Supermarkets & mask wearing

[Returnofrros]

So not tested?

I know you know the difference so a simple yes or no will do 😊

Yes. I'd say it has been tested as the potential defendant gave in without a fight and admitted liability.

I can't get the better of Mike Tyson, I don't need that to be put to the test in a ring.

The authorities and media instead of trying to hide this case or not cover it on MSM should be alerting business owners that this is the consequence of discriminating.

Luckily I've not come across much of it here and hopefully it continues to be the case or is disability discrimination laws which were hard fought for and won over the decades gonna be ignored under the guise of covid as well as numerous other things.

Woman was perfectly entitled to shop, they refused entry, she with backing threatened to sue......They admitted discrimination and paid out.......I don't think there's much more to say.

I don't think she's went out of her way to find an excuse, shes no a serial pavement stripper or falling Doon manholes type of person.

As for the hairdresser, why give that as a reason for not giving someone a job.

Stupid and opened himself or herself up to being sued.

So you really have to say Muslim woman was within her rights.

If it's the case they are just presuming that's why she didn't get the job then that's wrong.

Hairdressers.....learn to lie.....you do it with 95% of your customers anyway.🙄

[Returnofrros]

The hairdresser was an idiot.

You don't need to give a reason for not employing someone and if an applicant does ask for feedback all you say is either you fell short of our expectations or we had more suitable applicants.

Lol, see answer below

[Returnofrros]

Pavement stripper...ffs....Pavement tripper

[Returnofrros]

The answer is that the action of the salon owner was racist and therefore exactly the same as the action of the shopkeeper in that both actions fall foul of legislation.
Whether or not one agrees with the outcome of these incidents depends on whether you agree that both incidents fall within the legal definitions of the relevant legislation. Since both were settled out of court there is no legal decision and perhaps the law might have rejected both claims. I am sitting on the fence!

He didn't discriminate against a race.

[Returnofrros]

The salon owner was probably (definitely for me) showing some bias toward racism; but only if it's racist to define your business' product or service in a particular way (image) and to want to employ people that openly project that image in a customer facing role.

Would an African cafe specializing in for example Nigerian food really be that wrong to say they'd prefer not to have white people serving that food? For me that cafe would be right to only employ Nigerians to fully project the ethos and to maintain the genuine feel of the place. strictly speaking it's racist, but is it possibly justifiable?

What race has this hairdresser discriminated against?

[Deeranged]

What race has this hairdresser discriminated against?

Only had a quick scan but the gist is that she didn't employ the girl because she was wearing head covering and the owner wanted her employees to show the modern, jaunty, modern, punky I suppose image of the hairstyles on offer.

So essentially not racist but the fact she was rejected simply on the head covering is obviously seen as racist and obviously that's where the complaint was pointed. For me the owner has the right to say the applicant didn't fit the image she wants to project for the business, however I suspect there was more to it than the head covering but that's because I'm a cynical old ****.

[Taintedice]

What race has this hairdresser discriminated against?

From the billy who thinks people wanting their own government in Scotland are anti-English racists

What race are English people

[BCram]

From the billy who thinks people wanting their own government in Scotland are anti-English racists

What race are English people

The master race! LOL

[Returnofrros]

Only had a quick scan but the gist is that she didn't employ the girl because she was wearing head covering and the owner wanted her employees to show the modern, jaunty, modern, punky I suppose image of the hairstyles on offer.

So essentially not racist but the fact she was rejected simply on the head covering is obviously seen as racist and obviously that's where the complaint was pointed. For me the owner has the right to say the applicant didn't fit the image she wants to project for the business, however I suspect there was more to it than the head covering but that's because I'm a cynical old ****.

Not discriminated on grounds of race as nowhere on this thread does it mention race.

He's maybe discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs although I'm not sure if every Muslim sect insist on head coverings.

Being a Muslim isn't a race......you can't be racist against Muslims.

If say I was interviewing and I didnae fancy employing an overtly camp guy wearing a tartan mini kilt in my garage repair shop would I be racist against Scots? No I would be in that circumstance predudiced against campness.

Hairdresser was guilty of openly admitting to common sense.

Muslim wifey was perfectly entitled to exploit his or hers stupidity.

[Deeranged]

Not discriminated on grounds of race as nowhere on this thread does it mention race.

He's maybe discriminated against her because of her religious beliefs although I'm not sure if every Muslim sect insist on head coverings.

Being a Muslim isn't a race......you can't be racist against Muslims.

If say I was interviewing and I didnae fancy employing an overtly camp guy wearing a tartan mini kilt in my garage repair shop would I be racist against Scots? No I would be in that circumstance predudiced against campness.

Hairdresser was guilty of openly admitting to common sense.

Muslim wifey was perfectly entitled to exploit his or hers stupidity.

Pretty much what I said, common sense applied by owner but stupidly didn't word her defence correctly.