discrimination or owner's prerogative?
Discussion
Good afternoon!,
Just looking for people's informed/uninformed thoughts and comments really...
Had a ride out to the coast this weekend and occasioned to have a bag of chips on quite a pleasant seaside chalet park.
As I was eating them I was reading the various literature pinned up on a site notice board. One of the notices was to advertise chalets for rent complete with the site rules. quote:- "no same sex groups", among others (such as "no travelling to work from park allowed")
I can sort of see where they are coming from as they don't wan't rowdy parties of stag night revellers, plus there's the 'reserve the right to refuse admission' stuff, but isn't 'no same sex groups' simply discrimination? Can you actually say this?
Just looking for people's informed/uninformed thoughts and comments really...
Had a ride out to the coast this weekend and occasioned to have a bag of chips on quite a pleasant seaside chalet park.
As I was eating them I was reading the various literature pinned up on a site notice board. One of the notices was to advertise chalets for rent complete with the site rules. quote:- "no same sex groups", among others (such as "no travelling to work from park allowed")
I can sort of see where they are coming from as they don't wan't rowdy parties of stag night revellers, plus there's the 'reserve the right to refuse admission' stuff, but isn't 'no same sex groups' simply discrimination? Can you actually say this?
I guess it depends on the definition of a "group".
Let's say four people's the minimum for a group...
Four guys would be barred from sharing whether they were gay or straight, so no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
Four girls would be barred from sharing, just as four guys would be, so no discrimination on the grounds of gender.
But if two same-sex couples were barred from sharing, but it would have been OK so long as at least one couple was straight, or one couple was gay men while the other were lesbians, then there could be an issue, on either gender or sexuality grounds.
I suspect a test case would be needed to define it. Either way, it's probably not somewhere any self-respecting gay couples would really WANT to go...
Let's say four people's the minimum for a group...
Four guys would be barred from sharing whether they were gay or straight, so no discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
Four girls would be barred from sharing, just as four guys would be, so no discrimination on the grounds of gender.
But if two same-sex couples were barred from sharing, but it would have been OK so long as at least one couple was straight, or one couple was gay men while the other were lesbians, then there could be an issue, on either gender or sexuality grounds.
I suspect a test case would be needed to define it. Either way, it's probably not somewhere any self-respecting gay couples would really WANT to go...
gsxr renegade said:
Probably just a poorly worded sign meaning that they don't want groups of lads/girls there on boozy weekends/rowdy parties etc. etc.
To me, the word 'groups' would imply 3 or more.
This is how I would read it too.To me, the word 'groups' would imply 3 or more.
Large crowds of blokes/girls trashing the place is not what they want.
I think it's a grey area, but essentially discrimination against a group is not the same as discrimination against individuals, no same sex groups may not be gender discrimination, as it applies equally to groups of men and groups of women, no individual's gender is being picked on, it is the gender of the whole group, and it's not obviously discrimination against sexuality (where as no same sex couples might be).
No all male groups almost certainly would be gender discrimination as it does not apply equally to all female groups.
No all male groups almost certainly would be gender discrimination as it does not apply equally to all female groups.
ging84 said:
I think it's a grey area, but essentially discrimination against a group is not the same as discrimination against individuals, no same sex groups may not be gender discrimination, as it applies equally to groups of men and groups of women, no individual's gender is being picked on, it is the gender of the whole group, and it's not obviously discrimination against sexuality (where as no same sex couples might be).
No all male groups almost certainly would be gender discrimination as it does not apply equally to all female groups.
How about a group formed of 2 or more same sex couples? In which case denying access when you would give access to a group formed of heterosexual couples would surely constitute discrimination on a protected characteristic. No all male groups almost certainly would be gender discrimination as it does not apply equally to all female groups.
bryan35 said:
Had a ride out to the coast this weekend and occasioned to have a bag of chips on quite a pleasant seaside chalet park.
As I was eating them I was reading the various literature pinned up on a site notice board. One of the notices was to advertise chalets for rent complete with the site rules. quote:- "no same sex groups", among others (such as "no travelling to work from park allowed")
Exceedingly common on camping and similar sites, as in this example - https://youtu.be/I7g08nwEmyY?t=245As I was eating them I was reading the various literature pinned up on a site notice board. One of the notices was to advertise chalets for rent complete with the site rules. quote:- "no same sex groups", among others (such as "no travelling to work from park allowed")
bryan35 said:
I can sort of see where they are coming from as they don't wan't rowdy parties of stag night revellers, plus there's the 'reserve the right to refuse admission' stuff, but isn't 'no same sex groups' simply discrimination? Can you actually say this?
They certainly can (after all the evidence that they have done so is there for all to see) but whether it falls foul of equality/discrimination legislation is something else. Judging by how prevalent this exclusion is I don't think this has yet been tested in court. I can't see the objective justification in allowing a mixed sex group and excluding a single sex one (whether male or female).What if the group was composed of single sex couples (gay/lesbian)? That could have interesting ramifications!
Jasandjules said:
gsxr renegade said:
Probably just a poorly worded sign meaning that they don't want groups of lads/girls there on boozy weekends/rowdy parties etc. etc.
To me, the word 'groups' would imply 3 or more.
This is how I would read it too.To me, the word 'groups' would imply 3 or more.
Large crowds of blokes/girls trashing the place is not what they want.
A few student mates and I tried to hire a caravan many-many years ago and all the sites around Blackpool had this (a similar) rule to avoid lads holiday like ours.
Slightly worrying that so many people who don't understand, have assumed something more sinister though.
Hol said:
That's exactly what it means.
A few student mates and I tried to hire a caravan many-many years ago and all the sites around Blackpool had this (a similar) rule to avoid lads holiday like ours.
Slightly worrying that so many people who don't understand, have assumed something more sinister though.
No, I think most people know where it's aimed at. It's just a poorly written. Such campsites could easily have a more specific rule, such as A few student mates and I tried to hire a caravan many-many years ago and all the sites around Blackpool had this (a similar) rule to avoid lads holiday like ours.
Slightly worrying that so many people who don't understand, have assumed something more sinister though.
"If you make too much noise, we'll kick you off"
esxste said:
No, I think most people know where it's aimed at. It's just a poorly written. Such campsites could easily have a more specific rule, such as
"If you make too much noise, we'll kick you off"
Except they want to avoid getting to that point - not least because if they do need to kick somebody off, then they've got a campsite full of pissed-off punters."If you make too much noise, we'll kick you off"
Hol said:
Jasandjules said:
gsxr renegade said:
Probably just a poorly worded sign meaning that they don't want groups of lads/girls there on boozy weekends/rowdy parties etc. etc.
To me, the word 'groups' would imply 3 or more.
This is how I would read it too.To me, the word 'groups' would imply 3 or more.
Large crowds of blokes/girls trashing the place is not what they want.
A few student mates and I tried to hire a caravan many-many years ago and all the sites around Blackpool had this (a similar) rule to avoid lads holiday like ours.
What if the group were composed of, say, three same sex couples? In the latter case I reckon Black and another v Wilkinson would apply.
It's a potentially contentious area and I am surprised that a refusal to accept a booking doesn't appear to have yet been tested in court.
Hol said:
Slightly worrying that so many people who don't understand, have assumed something more sinister though.
Sorry, you've lost me there. What is sinister about equality legislation?Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff