Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Stonewall: New Look should ‘revisit’ its policy which excludes gay couples from discount

  • Enrique Esteban

    PLS, SIGN TO SUPPORT PETITION TO LEGALIZE EQUAL MARRIAGE IN ROMANIA:
    http://www.petitieonline.com/vrem_parteneriat_civil_in_romania
    Help to sign: prenume=first name; nume=family name; oras=city; tara=country.
    Also can use Google to search “vrem parteneriat” and translate it into your language
    You’ll receive a mail and have to click on the link to confirm your signature.

  • Keith

    As always, the gay militia are out actively seeking ways in which they can become victims and in the process, reveal themselves as the precious, needy, vindictive vermin that they are.
    Here we have a business, with an innocent promotion, aimed at increasing it’s staff happiness. Discrimination would have been furthest from their minds, in fact, they would be eager as a business to avoid controversy which harms business.
    They didn’t figure on the Homosexual Militia in their staff though and the trauma that must have been suffered when they perceived that the promotion discriminated against them.
    Let’s see shall we?
    The promotion says that staff may have a 50% discount and that the discount may also be offered to one nominated person, the caveat being that it most be the opposite gender range of clothing.
    Nobody is being refused the offer due to their orientation so there is no discrimination, even indirectly.
    New look say they are reviewing the policy. Translation… it will likely cease the generous offer altogether due to the petulant insufferable behaviour of a few homosexual professional offence takers. Their actions have benefited nobody and businesses will be rightly even more wary now of employing homosexualites, craftily filtering them out in the application or interview process, due to their vindictive nature and resentment of a mostly heterosexual society.
    I urge employers to consider the amount of harm one ‘offended’ homosexual can bring.
    Homosexuals are, empirically speaking, disproportionately prone to complaining about equality and discrimination than any other group.

  • Keith

    Stonewall’s delusional spokeswoman, Ruth Hunt said… ” Lesbian and gay people play a rather important role in Britain’s fashion industry. I new look wants to attract the very best staff they might want to revisit this particular policy.”

    Firstly, I did not know that this story was about fashion designers. The original story was about a few shop staff!

    Secondly, Since only a minority of the population are homosexual, their role and value will be in proportion to their demographic, meaning minor, unless she is suggesting that a few homosexuals are more as or more valuable better at fashion than the majority of heterosexuals? Surely this is prejudicial stereotyping?

    Thirdly, if Ms Hunt she is suggesting that there is a disproportion of homosexuals in Britain’s fashion industry, should she be more concerned with this elephant in the room and campaign to address the imbalance for the benefit of the heterosexual employment numbers, or perhaps she is only interested in perceived homosexual injustice and persecuting innocent businesses.

    • James

      Sigh… first of all, “indirect discrimination” is a legal term – you don’t get to decide it doesn’t apply simply because you don’t think it sounds right. This is quite plainly indirect discrimination – the only question is whether New Look has a strong enough justification for it to be legal. I won’t bother arguing with your idea that complaining about discrimination somehow causes discrimination – you made such a meal out of trying to explain it that I think you must realise how nonsensical it is.

      “Homosexuals are, empirically speaking, disproportionately prone to
      complaining about equality and discrimination than any other group.”

      You mean “anecdotally speaking”.

      “unless she is suggesting that a few homosexuals are more as or more
      valuable better at fashion than the majority of heterosexuals? Surely
      this is prejudicial stereotyping?”

      Different areas of society have different cultures. For a long time, fashion has been more accepting of LGBT people than, say, football or the military, so a disproportionately large number of LGBT people go into fashion.

      • Keith

        “First of all, “indirect discrimination” is a legal term – you don’t get to decide it doesn’t apply simply because you don’t think it sounds right. ”

        Frivolous and vexatious are also legal terms, which I believe apply here and | am sure also would any fair minded judge should this nonsense ever be tested in court.

        “You mean “anecdotally speaking”.

        No. I mean empirically, as in experienced by the general population. Homosexuals in general are perceived as attention seeking professional offence takers.

        “Different areas of society have different cultures. For a long time, fashion has been more accepting of LGBT people than, say, football or the military, so a disproportionately large number of LGBT people go into fashion”.

        It appears you harbour the same sterotypical views as Ruth Hunt. Are you claiming British fashion shops (the subject of Ruth Hunt’s statement and the source of the originalk complaint) have more homosexual employees than straight? If so please supply the evidence.
        Also, would you not agree that if there were more homosexuals than straights in fashion shops, Ms Hunt should be addressing this imbalance rather than tormenting New Look, or are the homosexuals only interested in homosexual equalities and not equality in general?

        • Johnny Dee

          “in general are perceived as …” is the very definition of anecdotal. Empirical means – according to OED – “Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic: they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument ”

          You provide no evidence, and are being laughed out of court. Bye-eeee!

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all