Following on from the last entry, the CAB has issued comments through its lawyer on its victory in X v Mid Sussex.
Its earlier comments in 2011 were along the lines of it being a 'burden' not to have to discriminate against volunteers' disabilities.
This time, they have changed the narrative to this:-
Again – protection from discrimination applies to just about everybody who deals with organisations – not just to workers and employees. The aim of the law clearly therefore goes beyond protection of workers' wages. It is also there to reflect polite society's nausea at any show of bigotry and prejudice against people who happen to be different for some reason, and to ensure such behaviour has consequences for organisations.
The exact same kind of 'free market' argument as Mid Sussex are using was made after the Christian Bed and Breakfast cases, by those opposed to discrimination laws in principle. Why couldn't those gay couples simply have found another B&B? If a B&B chooses to discriminate, it will lose customers, so the process is self-regulating. There is a reasonable debate to be had over this, but this is certainly not the position the CAB claims to be adopting, except in its own case. The CAB's stated position is that it wants the existing, and better, equality laws.
If the Mid Sussex CAB is trying to spin this as some kind of moral victory, it is being deeply disingenuous. All this amounts to is the identification of a gap in the law. If you want this gap to remain, you are against discrimination laws. If you want better equality laws, you must a priori want this gap to be closed forthwith.
Its earlier comments in 2011 were along the lines of it being a 'burden' not to have to discriminate against volunteers' disabilities.
This time, they have changed the narrative to this:-
Lucy McLynn, a partner at Bates Wells and Braithwaite who represented the CAB in the case, said the judgment "reflects the reality of how volunteering works".
"Volunteers do not need legal protection. Employees and workers need to be protected because they are reliant on earning a wage. But if a volunteer is discriminated against, they can leave and volunteer for another charity."
"The situation does self-regulate pretty effectively because a charity that is known to discriminate soon won’t have any more volunteers."Perhaps they realised the former line they were taking was offensive, but this is little better, and no more logical.
Again – protection from discrimination applies to just about everybody who deals with organisations – not just to workers and employees. The aim of the law clearly therefore goes beyond protection of workers' wages. It is also there to reflect polite society's nausea at any show of bigotry and prejudice against people who happen to be different for some reason, and to ensure such behaviour has consequences for organisations.
The exact same kind of 'free market' argument as Mid Sussex are using was made after the Christian Bed and Breakfast cases, by those opposed to discrimination laws in principle. Why couldn't those gay couples simply have found another B&B? If a B&B chooses to discriminate, it will lose customers, so the process is self-regulating. There is a reasonable debate to be had over this, but this is certainly not the position the CAB claims to be adopting, except in its own case. The CAB's stated position is that it wants the existing, and better, equality laws.
If the Mid Sussex CAB is trying to spin this as some kind of moral victory, it is being deeply disingenuous. All this amounts to is the identification of a gap in the law. If you want this gap to remain, you are against discrimination laws. If you want better equality laws, you must a priori want this gap to be closed forthwith.