LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIn this situation i don't think anyone offering a room for cash is entitled to refuse another lawfully acting human being...ginger, polish, gay, woman, etcOriginally Posted by CaptainCrash
In this situation i don't think anyone offering a room for cash is entitled to refuse another lawfully acting human being...ginger, polish, gay, woman, etc
Yes he is, he can refuse a room on whatever grounds he likes, or on no grounds at all, *provided* he doesn't fall foul of existing anti-discrimination legislation, which would encompass racism and sexism (except under certain exemption criteria), but not nazi-ism or gingerism.
A service provider is any organisation that provides goods, facilities or services to the public, whether paid for or free, no matter how large or small the organisation is.
The definition of ‘service provider’ is quite broad: it includes most organisations that deal directly with members of the public.
Service providers are not allowed to discriminate unlawfully when providing goods or services to people. Discrimination when providing services means:
refusing to provide a service
providing a lower standard of service
offering a service on different terms than you would to other people.
It is unlawful to discriminate in providing goods, facilities or services to the public on the grounds of sex, race, disability, gender, sexual orientation, and religion or belief. There is no legislation that makes it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of age when providing services: for example, a pub can choose to refuse service to people under 21.
As a service provider, having good equality practices will help make your services available to the widest possible range of customers. Improvements such as better lighting and clear signs benefit everyone. Understanding this aim and the consequences of these laws will help protect you from legal action, which can be expensive and damaging to your reputation.
As part of their responsibilities under the Race Relations Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, public authorities (and contractors who work on their behalf) have additional duties to promote equality of opportunity as well as tackling unlawful discrimination. Find out more about these responsibilities.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/a...-the-law-says/
Rubbish cartoon but I read it as showing the predjudice of the hotel owners rather than suggesting homosexuals are Nazis? (i.e. the hotel owners see gays as bad as Nazis?)
The only reason they mentioned Mr & Mr Smith is so people got the reference to recent events?
??
Apart from holding hands and wanting the bridal sweet :-)
You get what I meant though, with no text it'd be two skinheads holding hands in a hotel. These cartoons are never usually subtle are they?
I'm still not convinced this is offensive to homosexuals more than the pair of idiot hotel owners? (ok, so if someone finds it offensive then technically it is - but again, I think you know what I mean?..)
That's absolutely how I read it. It's not comparing or equating a gay couple to Nazis, it's a parody of the attitude of the hoteliers that discriminated against the gay couple. It's simply satire, and the edge is out on it by the caption.
I see nothing offensive in the cartoon .... unlike the actions of the couple being parodied which, while I understand their position, I do find a bit offensive.
I can't help but feel we're all getting a bit too flippin' sensitive when we rant about a cartoon like this. It's an example of political correctness gone wrong, and doesn't do our national psyche any favours if people are supposed to worry about offending someone with a cartoon like this, or a play, or a book. There's a limit, perhaps, but this gets nowhere near it.
And, for the record, I'm not a Mail reader, and haven't seen a copy much less read it, in years.
Making the couple a pair of nazi branded thugs isn't offensive to homosexuals? It'd be a bit like making an SS officer with a big nose and black hair standing over a mass grave of blonde hair blue eyed Aryans.
Considering the Nazis slaughtered hundreds of thousands of homosexuals, and the homosexual community is regularly the subject of neo-Nazi violence, let's just say it's in poor taste, shall we?
Only they aren't "Nazi-branded" - they are stereotyped heavy-set, heavily-tattooed and somewhat neanderthal skin-head bruisers. One of them has a small swastika tattoo - amongst others - visible on his arm, which fits the stereotype. The cartoon does not imply that the couple are Nazis - it tells us nothing about their politcal beliefs at all - nor does it imply that all gay couples are Nazis. It leaves it to the observer to make such inferences as they choose based on the stereotypes presented. I'm intriguied that you've taken that stereotype and run with "these characters are Nazis so all gay couples are Nazis" as your inference...
And as I said before, I actually prefer the fact that the cartoon has taken two sterotypes that are normally considered opposed to each other and mashed them: it's much better than having two stereotyped "queens" as the couple, for instance. It says "anyone can be gay", not "all gays are like this".
It shows how subjective these things are - of the various possible interpretations, that's one I hadn't considered and, looking at it again, it seems a bit of a long shot to me.
You could be right I suppose, and it could be a dig at the irrational anti-gay prejudice of a couple of Christian (note the prominent sign) hoteliers, but given the Mail's historical outlook I rather doubt it, and it just looks to me like their bog standard "political correctness gone mad" rant.
I guess the cartoon has sparked at least one debate on the issue, so maybe it was actually more subtle than I originally gave it credit for. Or maybe not...
I do agree with most of what you say, but seriously? A swastika tattoo says nothing about someone's political beliefs?
And the other one has the Nazi eagle on it's back, that's certainly plenty of Nazi branding. They're the only two real symbols, along with the neo-nazi clothing and hair (or lack thereof). And I've already explained why it's in poor taste.
The "nazi eagle" would appear to be a parachute between wings, used by the parachute regiment as their cap badge.
I sort of sniggered at it if I'm honest, mainly because of the biker/bruiser/punk stereotype more than anything.
Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
