Daily Mail Cartoon equates Married Gay Couples to Nazis

[aeonf242]

I must say I'm not a big fan of the Daily H@te Mail anyway, but they've published a cartoon that's beyond the call of their usual duty!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ay-couple.html

Nice touch to add a swastika to a good old stereotype gay couple...surprised they didn't put a turban on one aswell...

>edit< of course this could be ironic but it's The Daily Mail!

FYI on discrimination law

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/

[CaptainCrash]

I just use Kitten Block, problem solved.

[Zadock]

That's really offensive! What on earth made the artist think he could get away with that?!

I would speculate on the intention of it but its in the daily mail...

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

i just use kitten block, problem solved. :d

[aidanjt]

Daily Fail strikes again.

[Tumble]

Superb Crash just superb

[Blitzen]

That's really offensive! What on earth made the artist think he could get away with that?!

I would speculate on the intention of it but its in the daily mail...

How is that offensive?

[aidanjt]

How is that offensive?

Equating gays to Nazi jackbooted thugs?

[aeonf242]

I would speculate on the intention of it but its in the daily mail...

Whilst I do have some sympathy with the hoteliers as it's a human story with probably honest beliefs...they are totally wrong in the way they wanted to act.

Their problem is that they only offered double rooms to married couples and didn't respect the value of a Civil Partnership. They even accepted dogs into the Hotel but not 'married' Gay men (in a Double Room).

If you're providing Goods & Services to the public you have to be equal in the way you act otherwise you might aswell hang a sign saying "No Irish, No Blacks, No Jews, No Gays"

How is that offensive?

Well the obvious part is branding Gays as Nazis....ironic when 100,000's of Homosexuals were gased by the Nazis during WWII.

And by extension as a Gay married couple you are Nazi if you insist on trying to live a normal life......how dare a Gay couple try to stay in a Hotel in a double bed......

Personally I find the cartoon offensive but without the Swastika I think I could pass it by just mildly offended.

[Flibb]

Equating gays to Nazi jackbooted thugs?

Or alternatively, subtly implying that some skin heads (right wingers) are secretly gay

or people with heart tattoos to being nazis/gay (delete as applicable)

[aidanjt]

Personally I generally find the cartoon offensive but without the Swastika I think I could pass it by just mildly offended.

Or the eagle on the back. I noticed that before the Swastika.

[CaptainCrash]

Equating gays to Nazi jackbooted thugs?

I suppose giving them at least some benefit of the doubt (I opened the link in Internet Explorer), they might have been suggesting that hoteliers might not be able to turn away Nazi jackbooted thugs on the grounds of being Nazi jackbooted thugs, if they happened to be gay, for fear of legal reprisals.

Having said that, it hardly makes it much better, although either way I'm sure their knuckledragging readers will be snarling and foaming happily at having their prejudices reinforced, if the early comments are any indication.

[aeonf242]

I suppose giving them at least some benefit of the doubt (I opened the link in Internet Explorer), they might have been suggesting that hoteliers might not be able to turn away Nazi jackbooted thugs on the grounds of being Nazi jackbooted thugs, if they happened to be gay, for fear of legal reprisals.

Well this ruling is a victory for Nazi thugs aswell, even if they were not gay!

It's simply about the equal provision of goods & services to anyone in society.

[CaptainCrash]

Well this ruling a victory for Nazi thugs aswell, even if they were not gay!

It's simply about the equal provision of goods & services to anyone in society.

I think this is the point, it's legal to discriminate on some grounds, but not on others - if the hotelier said "we don't like gingers here", then he'd be perfectly within his rights to refuse to accept bookings from gingers. But then if you ban *all* discrimination, then hoteliers should logically be legally compelled to accept bookings from Nazis (provided they weren't actually doing anything illegal), or possibly convicted paedophiles who'd served their time (please note I'm not equating Nazis or paedophiles to gays or even gingers).

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this - on the one hand, yes of course ignorance and prejudice are Bad Things and shouldn't be tolerated, but on the other I think private individuals should be free to choose who they do or don't engage with, either on a personal or professional basis, regardless of how barking their opinions might seem to someone else.

[IBM]

http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/

Daily Mail is an institution

[scaryjim]

hmmm, curious one. Firstly, I think the cartoon is crass and predictable, but not particularly offensive. If anything, I'd rather see the Fail running a cartoon that depicts hardcore thugs as a gay couple than some of the more obvious stereotypes of gay couples they could have gone with. A swastika is always going to raise some objection, but it's not an uncommon tattoo and it's not particularly prominent amongst the rest of the inkwork depicted, soI think it's unfair to suggest that the cartoon "equates Married Gay Couples to Nazis" (you know, the Mail would be proud of you for that headline ).

The other issue I have is whether it's acceptable for people in a commercial business to be told that they no longer have the right to withhold service? As I understand it, the right to refuse service without giving reason is a fairly bsaic premise of most of our retail legislation. Now, the hotel owners in this case may have been dumb enough to give a reason that a lot of people would find offensive, but does that really mean they should be fined for choosing not to take someone's money? Dangerous precedent, if you ask me...