Did you actually bother to read that before you sent it?
Proving discrimination
The regulations make it easier for claimants to bring successful discrimination claims by reversing the burden of proof.
The claimant must establish facts which would, in the absence of an adequate explanation from the respondent, lead to a conclusion that they had been discriminated against. It is then for the respondent to show a non-discriminatory reason for its actions.
They must have proof first. They cannot just claim discrimination without proof. It is right there in the link you provided.
I'm beginning to believe you aren't directly "quoting" any laws because you are actually just giving your loose interpretation, like saying it explicitly says no proof is required, when it explicitly says the opposite.
But hey, maybe I am misinterpreting it. If that is the case and your laws allow for guilt to be assigned by a third party without proof then it is clear that any country this law applies to can give up on ever saying they have freedom.
It would not be a manipulation or extortion in my example because i said if it was a truthful and honest claim based on philosophical belief, if someone lied about that then they could be in big trouble, just like falsely claiming rape.
There is so much room for abuse in this kind of system it borders on stupid. Your very example would be abuse of the system.
Perhaps you miss the point that the business should just let the person be served and not have a policy that can discriminate in the first place (even if it is for a dress code). If they cant do that they should not be in a business that provides a service to the public.
I know you claim that you are just being philosophical, but as we are in the opinions thread I am asking you for your opinion on this. My opinion is that what you said above goes against everything I believe about freedom as it suggest that property rights of a business owner are subject to the whims of the public. Even if it kills his business he should have the right to discriminate. If his food is so good that people will pay $50 for a baked potato and wear a $1,000 suit just to get in then the man has earned the right to be picky about who he lets in as clearly his services are in huge demand.
Businesses are not allowed to pick and choose who they serve. Why should they, why is it in the public interest for them to be selective.
Why does business have to be in the public interest? It is in teh profit interest last I checked, or you are a failing business as a pure public interest would offer free services.
It is not justifiable. And if they serve the public they have chosen to put themselves under public scrutiny they cant do as they please.
And the way the market works will allow the public scrutiny to decide if the service he provides are worth the restrictions (price, dress code, etc) he chooses to put in place. Business transactions are 100% voluntary by both parties. The business owner offers a good or service and gives you the cost. You can tell him what cost you are willing to pay. If you both cannot agree the transaction does not happen. If he cannot find enough customers to agree to his terms then he fails as a business. No public interest is involved...
because it is business, not charity.
Requiring people entering a shop to wear shoes for example is legitimate if it relates to hygiene or health and safety.
Or if one person doing it causes you to lose other customers who are grossed out. Or if it grosses you out. It is your property.
