Discrimination for the discriminating


02 October 2006

Home front by Philip Johnston

Under the new EU age discrimination rules, it is unlawful to restrict a job to older people, or to younger for that matter. However, you may be surprised to learn that, under separate legislation, the final sentence of this advert will also soon be illegal because it implies that the applicants should be married, and could, therefore, be considered discriminatory against homosexuals.


An individual’s sexual predilections are a private matter and one imagined, perhaps naively, that the era where gays were refused a drink in a hotel bar had long gone. But the problem with using the sledgehammer of legislation here is that the view of homosexuality held by many people is driven by their faith.

Are we to insist that they abandon it? This is not the creation of equality, but merely the transfer of discrimination from one group to another, this time with religiously inclined heterosexuals on the wrong end, their rights given less weight than those of sexual minorities. It is even more bizarre when you consider that private clubs, like a lesbians-only bar, will still be allowed to specify a particular sexual orientation as a membership condition.


But if they [religious groups] are made an exception, there will be an almighty row because the responsible minister is Ruth Kelly, a committed Roman Catholic with strongly held convictions on this subject. Why should she give the churches the right to do something for which the rest of us would face prosecution? Is religious opposition to homosexual behaviour any more reasonable than an atheist’s objection?

These are the murky waters that we enter when we seek to enshrine more and more “rights” in legislation. The lawyers are about to have a field day.

Interesting article highlighting the total censorship , hypocrisy and general fuck-ups caused by obsessive Political Correctness and it’s enforcement by Nanny States (or, in the case of the EU, Nanny Superstates.)

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 6:14 PM


At 8:44 PM, Captain Zarmband said…

This is the nonsense that happens when the state seeks to make laws about people’s private beliefs. In no time the law makers tangle themselves in contradictory statements. What they should do is butt out and leave people’s personal beliefs to the individual. This is typical big government trying to assert its patronizing authority into areas that are not their concern.


At 12:38 AM, LtRand said…

“This doesn’t mean that the genetics governing homosexuality is so straightforward, but men with a few genes that involve an increased likelihood of homosexuality probably have an increased likelihood of reproductive success.”

That comment blew my mind. I think I’ve permanently damaged a section of my brain trying to understand that logic. Homosexuality = reproductive success? What? How?


At 4:28 PM, ChicagoMan said…

Here’s my take on the workplace.

Obviously a code of ethics should be in place at workplaces to keep things civil, prevent the hiring of illegals and keeping it safe for employees.

However I a am against government mandated minimum wages, let me explain why.

For jobs that require skill you need not worry about minimum wage, what you offer for the job as an employer will be directly correlated to the quality of employees you get. It controls itself.

For unskilled labor jobs, getting rid of HIGH mandatory minimum wages just forces employers to hire illegals or people under the table. This is bad since it brings in more illegals and creates unsafe workplaces. And at the same time the company goes overseas for cheaper unskilled labor, ala Mexico and China. Look at the US auto industry, the unino employees there in the assembly plant make more than scientists and engineers and most only work 4 hour work days. Same goes for government jobs where garbage men in Chicago earn US 60-70K a year.

Whenever the government meddles in other people’s business’ it screws things up.

Just as the other post with maternity leave. The government could care less about your own business, it won’t be there to help you out when you aren’t doing well so why does it have the authority to tell you who to hire, when and how much leave they get?

This is abuse of government power.

If I run a small business, as I am in the process of planning, I DO NOT want the government telling me how to do my business.

If I am not making or doing anything illegal, hurting my consumers, employees or the environment and treating my employees fair why should they care?


At 5:41 PM, Anonymous said…

I think this is great. It’s pretty strange for you lot to support a ‘Marriage Strike’ and think it’s okay for people to discriminate against the unmarried.


At 10:21 PM, pete said…

” Anonymous said…

I think this is great. It’s pretty strange for you lot to support a ‘Marriage Strike’ and think it’s okay for people to discriminate against the unmarried. “

Troll. If you’re not, do tell why you support discrimination for non-job performance related reasons.


At 9:10 PM, Paul Parmenter said…

Age, race, sex, sexual orientation…what’s next? It’s only a question of time before this intelligence-deprived government decides to make it illegal to discriminate on grounds of ability. After all, why should I be deprived of my rights to do whatever job I want, just because I can’t do it?


%d bloggers like this: