Page 2 of 2

Re: What on earth was he/she thinking?

Posted: April 1st, 2024, 11:49 am
by 1nvest
GoSeigen wrote:Wasn't he/she thinking exactly what a significant proportion of this very forum would think and have thought for years? It shouldn't really be news by now. I know my own step mother would see nothing wrong with excluding the "illegal migrants" for example.

Not everyone is of the same mind. Nothing should be wrong with some disliking cosmopolitanism and having heritage/history changed/re-written. What is wrong is suppression of free expression of such opinions. Applying "wrong" pressures against say a all male social group is discriminatory when otherwise all women or other such singularity groups aren't treated equally.

Re: What on earth was he/she thinking?

Posted: April 1st, 2024, 2:44 pm
by Lootman
Arborbridge wrote:
Lootman wrote:For discrimination to reach the level of a crime it has to fall into one of the documented specific categories and has to form part of a systematic pattern.

and has to form part of a systematic pattern.

I doubt that - are you sure?
I would expect individual cases or "one offs" would be presecutable and you wouldn't have to prove that event part of a systematic pattern. Trying to prove or dispute a "systematic pattern" would make such a law impossible to prosecute except in the very worst cases. I can imagine the legal arguments dragging on for years.

I once had call to seek advice on this topic, back in my landlording days when a tenant applicant had threatened me with a discrimination lawsuit after I rejected them in favour of another applicant. I was never really worried about it as I had received a number of qualified applicants and so I was under no obligation to choose the one who happened to be disabled. But I sought advice anyway for peace of mind.

My solicitor told me that such cases are harder to win if it was an isolated incident, rather than a consistent pattern. So if I had 100 tenants and none were (say) Asian, in an area that was 20% Asian, then there is a case. But that doesn't mean that I have to make a special effort to ensure that exact percentage.

In the event the jilted applicant did not proceed, presumably because they received similar advice. So on this topic I think there is only a potential legal issue if the photographer consistently did this. And again he did not exclude any group or individual. He merely offered a choice of images, presumably because he felt that there was a commercial demand for that, or had been advised to do that by others.

Re: What on earth was he/she thinking?

Posted: April 2nd, 2024, 1:40 pm
by didds
Lootman wrote:I did not see any claim that this act was criminal. Only that it was in bad taste, and executed tactlessly.


This.