Reader comments · New Look bans gay staff from discount that straight employees can use · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


New Look bans gay staff from discount that straight employees can use

  • Pip

    Who cares as if any self respecting gay would want to shop in New Look

    • Ciaran

      That’s not the point it breaches the Equality Act 2010 that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation the same as race gender and age. Legal action should be taken against them to force them to comply with the law.

      • I would think their defence would be that by requiring the bonus to be for clothing of the opposite sex they are thereby ensuring there is no gender discrimination.

    • Matt Harrison

      Errm I’m gay and I like the clothes I get from New Look and I have plenty of self-respect thank you very much.

    • eden

      wow guess what some lgbt ppl cant afford anything but high street clothing get off your high fashion horse

  • lee

    Take them to court -this is pure discrimination – agree with comment below new look -pass -mind you my mum likes them :)

  • Rob

    I think the title of this article is extremely misleading and is another example of militant gays thinking that they speak for the rest of the gay community. New Look clearly isn’t homophobic and they’ve simply made an error with their staff discount policy.

    • Harry

      I don’t think anyone is saying any more than they have made a mistake.

      • Rob

        You’ve clearly not read the article or the title

      • Evan

        The headline is implying it is a deliberate, discriminatory, homophobic, ban. PinkNews doing very little of the News side. Pure sensationalism.

    • Philip Marks

      can they possibly have had in mind when they came up with this? “…it
      is hard to see what genuine business reasons they could put forward for
      this rule.”

      So what are the possibilities? Well, overt
      discrimination would be one. Another would be “…absolutely blind to the existence of gay
      people.” And then there’s…what? “It seemed like a good idea
      at the time.”

      So excuse me please for being a bit skeptical. The only
      thing that makes me think it’s not simple discrimination packaged to be
      less explicit is that it’s such a looney thing to do.

      • Steven Gregory

        The more New Look explains, the worse they sound.

    • Philip Marks

      Oh, and the title of the article is totally correct in my view. I suppose technically gay people can use the discount, just like they can marry members of the opposite sex, but it’s clueless to say they are not being dealt with in a vastly different manner. At any rate I do take issue with your statement, “clearly isn’t homophobic” but certainly they have ‘made a mistake with their staff discount policy.”

      • Daniel Stephen Lopes

        But also two brothers can’t use it…. and that’s not familial discrimination. The policy is meant to make sure that they use both male clothing and female clothing. The policy wasn’t created to block gay couples. It was created without thinking of any couples.

        • Tony Capo

          why should the f@gs be worried. they wear girls clothes anyway.

          • Boris

            Hahaha. Original. Funny. 10/10 would laugh at you again.

          • Not all fags wear girls’ clothes, and most cross dressers are heterosexual. You’ve commented on almost every post, and are cruising a gay news site., which probably makes you a closet homosexual.

            Truly heterosexual people are far too busy chasing the opposite sex
            to care what gays get up to. Most of my friends are straight and they
            don’t show 1/10 of the obsession with my homosexuality that homophobic
            commenters do when they cruise gay topic forums, commenting obsessively.
            As Shakespeare observed through Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too
            much, methinks”.

            Homophobes are often closet homosexuals who
            display an irrational obsession with homosexuality. Their inversion is
            brought about usually by having been raised in anti-gay households,
            perhaps surrounded by the same at school and at work, and so have to
            repress their homosexuality. Who would ever suspect a gay basher is
            actually gay themselves the whole time?

            Famous examples include
            George ‘Rent Boy’ Rekers, Rev. Ted Haggard, Bishop Eddie Long, Cardinal
            Keith O’Brien, Senator Roy Ashburn…


          • You should change your name to Richard Capo.

          • Steven Gregory

            Tony, you can wear anything you want! Don’t feel limited by your homosexuality.

          • Tony Capo

            the best insult you can come up with is to call me gay . thats rich.

          • Steven Gregory

            What insult? You hang out on a G/L News website and know all about gays. You must be gay. Aren’t you?

          • Tony Capo

            F@gs aren’t gay

        • I agree it was not intentionally discriminatory. Now the issue has been raised I would have thought they would just change it anyway. Surely it can’t be that important to have the same numbers of men and women’s clothing represented.

      • Michael Sphinx

        I see your point, but buying clothes from New Look is hardly equal to marrying your same sex partner. The title is technically correct but it’s still sensationalist and implying deliberate discrimination. A genuine business reason would be, NL want to sell an equal amount of mens and womenswear, so for every customer of one gender, they also have one of the opposite gender. It still needs amending though.

    • Tony Capo

      homos dont care about facts. they cry the discrimination like babies everytime they don t get their way.

  • That There Other David

    The policy doesn’t ban gay staff from using the discount at all. As their spokesperson says it’s not meant to be a couples’ discount. So yeah, technically it falls foul of the Equalities Act on some minor roundabout point, but certainly not for malicious reasons.

    Give them a break eh? I’m sure now this has been pointed out they’ll sort something out, even if not officially.

    • Philip Marks

      Well I am sure they WILL sort it out now that people are howling. What can they possibly have had in mind when they came up with this? “…it is hard to see what genuine business reasons they could put forward for this rule.”

      So what are the possibilities? Well, overt discrimination would be one. Another would be…absolutely blind to gay people for another. And then there’s…what? “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” So excuse me please for being a bit skeptical. The only thing that makes me think it’s not simple discrimination packaged to be less explicit is that it’s such a looney thing to do.

      • That There Other David

        Blindness as to the implications sure, but I don’t see it as the company suffering blindness towards gay couples. The reason they give is that the discount is meant to be evenly shared across the entire product line for both men and women. I can see how someone can come up with that genuinely without malice.

        And I don’t see how you conclude that people are howling really. At the time of writing we have 24 comments on this article, mine included. Away from Pink News nobody else is even running the story.

    • Steven Gregory

      The only way to make this fair is ban New Look employees from extending the discount to a partner or family member. Only strangers with whom they have no sexual contact or intentions. When it’s put into those terms, then the entire policy falls on its face as ridiculous, and the New Look contortions make no sense.

  • Silly Old Bastard

    Upsetting the management by going to the press is really going to help. The
    outcome will be just the employee gets the discount. NO ONE else. Happy now ?

  • Matgo Styles

    Absolute sensationalism that gives the fight for gay rights a bad name. This is clearly a policy that is nothing to do with sexuality, and more about good business sense (ie sharing out discount equally along male and female lines)

  • Sparkyu1

    This is blatant discrimination. It’s ridiculous to assume this is anything but a couple’s discount – it stretches credulity to believe that it was intended to be anything but that

    I’m saddened that there are always a legion of people willing to dismiss even the most blatant discrimination in the urge to be the “nice gays”, but it never works

  • lee

    past a comment on their Facebook page

  • VP

    So what about staff and friends who do not fit the binary gender model? What about them? Or staff who only have friends of one gender? I don’t have any female friends at all, so if I were working there, I’d be unable to take up this perk.

    Also, do the terms of this discount limit the purchaser to only buying clothes attributed to their specified gender? Could a male employee not use it to buy female-coded clothes? Isn’t that just perpetuating unpleasant and outdated notions of gender conformity?

    And why does it matter which clothes are being discounted and which not? Surely the shop makes the same amount of money whether it’s hats or shoes or bespoke diamante chastity belts being discounted – because the remaining stock isn’t being.

    This entire gendered discount policy is not just discriminatory, it’s utterly pointless and superfluous. It would be far simpler to just say “you and one appointed other”. They must be aware of this, so clearly their fuss and fury is just so much self-justificatory rubbish to prop up an inherent and unexamined welt of gender bigotry.

    • Steven Gregory

      As you point out, the company’s “explanation” becomes increasingly idiotic the more they speak.

  • Eli

    Sorry guys, but take it from a law student… This isn’t discriminating against anyone, and on top of that, their rationale actually makes sense.

    • Steven Gregory

      Then you should defend New Look and possibly look for another line of work if you can’t see both sides of this argument.
      Meanwhile… the attorney who advised Pink Pages appears to disagree with you.

  • krystalkleer

    so what…they ask EVERY shopper their preference before check’n em out? PUHLEEZ!…get with the program NEW LOOK or you’ll just be the old fool!

  • qnetter

    In the politically-incorrect humor front, this is a lovely program to insure that both gay men and their big-girl dancing partners look good…

  • James

    I worked for them for over 5yrs and it was clear that the careful wording of the policy made it clear that it was not a couples discount. However, on challenging this, loss prevention did allow me to use it for my husband as oppose to a female friend or relative. As usual it’s a mountain made from a mole hill!!!

    • Steven Gregory

      You’re selfish.
      You challenged the policy, received an exception and don’t think this is an issue? What if tomorrow they revoked your exception?

  • Tony Capo

    another fake hate crime by the nasty sodomites.

    • Steven Gregory

      You can’t find anywhere else to hang out, can you?

  • p
    An LGBT website only offering competition for MEN’S wear clothes & not women’s? Should Pink News ‘policy be reviewed’? I mean come on there are no lesbian fem’s who read pink news is there? There’s no sexism going on here is there. I mean Lacoste make clothes for women, and so do Fred Perry either that or am I mistaken? I mean Pink News are a beacon light of equality aren’t they hmmmmm? Just like New Look it could not be a mistake could it or is it done on purpose?

  • Glen

    Another dishonest headline! Why don’t you rename yourselves ” the Pink Mail”?

  • Wicked80

    Oh come on! Stop the gay moaning now! I am gay and of I’d work for New Look, I’d just buy the stuff for my boyfriend using my discount! As simple as that!

    • Steven Gregory

      So, dishonesty is no problem for you?

      Have you worked retail? If you were caught exercising your discount against policy, it might be grounds for your dismissal. What if a person’s partner is not the same size; or wants to come in, try on clothes, and make a purchase without sneaky tactics? I guess that didn’t occur to you.

  • Traveller_23

    Sensationalist title, or click bait. But article was actually not too far off the mark – this probably was a case of unintended consequences and indirect discrimination rather than homophobia. Glad that it’s been flagged, but what we should really judge New Look on is how swiftly they move to fix this.

    In the meantime, I would like to remind everyone that gay/lesbian employees were probably able to pass on their discounts to partners by paying for the clothes themselves at the till, availing of the discount, and then getting the money back from their partners. So not such a disaster in practice.

  • Lancashire Witch

    When they discovered the mistake they obviously froze/cringed with horror at a dreadful public relations faux par and have tried to put it right, clearly just an oversight as this kind of publicity is in the killer bracket within the tight bitchy world of fashion. However the price for fairness and our legal status is vigilance, all to many are those who would see us persecuted again for their own sick agenda (Putin springs to mind!)

  • michelle

    I am a woman who use to work for Newlook, up until September 2013. I am also a feminine lady who at the time and throughout my time working there dating a female – over 3 years. As I was reading this article, I was thinking about how unfair it was. I too was told that if I purchased feminine clothing for my girlfriend, that I would be dismissed as the policy did not authorise it. I was however allowed to purchase ‘masculine’ clothing for her.

    I do not think that this article is outrageous or over the top as I was a person who lived it.

    Good thing that it has been published like this. At least someone else will not have to go through what I went through.


  • Craig ‘Griff’ Griffiths

    I have worked in te company for 2 years and I am also gay. This article is ridiculous. They don’t give people discount based on a couple being together. It’s based on being able to buy 1 set of woman’s cloths and one set if men’s cloths. Obviously I stand for gay rights but for this is ridiculous to accuse the company of being homophobic. I’m sure the owners are well aware that many of the male staff are gay as you tend to get more gay people in retail. So I really doubt this is aimed at gay people at all. We want equality not to be rendered under more abuse by articles claiming we are being mistreated. Militant gays sometimes only make things harder and slow out acceptance down.

  • Steven Gregory

    Correction: gay employees can use the discount, but their partners may not. Whatever the intention, the result is that gay couples and lesbian couples receive unequal treatment from heterosexual couples. Now that this has come to New Look’s attention, they should rectify it rather than attempting to justify it.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.