I made statements about what I thought should be the case.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 08:53 ----------

 

I suspect that it might.

 

My suspicion here has been demonstrated to be wrong, I'm happy to accept that.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 08:56 ----------

 

I suspect "a golf club for men" would not meet the standard. Taking "for x" onto the end of the purpose of the club doesn't seem to be what the act means. Otherwise the act might as well not exist at all with regards to clubs.

 

And this is where my opinion concludes with, the act might as well simply not apply to private clubs.

 

A group for deaf women has a very specific reason for existing, and inherent in that reason are that someone is both female and deaf.

A golf club has a very specific reason for existing, and that is to facilitate the playing of golf.

 

Private clubs should IMO, not be allowed to discriminate against protected characteristics unless that discrimination is inherent in the purpose of the club. A golf club could never meet this criteria. But that's not how the law stands at the moment.

[RootsBooster]

It's so trivial to change the criteria to exclude any group that it's meaningless. If they want to exclude women generally, they just write it down and it's legal. If they want to exclude a specific woman then they don't even have to do that as they aren't excluding her for being female.

how would they legitimately exclude her then?

 

I don't have another interpretation, I have an opinion about what is right and being able to define membership to include protected characteristics isn't, IMO, right. It does appear to be legal though. Unless or until a court rules that the act doesn't mean that, or the government changes the act.

 

If you go back, you'll see that I never made a statement about what the law was.

 

I made statements about what I thought should be the case.

That's cool, I never thought you did, which is why I asked about your interpretation of the act.

 

And this is where my opinion concludes with, the act might as well simply not apply to private clubs.

 

A group for deaf women has a very specific reason for existing, and inherent in that reason are that someone is both female and deaf.

A golf club has a very specific reason for existing, and that is to facilitate the playing of golf.

 

Private clubs should IMO, not be allowed to discriminate against protected characteristics unless that discrimination is inherent in the purpose of the club. A golf club could never meet this criteria. But that's not how the law stands at the moment.

A club for male golfers (or female Christians, as in the example) has just as specific a reason for existing too, whether we like it or not. Their reasons are their own, they don't have to justify why they only want to admit men/women.

It could be that they use the time together talking about things they're not comfortable with discussing around the opposite sex.

 

I think it's safe to say though, from the attitude shown by the golf club in question, their reasons are more on the misogynistic side.

Edited May 23, 2016 by RootsBooster

[carosio]

=Cyclone;11392131 A group for deaf women has a very specific reason for existing, and inherent in that reason are that someone is both female and deaf.

 

A golf club has a very specific reason for existing, and that is to facilitate the playing of golf.

 

Private clubs should IMO, not be allowed to discriminate against protected characteristics unless that discrimination is inherent in the purpose of the club. A golf club could never meet this criteria. But that's not how the law stands at the moment.

 

But do you think there is any logical or fair reason why deaf men should be excluded from a club for deaf women, apart from the fact that the women just don't want men in it, and the Act says they can?

[Cyclone]

I don't, I think a club for deaf people would make more sense, and would have a valid reason to exclude the none deaf.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2016 at 14:12 ----------

 

how would they legitimately exclude her then?

By saying that they don't want her to join because they don't like her. Nothing to do with her gender.

 

That's cool, I never thought you did, which is why I asked about your interpretation of the act.

Okay, cool.

 

 

A club for male golfers (or female Christians, as in the example) has just as specific a reason for existing too, whether we like it or not. Their reasons are their own, they don't have to justify why they only want to admit men/women.

It could be that they use the time together talking about things they're not comfortable with discussing around the opposite sex.

I don't agree, but we're all entitled to opinions.

 

I think it's safe to say though, from the attitude shown by the golf club in question, their reasons are more on the misogynistic side.

 

Indeed, which is why I don't think it should be allowed, because I've no doubt that this would be the most common reason.

[RootsBooster]

By saying that they don't want her to join because they don't like her. Nothing to do with her gender.

If it doesn't say in the membership requirements that they have to like you, in order for you to join, then it would be discriminating.

I don't agree, but we're all entitled to opinions.

That wasn't just my opinion, the official example given demonstrates it as such. The Christian women group not allowing a man to join for no other reason other than him being a man. They don't have to justify it in any way, it's part of the criteria that needs to be met to join their club.

Indeed, which is why I don't think it should be allowed, because I've no doubt that this would be the most common reason.

Do you disagree that the Christian women's club (here) should be allowed to exclude men simply because of their gender?

[pintor]

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 applic. We need to either allow 'inherent characteristic' discrimination or not allow it - one rule for all. What we have now is unacceptable.

 

On that subject Sikhs exempt from helmets, is insurance dearer for Sikhs riding motorcycles?, or are they exempt from that too?

[spilldig]

On that subject Sikhs exempt from helmets, is insurance dearer for Sikhs riding motorcycles?, or are they exempt from that too?

 

Quite apart from that, if Sikhs are allowed not to wear a helmet, for whatever reason, everyone else should be given the same choice too.

[Cyclone]

If it doesn't say in the membership requirements that they have to like you, in order for you to join, then it would be discriminating.

No it wouldn't. Being liked is not a protected characteristic, so if they don't let you join because they don't like you, it's tough.

If you could prove that they just used this excuse routinely to stop a specific gender joining, then you'd have a case.

That wasn't just my opinion, the official example given demonstrates it as such. The Christian women group not allowing a man to join for no other reason other than him being a man. They don't have to justify it in any way, it's part of the criteria that needs to be met to join their club.

Yes, hence why I've said that the act might as well not apply to private clubs, because they can apparently discriminate as much as they like, just so long as they write it down.

 

It's the act that I don't agree with, that's my opinion, that the act is wrong and that it needs amending.

Do you disagree that the Christian women's club (here) should be allowed to exclude men simply because of their gender?

 

Is this a game. Find out Cyclones opinion on a whole variety of clubs?

 

No, I don't agree with it, although there might be better reasons for women only groups than an all male GOLF club.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Cyclone