Women banned from swimming on Friday nights for 'Cultural reasons'.

First topic message reminder :

The Olympic sized swimming pool at the Inspire Sports Village in Luton has banned women from swimming between certain times on Friday nights for 'Cultural reasons'.
They are allowed to use smaller pools or go to a different smaller local  baths.

http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/community/community-news/men-only-sessions-in-luton-pool-a-cultural-thing-1-7506305
Luton’s olympic swimming pool has began hosting gender-segregated swimming sessions because of “cultural” reasons, it has been alleged.

Users of the competitive pool at Inspire Sports Village in Stopsley – built with taxpayer-funded Olympic money – were given sudden notice that there would be men-only sessions on Friday evenings from July 29.



Seems the Inspire Sports centre are allowing Muslim men  to publicly discriminate against women....do you agree?

sassy wrote:Did you speak or did the normal rant blow out of your arse.   From the smell, it was the rant.   Ah well, can't expect anything else from our raving anti religious nutcase.

So as per usual when I show you back discrimination, yet again. You then turn to your usual immature childish response

Quelle surprise

I am not anti-religion, I am all for progressive religions that do not effect the well being and equality of others.
Hence why I back progressive Muslims, who wish to reform Islam.
It was enlightenment, secularism, education, science and equality that has helped change most Christians today, away from the poor literal beliefs that once also badly held and still do in places prejudiced and hateful beliefs.

You though at everyturn defend bad beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others through a misguided belief its bigotry to the followers. Like here for example you fail to even question the belief itself, of which I pointed out.

The purpose is to segregate based off poor backward beliefs that claim and blame women for the belief also men cannot control their desires.

I mean imagine this for one second based on the beliefs of some Islamic sects
If this deity existed
Either he is incompetant that he would have created men with a flaw they have such uncontrollable desires, that now women suffer by having to cover up (based on a misguided belief it will protect them) to prevent sexual harrasement all the way to cases of rape, which even then provides an excuse in Islam for rape. Even though women covered up are raped anyway by sex offenders.

Or this deity deliberately created men this way and knowingly created a vastly increased possibilty and risk of women being raped. Thus vastly increasing the suffering of women and girls.

That is sick beyond belief and what is even worse is you are defending that

Burble, burble, burbe, burble. You are anti religion, except one, and for that one you allow for the hugest amount of discrimination possible. You are completely, obsessionally round the twist, in la la land, off your trolley. Your opinion means fuck all, you are a clown, a useless ranting waste of time that if you didn't exist we would have to invent you for the comedy factor to make Tommy feel good about himself. Gibber, gibber, gibber, rant. rant, rant. Time to make a cup of tea and let you burble on.

sassy wrote:Burble, burble, burbe, burble.   You are anti religion, except one, and for that one you allow for the hugest amount of discrimination possible.   You are completely, obsessionally round the twist, in la la land, off your trolley.  Your opinion means fuck all, you are a clown, a useless ranting waste of time that if you didn't exist we would have to invent you for the comedy factor to make Tommy feel good about himself.  Gibber, gibber, gibber, rant. rant, rant.   Time to make a cup of tea and let you burble on.

Nope not one single point countered

Just more feeble immaturity and infantile insults, then accusations you cannot reason and back up. Where at least I reason why you back discrimination based on gender and already known racially. I denounce all bad religious beliefs, maybe you can show any that I defend?

This I will be very interesting to see what you come up with, espcially if you claim Judaism, which has and have stated many times the most violent of all passages in the Abrahamic beliefs. It also has some of the worst disicrimination, which I have always condemned but again many Jews have through enlightenment, secularism, education, science and equality adapted these concepts either to their religious or ethnic Jewish identity. So again you invent lies, which is quite normal for you sassy.



Try again

I am not anti-religion, I am all for progressive religions that do not effect the well being and equality of others.
Hence why I back progressive Muslims, who wish to reform Islam.
It was enlightenment, secularism, education, science and equality that has helped change most Christians today, away from the poor literal beliefs that once also badly held and still do in places prejudiced and hateful beliefs.

You though at everyturn defend bad beliefs that effect the well being and equality of others through a misguided belief its bigotry to the followers. Like here for example you fail to even question the belief itself, of which I pointed out.

The purpose is to segregate based off poor backward beliefs that claim and blame women for the belief also men cannot control their desires.

I mean imagine this for one second based on the beliefs of some Islamic sects
If this deity existed
Either he is incompetant that he would have created men with a flaw they have such uncontrollable desires, that now women suffer by having to cover up (based on a misguided belief it will protect them) to prevent sexual harrasement all the way to cases of rape, which even then provides an excuse in Islam for rape. Even though women covered up are raped anyway by sex offenders.

Or this deity deliberately created men this way and knowingly created a vastly increased possibilty and risk of women being raped. Thus vastly increasing the suffering of women and girls.

That is sick beyond belief and what is even worse is you are defending that

I remeber reading about a case a while back where a swimming pool organised the pool to be used at certain times solely for Muslim women.
When people complained the staff said the pool was closed for staff training, but apparently that wasn't the reason.

A public baths should be exactly that....public, unless specific lessons are in progress.
Swimming is a leisure activity and shouldn't be dictated by religion. culture, or anything else.

Syl wrote:I remeber reading about a case a while back where a swimming pool organised the pool to be used at certain times solely for Muslim women.
When people complained the staff said the pool was closed for staff training, but apparently that wasn't the reason.

A public baths should be exactly that....public, unless specific lessons are in progress.
Swimming is a leisure activity and shouldn't be dictated by religion. culture, or anything else.

+1

Cheers Didge, I appreciate that.

Off to the dentist... bbl. x

eddie wrote:On that note, I will remember never to use the pool after a pregnant women session.

You think kids don't pee in the pool?

eddie wrote:A lot of pregnant women work Tommy. You know, we can even walk and stuff

How many times have you heard people say when at swimming pools "my eyes are sore from all the chlorine in the water"?

Swimming pools are basically huge blue toilet bowls. We’ve all peed in them — be honest — and a new study is stirring up our guilt by showing that urinating in a chlorinated pool creates a toxic chemical called cyanogen chloride. Cyanogen chloride forms when chlorine from the pool reacts with nitrogen in urine. It acts like tear gas, roughing up the eyes, nose and lungs, and it’s classified as an agent of chemical warfare.

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/gory-details/what-happens-when-you-pee-pool

Syl wrote:Cheers Didge, I appreciate that.

Off to the dentist...  bbl. x

Good luck, hope all goes well.x

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You need to read the rules more carefully. See the EHRC website for exceptions.

I have and again its based around religious worship, which this is not religious worship

Yes, in fact it is religious worship. 'Worship' is not limited to a mass or service in the chapel. Whenever one does something for reasons of his or her religion, it is a religious expression, and hence religious worship.

Religious worship requires 'reasonable accommodation', and apparently this facility has determined that a limited time-frame (Friday evenings), with reasonable notice, is that accommodation.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

I have and again its based around religious worship, which this is not religious worship

Yes, in fact it is religious worship.  'Worship' is not limited to a mass or service in the chapel.  Whenever one does something for reasons of his or her religion, it is a religious expression, and hence religious worship.

Religious worship requires 'reasonable accommodation', and apparently this facility has determined that a limited time-frame (Friday evenings), with reasonable notice, is that accommodation.

A swimming pool is not a place of religious worship and thus cannot be used as a reason.
Again you fail to understand the law
Again its breaking the law, as it is discriminating to non-Muslims baed off this religious worship/beliefs.
That is gender discrimination

Its also not accomadation when the belief is segregation based off a backward belief that people need to cover up because of the sexual desires of people.
In other words its against our very principles of liberal values and I cannot beleive yet anther lefty would argue to accomodate discrimination based on gender through religious beleifs

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, in fact it is religious worship.  'Worship' is not limited to a mass or service in the chapel.  Whenever one does something for reasons of his or her religion, it is a religious expression, and hence religious worship.

Religious worship requires 'reasonable accommodation', and apparently this facility has determined that a limited time-frame (Friday evenings), with reasonable notice, is that accommodation.

A swimming pool is not a place of religious worship and thus cannot be used as a reason.
Again you fail to understand the law
Again its breaking the law, as it is discriminating to non-Muslims baed off this religious worship/beliefs.
That is gender discrimination

You are wrong about that, as any religious person will tell you. A swimming pool, like the town square, or the local stables can be a place for a Catholic to cross oneself. That is a form of worship. Worship is defined as: "a show reverence and adoration for a deity; honor with religious rites." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. That can take place anytime, anyplace.

As between freedom of religion and freedom from (gender, or other) discrimination, we have an antinomy, or conflict of legal principles. Here in the US, conservative groups are trying to use religion to discriminate against LBGT rights...and it's working so far. Likewise, in the Jewish religion they can mutilate the genitals of new-born children, even though under ordinary circumstances it would be considered extreme child abuse. Religious practices carry a lot of weight.

Religious principles apparently trump all other aspects of rights in the UK, too.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:



A swimming pool is not a place of religious worship and thus cannot be used as a reason.
Again you fail to understand the law
Again its breaking the law, as it is discriminating to non-Muslims baed off this religious worship/beliefs.
That is gender discrimination

You are wrong about that, as any religious person will tell you.  A swimming pool, like the town square, or the local stables can be a place for a Catholic to cross oneself.  That is a form of worship.  Worship is defined as: "a show reverence and adoration for a deity; honor with religious rites."  Merriam-Webster Dictionary.  That can take place anytime, anyplace.

As between freedom of religion and freedom from (gender, or other) discrimination, we have an antinomy, or conflict of legal principles.  Here in the US, conservative groups are trying to use religion to discriminate against LBGT rights...and it's working so far.  Likewise, in the Jewish religion they can mutilate the genitals of new-born children, even though under ordinary circumstances it would be considered extreme child abuse.  Religious practices carry a lot of weight.

Religious principles apparently trump all other aspects of rights in the UK, too.

I smell something.

Its called Bullshit

It does not matter what the religious believer thinks, as its a public place and thus you are trying to again superscede the beliefs of ther believer over that of the non-believer which is inequality again. Their beliefs do not trump those who do not believe and in a public place espcially, when already such a ruling has been made on public meetings in Universities. Thus a Public swimming Poll is not designated as a place of worship, full stop.
I could not give a shit about the US, this is the UK where we have equality, unlike where you have states that create laws based on religion. So put your own house in order before trying to impose inequality in the UK, we are a progressive country, unlike the US which is years behind

Again the very aspect of segregation goes against the very principles of liberal values and you are defending discrimination based off either principles

The purpose is to segregate based off poor backward beliefs that claim and blame women for the belief also men cannot control their desires.

I mean imagine this for one second based on the beliefs of some Islamic sects
If this deity existed
Either he is incompetant that he would have created men with a flaw they have such uncontrollable desires, that now women suffer by having to cover up (based on a misguided belief it will protect them) to prevent sexual harrasement all the way to cases of rape, which even then provides an excuse in Islam for rape. Even though women covered up are raped anyway by sex offenders.

Or this deity deliberately created men this way and knowingly created a vastly increased possibilty and risk of women being raped. Thus vastly increasing the suffering of women and girls.

That is sick beyond belief and what is even worse is you are defending that, which makes you a defender of inequality

What next, are you going to accomadate FGM as well, being as it is believed to be a religious practice by some sects?

I will take this one step further on what I stated about earlier when you open up the door to accomadate inequality based off beliefs, that conflict with Liberal Values

Based on both Quill and Sassy's view to accomadate beliefs based. Then they would then also have to defend the Klu Klux Klan, who designates itself as a religious organisation being able to then have also segregation in public places. Being as it is also a Far Right white Supremacy group. Then they could call for white only swimming sessions in public Pools. Both would have to then defend this, because it bases itself as a religious organisation and they are plenty more such extremist racist Christian organisations in the US. Not only that Apartheid also had Christian Churches who were also active in the promotion of this discrimination. Which would mean both would have to accomadate this based off religious beliefs.

Christianity became a powerful influence in South Africa, often uniting large numbers of people in a common faith. In the twentieth century, however, several Christian churches actively promoted racial divisions through the political philosophy of apartheid. The largest of these denominations was the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk--NGK), which came to be known as the "official religion" of the National Party during the apartheid era. Its four main branches had more than 3 million members in 1,263 congregations in the 1990s.

Church members in South Africa generally resisted liberal trends that arose in Europe in the nineteenth century, but rifts occurred in the church in 1853 with the formation of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk (also translated, the Dutch Reformed Church), and in 1859, with the formation of the Gereformeerde Kerk van Suid-Afrika (the Reformed Church of South Africa). The NGK is generally referred to as the Dutch Reformed Church, and these two newer churches are also referred to as Dutch Reformed churches.

The principle is exactly the same.
This is why those who are regressive cannot claim to be people who uphold what I would class as left wing values. They have created something Far left, that stands against Liberal principles

didge wrote:I could not give a shit about the US, this is the UK where we have equality, unlike where you have states that create laws based on religion. So put your own house in order before trying to impose inequality in the UK, we are a progressive country, unlike the US which is years behind

Apparently not, as this case is one in point.  You also don't believe in Freedom of Expression, as you pass laws indiscriminately abridging freedom of speech.  It's the same type of thing, cherry-picking which right you respect.

didge wrote:Again the very aspect of segregation goes against the very principles of liberal values and you are defending discrimination based off either principles

I agree.  I am not defending anything, but telling you the facts.

didge wrote:I mean imagine this for one second based on the beliefs of some Islamic sects
If this deity existed
Either he is incompetant that he would have created men with a flaw they have such uncontrollable desires, that now women suffer by having to cover up (based on a misguided belief it will protect them) to prevent sexual harrasement all the way to cases of rape, which even then provides an excuse in Islam for rape. Even though women covered up are raped anyway by sex offenders.

I agree.

didge wrote:Or this deity deliberately created men this way and knowingly created a vastly increased possibilty and risk of women being raped. Thus vastly increasing the suffering of women and girls.

I agree.

didge wrote:That is sick beyond belief and what is even worse is you are defending that, which makes you a defender of inequality

I agree.  But again, I am not defending anything, but telling you the facts.

didge wrote:What next, are you going to accomadate FGM as well, being as it is believed to be a religious practice by some sects?

Exactly as you say, and for the record, I agree.  The Jewish accommodation allows the genital mutilation of unconsenting 3-day old children, and justifies it on religious grounds.  FGS, they go in there and lop off a part of the penis, which in my estimation is the same as a partial clitorectomy.   The law protects this practice--the worst of all--on religious grounds, and does not blink an eye while saying so.

The only thing I don’t agree with you on is you raise this objection only when Muslim practices are at issue.  If you opposed all such unlawful and discriminatory religious practices, you and I would be in complete accord.  But I think it is also discrimination for you to selectively raise your indignation only when one religion is at issue, but not the others.

Original Quill wrote:

Apparently not, as this case is one in point.


Exactly as you say, and for the record, I agree.  The Jewish accommodation allows the genital mutilation of unconsenting 3-day old children, and justifies it on religious grounds.  FGS, they go in there and lop off a part of the penis, which in my estimation is the same as a partial clitorectomy.   The law protects this practice--the worst of all--on religious grounds, and does not blink an eye while saying so.

The only thing I don’t agree with you on is you raise this objection only when Muslim practices are at issue.  If you opposed all such unlawful and discriminatory religious practices, you and I would be in complete accord.  But I think it is also discrimination for you to selectively raise your indignation only when one religion is at issue, but not the others.

I do not agree that any parent should be allowed whether Jewish or Muslim to circumcize their children, unless for any child it is a medical requirement, of which in cases it can be for boys
It should be the choice of an adult to decide, but again I would teach progression on this that it is something dated and not required unless medically needed.

This is not just about Muslims, there are also cases of some Orthordox Jews that also discriminate with segregation in the UK. Where they segregate men and women on different sides of the streets and at organisations of which I also condemn.
In this case it is about Muslims, but the same principle applies with each, as in each case it goes against the very principles of our liberal values.

I have no problem about freedom of expression but not when it crosses over into discrimination and prejudice as it does in the US when they create laws in some states based off religious beliefs that discriminate against women, the LGTB and race.

The US is years behind the Uk in regards to progression

I see also you have dropped the poor misconception you had based around public places being places of worship. They may well be to a believer, but are for the general public and thus cannot be classed as a place of worship.

You are preaching to the Choir when you espouse liberal principles of anti-discrimination and anti-segregation. I am on your side.

The reason why I agree with you so vociferously is that there is a movement afoot in this country for conservatives to use the First Amendment religious freedom as a shield to combat LBGT rights. This movement has gotten several judges in the south to issue injunctions against laws prohibiting discrimination against gays. To restate this, the courts are saying you have a religious right to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

It is only a small step--a little hop up the ladder--to saying that one has a religious right to discriminate against blacks and Asians. After all, if one holds it is unclean to bath with women, why not blacks or Filipinos? It's the slippery slope argument, but this time justified.

I have seen Muslim men kneeling and praying in various places, Blackpool funfair being the most odd......but he was entitled to do that, not bothering anyone else and no one bothered him.
He didn't encroach on anyone elses freedom to enjoy the public amenities though, which is surely the point.

Didge wrote:I see also you have dropped the poor misconception you had based around public places being places of worship. They may well be to a believer, but are for the general public and thus cannot be classed as a place of worship.

No, I haven't dropped that at all. It's a different part of the doctrine. Have you adopted the idea that one can be a religious person only inside the chapel....once outside its doors, you grow horns?! Ludicrous.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I see also you have dropped the poor misconception you had based around public places being places of worship. They may well be to a believer, but are for the general public and thus cannot be classed as a place of worship.

No, I haven't dropped that at all.  It's a different part of the doctrine.  Have you adopted the idea that one can be a religious person only inside the chapel....once outside its doors, you grow horns?!  Ludicrous.  

Read Syl's post as she sums it up perfectly.
Again I am not disputing where a religious person will feel anywhere could be religious for them, that though is not going to be classed by others as religious and hence why we have religious places of worship.
A public swimming Pool is not designated as a place of worship, but a public place to everyone.
If they want to pray there, then by all means I have have no objection, but the minute you start to impose beliefs that conflict with our liberal values on equality. Then that is discrimination based off a belief that discriminates based on gender

Original Quill wrote:You are preaching to the Choir when you espouse liberal principles of anti-discrimination and anti-segregation.  I am on your side.

The reason why I agree with you so vociferously is that there is a movement afoot in this country for conservatives to use the First Amendment religious freedom as a shield to combat LBGT rights.  This movement has gotten several judges in the south to issue injunctions against laws prohibiting discrimination against gays.  To restate this, the courts are saying you have a religious right to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

It is only a small step--a little hop up the ladder--to saying that one has a religious right to discriminate against blacks and Asians.  After all, if one holds it is unclean to bath with women, why not blacks or Filipinos?  It's the slippery slope argument, but this time justified.

Like i said, you would by the belief to accomadate based on beliefs through a religious organisation, open up the door to white supremacy groups discriminating based on white only swimming sessons. Hence beliefs should never conflict with the well being and equality of people.
Equality means everyone to have the same rights under the law
This is not equality though is it?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, I haven't dropped that at all.  It's a different part of the doctrine.  Have you adopted the idea that one can be a religious person only inside the chapel....once outside its doors, you grow horns?!  Ludicrous.  

Read Syl's post as she sums it up perfectly.

Syl articulates the principle the "reasonable time and place" doctrine, which we too have in our Constitutional Law with respect to demonstrations. Of course, then there is the question of what is a reasonable time and place. We could pass laws that say circumcisions may only be permitted when clinically justified, and only in hospitals, but by a licensed physician. There goes the Jewish mohel. Or, public bathrooms must not discriminate; and there goes separate bathrooms. Haircuts, clothing, gender-separate schools...all questions that would have to be litigated in our courts (and yours).

It is not equitable to simply accept the past practices. Reasonable time and place would have to be rewritten, and of course arbitrarily imposed.

didge wrote:Again I am not disputing where a religious person will feel anywhere could be religious for them, that though is not going to be classed by others as religious and hence why we have religious places of worship.

Here you go again, playing the authority card. Who made you dictator? Or do you mean we all have a national vote ("classed by others") of where is the proper place or practice of worship.

didge wrote:A public swimming Pool is not designated as a place of worship, but a public place to everyone.
If they want to pray there, then by all means I have have no objection, but the minute you start to impose beliefs that conflict with our liberal values on equality. Then that is discrimination based off a belief that discriminates based on gender

So, equality is the incisive value? Equality is a tricky bedfellow. We violate equality anytime we treat anyone differently. When you choose a friend, are you not treating others unequally? Indeed, marriage is the ultimate inequality, where you choose one person, and exclude all others. As John Schaar wrote: " Inequality, while it may be the root of much that is cruel and hateful in human life, is also the root of just about everything that is admirable and interesting." Schaar, John, Some Ways of Thinking About Equality, The Journal of Politics (1964).

As I said above, you would have to legislate a whole new set of laws if you wanted to impose a system where equality applies, and where it does not. You can't arbitrarily say this is, or is not the place for worship. A lot of things offend our sense of equality, as gender specific public rest rooms demonstrate. So, before you throw out the baby with the bath, be careful what you wish for.

Original Quill wrote:


It is not equitable to simply accept the past practices.  Reasonable time and place would have to be rewritten, and of course arbitrarily imposed.

Here you go again, playing the authority card.  Who made you dictator?  Or do you mean we all have a national vote ("classed by others") of where is the proper place or practice of worship.

So, equality is the incisive value?  Equality is a tricky bedfellow.  We violate equality anytime we treat anyone differently.  When you choose a friend, are you not treating others unequally?  Indeed, marriage is the ultimate inequality, where you choose one person, and exclude all others.  As John Schaar wrote: " Inequality, while it may be the root of much that is cruel and hateful in human life, is also the root of just about everything that is admirable and interesting."  Schaar, John, Some Ways of Thinking About Equality, The Journal of Politics (1964).

As I said above, you would have to legislate a whole new set of laws if you wanted to impose a system where equality applies, and where it does not.  You can't arbitrarily say this is, or is not the place for worship.  A lot of things offend our sense of equality, as gender specific public rest rooms demonstrate.  So, before you throw out the baby with the bath, be careful what you wish for.

Again you are going off US priniplces not the the UK or the ECHR,. which are far more progressive than the US when it comes to religious beliefs, where they do accomadate as long as they do not conflict with equality, which you still fail to grasp.
Your first point was based on gibbeirish and then accuse me of being a dictator when I am going off Uk and ECHR laws.
You are the one trying to accomadate a practice that goes against the very principles of liberal values and even worse ones born from a religious belief that is based off faith and not reason. One that fundementally discriminates based on gender which is also of a view that treats women as if at faults for the sexual desire of men, offering up a poor excuse as well over sexual offenses.
Equality is not a tricky fellow, when it is apllied to all under the law and its actually very simple to apply.
It only becomes problematic to the demands of religious groups.

This is what you are failing to grasp, as it is born from those with these beliefs that are trying to dictate their beliefs onto a society that has liberal values. So to say we violate equality when we choose a friend, no we do not, as it has no bases that we have to chose what friend we have based on equality. Again the principle of equality is all are "treated" equally under the law, not what people chose themselves. using that principle is going down the road of forced marriage, to have forced friendship. You do not have to be friends with someone, but you cannot activelly discriminate against them under the law in the workplace for example, in a shop etc, based on race, sex, gender, etc. Not being a friend does not break the law. You are trying poorly to apply equality principles to aspects that a law is not required, so your point is inherantly absurd and daft. Equality laws are there to help protect against discrimination. Where making friends is something people may not wish to even do, that is a personal choice which does not effect anyone else but the individuals.

You can carry on with the same nonsense but these are the simple facts.

A public place is open to all memeber os the general public.
That means it is not a place that can be designated a place of worship.
We have laws against gender discrimination.
Religious beliefs do not superscede equality laws outside religious worship.
Hence to segregate based of religious worship, is discrimination in a public swimming pool

Swimming pool should be open to everyone every evening.

Didge, your ideas on this thread demonstrate a certain inelasticity of thinking.  You are unable to break out of certain numbing categories and hackneyed methods.

You begin at the second rung of your thinking, and never question the first rung.  That is precisely where you drift off course.  What is it you are talking about when you are speaking of equality?  You say: “equality is all are "treated" equally under the law, not what people chose themselves.”  Are people not allowed to choose religions for themselves?  And aren’t religions supposed to be treated equally?  The problem is you are used to the church, but not to the mosque; consequently, you cannot respect the religious practices of Islam, yet you readily accommodate the religious practices of Christianity.

You state: “You do not have to be friends with someone, but you cannot activelly discriminate against them under the law in the workplace for example, in a shop etc, based on race, sex, gender, etc.”  Here again, with your stultifying categories.  So, you’re saying no one can be friends at work?  Workplace friendship, and rancor, take place all the time.  There is nothing illegal about it.  So, too, can religious practices be respected at work.

“Religious beliefs do not supersede equality laws outside religious worship.”  Astounding.  Dictator didge now tells us that equal protection is now a higher order of right than religion.  Whew.

You haven’t got much experience with antinomies.  Contradictions in the law occur every day.  Where and how to worship can conflict with the workplace, the restaurant, the hotel, even swimming in the pool.  The world is much more complex than you realize.

Still waiting for someone to define exactly what these claimed 'cultural reasons' are to justify this hijacking of a public swimming pool...!?

Original Quill wrote:Didge, your ideas on this thread demonstrate a certain inelasticity of thinking.  You are unable to break out of certain numbing categories and hackneyed methods.

You begin at the second rung of your thinking, and never question the first rung.  That is precisely where you drift off course.  What is it you are talking about when you are speaking of equality?  You say: “equality is all are "treated" equally under the law, not what people chose themselves.”  Are people not allowed to choose religions for themselves?  And aren’t religions supposed to be treated equally?  The problem is you are used to the church, but not to the mosque; consequently, you cannot respect the religious practices of Islam, yet you readily accommodate the religious practices of Christianity.

You state: “You do not have to be friends with someone, but you cannot activelly discriminate against them under the law in the workplace for example, in a shop etc, based on race, sex, gender, etc.”  Here again, with your stultifying categories.  So, you’re saying no one can be friends at work?  Workplace friendship, and rancor, take place all the time.  There is nothing illegal about it.  So, too, can religious practices be respected at work.

“Religious beliefs do not supersede equality laws outside religious worship.”  Astounding.  Dictator didge now tells us that equal protection is now a higher order of right than religion.  Whew.

You haven’t got much experience with antinomies.  Contradictions in the law occur every day.  Where and how to worship can conflict with the workplace, the restaurant, the hotel, even swimming in the pool.  The world is much more complex than you realize.

1) Quill you are basing things on your line of thinking

2) No it was you that drifted off course and off the entire debate by ignoring the simple facts, which as of yet you have failed to disprove that it is gender discrimination. So much so you have gone silent on the law in regards to religious worship as you know you are wrong and have changed to the most absurd views based around friendship, which has no application with equality under the law. So people do not have to be friends at work. There is no case where they have to, they have to treat each other without discrimination, which as long as it does not conflict with their work, is not inequality. If they refused to speak to each other when the job required that they do, then it would be then crossing over into aspects of work, which cover equality. Friendship is not a requirement in the workplace.

3) Again you try something the left continually do, mislead.
I never said religious beliefs do not superscede equality, but equality laws. So again you try to skew what is said to then turn the debate about me and do this poorly knowing you are losing the debate which is evident. No religious belief is above the law in this country. Hence no religious belief superscedes equality laws. That is why no Political belief either superscedes equality laws either, the point you fail to grasp

4) So again you fail to see main points here:

a) This religious practice is based off beliefs that conflict with the well being and equality of others. That means they are prejudiced.
b) That does not allow for equality under the law
c) A public place is accessable to the general public
d) The demand has come from the religious people from this religious group to accomadate them. Thus they are trying to dictate their beliefs onto others, not the other way round.
e) They could of course attempt to have the law changed, which will never happen, because many people follow secular principles based on rational reason not faith, which has no evidence and is born from the views of people 1600 years ago, which have vastly changed since then and thank goodness. As to open this door would then allow for inequality on everything.
f) This is about the law and its also about the fact no belief should effect the well being and equality of others within that society, espcially when its formed from discrimination and misogyny, but most of all against the law.
g) If anything we should be teaching why this belief is poor and based on the logical reasons I gave based off the belief itself.

Okay let me get this straight; if the pool were to be closed for nuns - would that be ok?

eddie wrote:Okay let me get this straight; if the pool were to be closed for nuns - would that be ok?

No

Why not? I wouldn't mind if a pool closed for two hours, say, one evening a week, so that certain people could swim there.
They do it for OAP's in my nearest pool and I don't have a problem with it tbh.

eddie wrote:Why not? I wouldn't mind if a pool closed for two hours, say, one evening a week, so that certain people could swim there.
They do it for OAP's in my nearest pool and I don't have a problem with it tbh.

That is up to you if you do not mind.
I would also be surprised if Nuns did anyway being as they believe they are basically married to their God and place their time and energy in helping others and their time to God themselves.
Again there will be genuine reasons why sometimes for some groups due to safety like with elderly or disabled or pregnant mums, why you would have seperate sessions. Its again based on a valid reason.
Relligious beliefs is not a valid reason to discriminate

Also Eddie, as i have pointed out numereous times, when you open up the door to allow for discrimination, not based on reason but beliefs. Then you open up the door to countless more groups demanding the same. Would you be happy to have a white suprmacist Christian group have a whites only swimming session?

Didge wrote:Also Eddie, as i have pointed out numereous times, when you open up the door to allow for discrimination, not based on reason but beliefs. Then you open up the door to countless more groups demanding the same. Would you be happy to have a white suprmacist Christian group have a whites only swimming session?

No I wouldn't be happy because they're people who's views I dislike intensely.
But if you say no to one, it has to be no to all, and that includes OAP's and certain other needy groups.

Tommy Monk wrote:Still waiting for someone to define exactly what these claimed 'cultural reasons' are to justify this hijacking of a public swimming pool...!?

There should be no cultural reasons. Not in this day and age. Patriarchal shit.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:Also Eddie, as i have pointed out numereous times, when you open up the door to allow for discrimination, not based on reason but beliefs. Then you open up the door to countless more groups demanding the same. Would you be happy to have a white suprmacist Christian group have a whites only swimming session?

No I wouldn't be happy because they're people who's views I dislike intensely.
But if you say no to one, it has to be no to all, and that includes OAP's and certain other needy groups.

Wrong again, because one is based around safety which is a valid reason.


So where we have one religious groups that os gender discrimination and one racial disrimination and both religious, its in no way a case for an exception. With the elderly, the disable, parents and new babies, pregnant mothers all will have aspcts of safety attached to having such sessions on their own which would reduce risk due to safety.

That's a fair enough point I guess. I have no answer to that.

Like I said, personally speaking, it doesn't really bother me as I work around other groups of people in the swimming timetable.

My local baths used to close for 1 hour a week for people to bring their pets, bastards wouldn't let me in with my cow.

eddie wrote:That's a fair enough point I guess. I have no answer to that.

Like I said, personally speaking, it doesn't really bother me as I work around other groups of people in the swimming timetable.

No worries Eddie, like I say, its when you make exceptions to beliefs, that problems arise and equality goes out of the window.
Which we have seen some attempts of this in the US with certain laws in states being passed.

Still waiting for someone to actually define what these so called 'cultural reasons' are exactly...?

You need to ask zack, that's what he said.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Didge, your ideas on this thread demonstrate a certain inelasticity of thinking.  You are unable to break out of certain numbing categories and hackneyed methods.

You begin at the second rung of your thinking, and never question the first rung.  That is precisely where you drift off course.  What is it you are talking about when you are speaking of equality?  You say: “equality is all are "treated" equally under the law, not what people chose themselves.”  Are people not allowed to choose religions for themselves?  And aren’t religions supposed to be treated equally?  The problem is you are used to the church, but not to the mosque; consequently, you cannot respect the religious practices of Islam, yet you readily accommodate the religious practices of Christianity.

You state: “You do not have to be friends with someone, but you cannot activelly discriminate against them under the law in the workplace for example, in a shop etc, based on race, sex, gender, etc.”  Here again, with your stultifying categories.  So, you’re saying no one can be friends at work?  Workplace friendship, and rancor, take place all the time.  There is nothing illegal about it.  So, too, can religious practices be respected at work.

“Religious beliefs do not supersede equality laws outside religious worship.”  Astounding.  Dictator didge now tells us that equal protection is now a higher order of right than religion.  Whew.

You haven’t got much experience with antinomies.  Contradictions in the law occur every day.  Where and how to worship can conflict with the workplace, the restaurant, the hotel, even swimming in the pool.  The world is much more complex than you realize.

1) Quill you are basing things on your line of thinking

2) No it was you that drifted off course and off the entire debate by ignoring the simple facts, which as of yet you have failed to disprove that it is gender discrimination.

What on earth are you talking about?  "Disprove gender discrimination???  What, that it exists.  That it is wrong?  That it is illegal?  This is what I mean about starting on the second rung of the ladder.  You are already talking about something (???) but you fail to inform us of what.

didge wrote:So much so you have gone silent on the law in regards to religious worship as you know you are wrong and have changed to the most absurd views based around friendship, which has no application with equality under the law.

Did you even read Shaar's article?  If not, you don't even know what is going on in this conversation.  He explains the friendship case, which after all is only an example.  

The point is that if you make equality your sum and total moral right, then you have no room for other quality-of-life values.  Other values are important.  One of those other values is religion.  Another is due process of law...we certainly do a lot of exclusions for that value...evidence, witnesses, jurys, there are exclusions in due process everywhere.  You don't have an equal right to introduce ill-gotten evidence.

didge wrote:So people do not have to be friends at work. There is no case where they have to, they have to treat each other without discrimination, which as long as it does not conflict with their work, is not inequality.

You have no idea about the dimensions of equality, do you?  You are unable to clear your thoughts and approach the subject on a purely analytical basis.  The point is not do you have to be friends at work, but quite the opposite, can you permit friends at work?  With each friend, aren't you being discriminatory?

didge wrote:If they refused to speak to each other when the job required that they do, then it would be then crossing over into aspects of work, which cover equality. Friendship is not a requirement in the workplace.

It's not a requirement, but the question is, is it prohibited?  If an employer makes friends with an employee, isn't that discrimination in the raw sense of the word?  Doesn't friendship involve differing treatment.  How about if the employee is female...you don't see that lawsuit coming?

didge wrote:3) Again you try something the left continually do, mislead.

It's not misleading to make a point by use of examples.  You have difficulty sorting your logic, that's all.  An example is a kind of metaphor, and metaphors have entailments which you must catch. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By. When you give an example, you are not saying that is the case, but it is a similar case.

didge wrote:I never said religious beliefs do not superscede equality, but equality laws.So again you try to skew what is said to then turn the debate about me and do this poorly knowing you are losing the debate which is evident.

I never said you did.  I was arguing that they both have equal weight, and when they conflict you have an antinomy.  ('Skew' is not the right word, you mean 'twist'; 'skew' means non-parallel.)  I'm not making the debate about you; I carefully phrased it to say your answer on this thread is amiss ("Your ideas on this thread demonstrate a certain inelasticity of thinking...")  I agree that we should not be condemning someone for being wrong one time.

didge wrote: No religious belief is above the law in this country. Hence no religious belief superscedes equality laws. That is why no Political belief either superscedes equality laws either, the point you fail to grasp

I'm not saying that any one value supersedes the other.  I'm saying that we have an antimony, and there are persons out in our respective societies that are playing games to place the religious right above the right to equality.  I am just trying to get you to realize that, and perhaps we could have a meaningful discussion about that.

didge wrote:4) So again you fail to see main points here:

a) This religious practice is based off beliefs that conflict with the well being and equality of others. That means they are prejudiced.

Or, perhaps it is the equality value that is prejudiced.  Think about it.  Doesn't individual equality infringe on a religion, or a religious person's right to practice religion freely?  Which one is more important?  Justify your answer.

didge wrote:b) That does not allow for equality under the law

Nor, in this case, does it allow for freedom of religion under that law.

didge wrote:c) A public place is accessable to the general public

Are you saying that no one can freely and openly practice a religion in a public place?

didge wrote:d) The demand has come from the religious people from this religious group to accomadate them. Thus they are trying to dictate their beliefs onto others, not the other way round.

Alternatively, others are trying to dictate to them that they can't practice their religion in a public place.  Do you feel comfortable cherry-picking which right is the better right?

didge wrote:e) They could of course attempt to have the law changed, which will never happen, because many people follow secular principles based on rational reason not faith, which has no evidence and is born from the views of people 1600 years ago, which have vastly changed since then and thank goodness. As to open this door would then allow for inequality on everything.

It is odd hearing this from you, because you are the one with a national religion.  In this country we have a Constitutional provision prohibiting a state religion.  Only in the US do we have and equality and a religious right of equal proportions.

didge wrote:f) This is about the law and its also about the fact no belief should effect the well being and equality of others within that society, espcially when its formed from discrimination and misogyny, but most of all against the law.

Well in fact I agree with that, but it really doesn't address the point.  What do you say about the guy who says he has a religious right not to swim with unclean Christians...or homosexuals...or women?  He says that you are infringing on his right.  Let's say he owns the swimming pool and wants to exclude LGBT people?  What then?

didge wrote:g) If anything we should be teaching why this belief is poor and based on the logical reasons I gave based off the belief itself.

Are you saying that religion is a poor belief?  Or just this religion?  I don't dispute that religion is an unsound metaphysical philosophy, but I stop short of saying that people have no right to practice their religious beliefs.  

As far as the competition between equality and religion as values, I wouldn't want to toss religion altogether...but I think I agree with you that equality is primary...religion is only secondary.  That's my belief...but others might think differently.

Never laughed so hard in all my life.

Gender discrimination exist based on equality laws

Shall we first of all bfore moviong onto anything accept that these are in place?

Yes or No

Shall we also accept as you have anyway based on the belief of Islam, that the reason for the segregation is based of a viw to demean women and blame them for the desires of men? That they are required in Islam not to be within close to each other?

Yes or No?

Equalitl laws means "all" treated equally under the law

In this case are people being treated equally under the law on gender or even based on Non-Muslim?

No

They are having their demands met that then closes the pools to their direct needs based off religion

Its not against the law to make friends with people at work full stop

You were misleading as well again

Answer these first points then we shall continue with the rest of your gibberish

Didge wrote:Never laughed so hard in all my life.

Gender discrimination exist based on equality laws

Shall we first of all bfore moviong onto anything accept that these are in place?

Yes or No

Are you saying that you take your stand against religion because it is not a law? In your country there is a state religion. Isn't that a law?

didge wrote:Shall we also accept as you have anyway based on the belief of Islam, that the reason for the segregation is based of a viw to deman women and blame them for the desires of men? That they are required in Islam not to be within close to each other?

Yes or No?

Or, shall we accept that you base your opposition to religion on the fact that religions differ, and they don't conform to your beliefs? Religions do believe in differences between men and women, but I would neither reject all religions, nor try to amend a religion because of a belief in the difference.

didge wrote:Equalitl laws means "all" treated equally under the law

So, if I follow you...no friends, no marriage...all equal and treated the same. That's what you are saying, isn't it?

didge wrote:In this case are people being treated equally under the law on gender or even based on Non-Muslim?

No

In the case of public rest rooms, are people being treated equally under the law on gender?

didge wrote:Its not against the law to make friends with people at work full stop

No, but it is treating them unequally. A lot of work discrimination, for example, navigates around who gets to go out to lunch with the boss. Many gender discrimination suits have to do with the good old boy network. Would you be in favor of prohibiting all fraternization with the boss at work? It would go a long ways toward eliminating discrimination.

Yes or No.

As to your answers to my letter bullet poiints you are just repeating the same things already explained


This is a public place

Its there for the general public

The law is equality for all under the law

This is not  aplace of worship, though people can pray there if they so wish as it does not effect anyone.

Segregating gender does effect people and is thus imposing religious beliefs onto others and is thus then gender discrimination

Its thus then religious people imposing their beliefs onto otherss

Thus it is they who are trying to allow for more rights than other citizens who are not believers. That is ineqaulity.

Like I say your views would apply to the following


I will take this one step further on what I stated about earlier when you open up the door to accomadate inequality based off beliefs, that conflict with Liberal Values

Based on both Quill and Sassy's view to accomadate beliefs based. Then they would then also have to defend the Klu Klux Klan, who designates itself as a religious organisation being able to then have also segregation in public places. Being as it is also a Far Right white Supremacy group. Then they could call for white only swimming sessions in public Pools. Both would have to then defend this, because it bases itself as a religious organisation and they are plenty more such extremist racist Christian organisations in the US. Not only that Apartheid also had Christian Churches who were also active in the promotion of this discrimination. Which would mean both would have to accomadate this based off religious beliefs.

   Christianity became a powerful influence in South Africa, often uniting large numbers of people in a common faith. In the twentieth century, however, several Christian churches actively promoted racial divisions through the political philosophy of apartheid. The largest of these denominations was the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk--NGK), which came to be known as the "official religion" of the National Party during the apartheid era. Its four main branches had more than 3 million members in 1,263 congregations in the 1990s.

   Church members in South Africa generally resisted liberal trends that arose in Europe in the nineteenth century, but rifts occurred in the church in 1853 with the formation of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk (also translated, the Dutch Reformed Church), and in 1859, with the formation of the Gereformeerde Kerk van Suid-Afrika (the Reformed Church of South Africa). The NGK is generally referred to as the Dutch Reformed Church, and these two newer churches are also referred to as Dutch Reformed churches.


The principle is exactly the same.
This is why those who are regressive cannot claim to be people who uphold what I would class as left wing values. They have created something Far left, that stands against Liberal principles

Original Quill wrote:
Are you saying that you take your stand against religion because it is not a law?  In your country there is a state religion.  Isn't that a law?

Or, shall we accept that you base your opposition to religion on the fact that religions differ, and they don't conform to your beliefs?  Religions do believe in differences between men and women, but I would neither reject all religions, nor try to amend a religion because of a belief in the difference.

So, if I follow you...no friends, no marriage...all equal and treated the same.  That's what you are saying, isn't it?


In the case of public rest rooms, are people being treated equally under the law on gender?


No, but it is treating them unequally.  A lot of work discrimination, for example, navigates around who gets to go out to lunch with the boss.  Many gender discrimination suits have to do with the good old boy network.  Would you be in favor of prohibiting all fraternization with the boss at work?  It would go a long ways toward eliminating discrimination.

1) I am against bad beliefs and all for progressive religions Bad beliefs are ones that discriminate against people and are prejudice, that lead to hate and often violence

2) You never answered any of the questions lol

3) Its not about my beliefs but what is equality for all people under the law. This religious belief is attemoting to superscede the law and allow for privalidges based off something that discriminates of which earlier you agree does towards women.

4)Attraction is not something you can control. Can you make yourself attracted to a man Quill? If you think you can force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not, does that mean its inequality? Hence why I am laughing so hard at the despration of your answers. Equality would apply on marriage if people were being prevented to marry say due to their gender, race sexuality ect.

5) So you are not following me at all, mainly as your are desperate to attempt to find anything to justify gender discrimination, which is ironic as certain such laws have been passed recently in the us which have done just this,

6) In this country they are being treated equally, we even have many unisex toielts as well, nice poor deflection, one where you attmpt to justify discrimination if you can find some discrimination. That is pricless flawed reasoning

7) There is gender discrimination at work with salaries at times of which people are fighting to correct, but again the same flawed principle applies here, if there is not equality and people are figihting for equalit to happen, you are fighting for inequality here and allowing a group to have more rights than others, where you are imposing their beliefs onto others

I also know now you are arguing for the sake of arguing , but am happy to continue, as all you are doing is trying to desprately find fault in anything I said by inferring aspcts to things I have not said. That is what is making this very funny now.
So thank you

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Are you saying that you take your stand against religion because it is not a law?  In your country there is a state religion.  Isn't that a law?

Or, shall we accept that you base your opposition to religion on the fact that religions differ, and they don't conform to your beliefs?  Religions do believe in differences between men and women, but I would neither reject all religions, nor try to amend a religion because of a belief in the difference.

So, if I follow you...no friends, no marriage...all equal and treated the same.  That's what you are saying, isn't it?


In the case of public rest rooms, are people being treated equally under the law on gender?


No, but it is treating them unequally.  A lot of work discrimination, for example, navigates around who gets to go out to lunch with the boss.  Many gender discrimination suits have to do with the good old boy network.  Would you be in favor of prohibiting all fraternization with the boss at work?  It would go a long ways toward eliminating discrimination.

1) I am against bad beliefs and all for progressive religions Bad beliefs are ones that discriminate against people and are prejudice, that lead to hate and often violence

So, you are against "bad beliefs", which are those that discriminate against people and are prejudice [sic], that lead to hate and war? So you don't like marriage and you don't like having friends, because those are "bad beliefs" that discriminate against people? And you don't think the US should support Israel because that might lead to war.

I'm pretty much in agreement there.

didge wrote:2) You never answered any of the questions lol

I answered the ones that I could understand. Those I couldn't understand, I told you why. Some of them were rhetorical questions, and they got rhetorical answers.

didge wrote:3) Its not about my beliefs but what is equality for all people under the law. This religious belief is attemoting to superscede the law and allow for privalidges based off something that discriminates of which earlier you agree does towards women.

I understand most of your typos, but what does "attemoting" mean? I gather you just don't like religions. I can understand that...but doesn't the UK have a state religion. How do you feel about that?

didge wrote:4)Attraction is not something you can control. Can you make yourself attracted to a man Quill? If you think you can force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not, does that mean its inequality? Hence why I am laughing so hard at the despration of your answers.

Where did this 'attraction' thing come from? Are you alluding to some sexology treatise?

didge wrote:Equality would apply on marriage if people were being prevented to marry say due to their gender, race sexuality ect.

But isn't marriage itself against equality. Don't you, when you marry, choose to discriminate against those whom you did not marry? I mean, if you stand for absolute equality, then you would want to eliminate inequality, right?

didge wrote:5) So you are not following me at all, mainly as your are desperate to attempt to find anything to justify gender discrimination, which is ironic as certain such laws have been passed recently in the us which have done just this,

Aw didge, you cut me to the quick. I said I am against gender discrimination. I only said that the right to religious freedom was in competition with equality. The religious freedom right is being used to discriminate against people in the south...it's only a matter of time before it is used to keep blacks out of restaurants.

didge wrote:6) In this country they are being treated equally, we even have many unisex toielts as well, nice poor deflection, one where you attmpt to justify discrimination if you can find some discrimination. That is pricless flawed reasoning

We have unisex bathrooms, too. Hilarious, some of the stories you hear. Yes, I agree with you that genderless rest rooms are the wave of the future. But we're two guys...I don't know if the women agree.

didge wrote:7) There is gender discrimination at work with salaries at times of which people are fighting to correct, but again the same flawed principle applies here, if there is not equality and people are figihting for equalit to happen, you are fighting for inequality here and allowing a group to have more rights than others, where you are imposing their beliefs onto others

So, you think that women who want pay equity are imposing their beliefs on others? Maybe you are right; maybe the women bring it on themselves. After all, if they demanded more, they would get more, right? The squeaky wheel gets the oil...and all that. Besides, they should be home having babies, eh?

1) Already explained in previous post what they are based on, please stop wasting my time when you keep doing this everytime. What has Israel got to do with this and religious beliefs? If you are against the US funding Israel then seek to change the law to then stop funding any country that is deemed abusing human rights and discriminates. As then if you only single out one country, then you discriminate yourself based on the grounds of racism. So are you racist against Israel? You then enact desperation again and claim I am against marriage and friends.
Based on no sound evidence. Typical regessive claim lol

2) lol they were straight forward yes and no answers

3) Not much as the state religion does not effct anyone and the word was attempting, so you can deflected yet again

4) Irrelevant, I asked you the question whether you can be attracted to someone or not by force of position, ie can you be attracted to a male or someone you are not attracted to? You then avoid the question because you know I am correct. The point is on forcing friendships, which again the issue is on discrimination on people not being allowed to marry based on discrimination.
So you again failed to answer, quelle surprise lol
Try again an answer please.
Can you make yourself physically and sexually attracted to a man Quill or every single woman on the planet? If you think you can force yourself to be attracted to someone you are not, does that mean its inequality?


5) No, as how is it discrimination to marry based on mutual consenting love? Forced marriage is inequality, denying two people in love to marry anf forcing someone to marry they do not love or even are attracted to.Again your viw on freindship is not applied into law for the simple reason it has no bases for and is a compltly moot point you are again desperate on trying to find something so irrelevant to find something youi can champion. Please knock yourself out lol.

6) lol you are backtracking and again religious beliefs endorse gender discrimination

7) Copout answer that is now about 7 questions you have again failed to answer

8  PMSL, if they do not have equality on pay, has is this imposing when they have not obtained equality? So no I do not think it is imposing where equality has not been obtain, its attempting to tackle discrimination.

So basically you failed to answer the questions and I will give you one last chance or you are out of the game, as I know exactly what you are up to and you are not in my league to do that, not by a long shot


Gender discrimination exist based on equality laws

Shall we first of all bfore moviong onto anything accept that these are in place?

Yes or No

Shall we also accept as you have anyway based on the belief of Islam, that the reason for the segregation is based of a viw to demean women and blame them for the desires of men? That they are required in Islam not to be within close to each other?

Yes or No?

Equalitl laws means "all" treated equally under the law

In this case are people being treated equally under the law on gender or even based on Non-Muslim?

No

They are having their demands met that then closes the pools to their direct needs based off religion

Its not against the law to make friends with people at work full stop

You were misleading as well again

Answer these first points then we shall continue with the rest of your gibberish

a)This is a public place

b)Its there for the general public

c)The law is equality for all under the law

d)This is not  aplace of worship, though people can pray there if they so wish as it does not effect anyone.

e)Segregating gender does effect people and is thus imposing religious beliefs onto others and is thus then gender discrimination

f)Its thus then religious people imposing their beliefs onto otherss

g)Thus it is they who are trying to allow for more rights than other citizens who are not believers. That is ineqaulity.

h)Like I say your views would apply to the following


I will take this one step further on what I stated about earlier when you open up the door to accomadate inequality based off beliefs, that conflict with Liberal Values

Based on both Quill and Sassy's view to accomadate beliefs based. Then they would then also have to defend the Klu Klux Klan, who designates itself as a religious organisation being able to then have also segregation in public places. Being as it is also a Far Right white Supremacy group. Then they could call for white only swimming sessions in public Pools. Both would have to then defend this, because it bases itself as a religious organisation and they are plenty more such extremist racist Christian organisations in the US. Not only that Apartheid also had Christian Churches who were also active in the promotion of this discrimination. Which would mean both would have to accomadate this based off religious beliefs.

  

Christianity became a powerful influence in South Africa, often uniting large numbers of people in a common faith. In the twentieth century, however, several Christian churches actively promoted racial divisions through the political philosophy of apartheid. The largest of these denominations was the Dutch Reformed Church (Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk--NGK), which came to be known as the "official religion" of the National Party during the apartheid era. Its four main branches had more than 3 million members in 1,263 congregations in the 1990s.

   Church members in South Africa generally resisted liberal trends that arose in Europe in the nineteenth century, but rifts occurred in the church in 1853 with the formation of the Nederduitsch Hervormde Kerk (also translated, the Dutch Reformed Church), and in 1859, with the formation of the Gereformeerde Kerk van Suid-Afrika (the Reformed Church of South Africa). The NGK is generally referred to as the Dutch Reformed Church, and these two newer churches are also referred to as Dutch Reformed churches.

The principle is exactly the same.
This is why those who are regressive cannot claim to be people who uphold what I would class as left wing values. They have created something Far left, that stands against Liberal principles

Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) ruling against gender segregation in universities and students’ unions.
On 17 July, the EHRC published its guidance on gender segregation, stating that: “Gender segregation is not permitted in any academic meetings or at events, lectures or meetings provided for students, or at events attended by members of the public or employees of the university or the students’ union.”

It is therefore not a religious right to segregate, as like i stated this falls oustide the bounds of religious worship


I have far more will power than you can ever hope to ever obatin

So as the argument has gone circular with you continuing to fail to answer points, they willbe continually postd until you do lol

Good luck, as never seen someone so much contradict himself throughout a debate