Gladys should have shut down earlier

[hannahmallory]

NSW had a lot to learn from Victorians.  I wish them the best  but why did it take Gladys a month to realise that pussyfooting around this would do her no favors.

Now it looks like Morrison is throwing her under the bus too, as he does with everyone.

[chameleon54]

---

---

You forgot to include this link from the same organisation .... the opening line says it all " Everyone has a right to equal access to goods and services. "

And the second line ...." Businesses are legally obliged to prevent discrimination and harassment when providing goods, facilities or services to the public.

https://https://www.eoc.sa.gov.au/rights/services/rights/services 

---

Which is all overridden by the phrase 'Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone'

You can stop someone from entering your business, or refuse to serve someone, as long as you don't breach any anti-discrimination laws

Refuse service | business.gov.au

You'll notice the link is a Government link - not just an organisation, as you labelled it.

---

And that is the point. When you actually read the legislation ( as I have done ) that backs up the shallow general public information websites, you find things are not quite as simple as the general public websites and social media posts would have us believe. In many cases businesses ARE breaching anti discrimination laws.

And you have only glimpsed one states equal opportunity commission. Every state has its own  authority and then there is another completely different layer of anti discrimination legislation at Federal level, covering other areas not administered by the states. We have not even started there yet and that is where some of these other areas are covered. The whole thing is a lawyers picnic.

[myoclon1cjerk]

The federal / N.S.W connection. A crime syndicate if ever there was one.

https://youtu.be/0gb92Ds5MME

And a song for you too 

https://youtu.be/GPeZozaYi80

[domino-710]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

In many cases businesses ARE breaching anti discrimination laws.

---

Which businesses & how ??

[chameleon54]

---

---

You forgot to include this link from the same organisation .... the opening line says it all " Everyone has a right to equal access to goods and services. "

And the second line ...." Businesses are legally obliged to prevent discrimination and harassment when providing goods, facilities or services to the public.

https://https://www.eoc.sa.gov.au/rights/services/rights/services 

---

Which is all overridden by the phrase 'Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone'

You can stop someone from entering your business, or refuse to serve someone, as long as you don't breach any anti-discrimination laws

Refuse service | business.gov.au

You'll notice the link is a Government link - not just an organisation, as you labelled it.

---

Your post perfectly highlights the problems I have raised with current legislation and shows how easy it is for people including businesses and social media posters to become confused and get it wrong.

The link I posted was for State based legislation, applicable to South Australia only. ( The state in which a hotel owner has decreed he will not provide service to interstate truck drivers ). His decision clearly breaches the legal requirements for a business to provide service to everyone equally in that state. 

The link you have posted which you claim nullifies this duty is actually for FEDERAL based laws. While this is starting to get a bit above my pay grade, I do have some basic knowledge of legal process and I think you will find that while the laws run concurrently to each other, a claim of discrimination made under a states laws would take precedent over conflicting federal legislation, designed for claims made under federal law.

This is illustrated by the current states of emergency, where each state, headed by its own police commissioner  is making decisions about borders which the federal government opposes and which it appears take precedent over federal laws  which require freedom of movement between the federated states.

All up, as already stated, a lawyers picnic which hotel owners and social media responders are never likely to get right. Hence the reason why the states must take control of this issue through states of emergency legislation  to bring clarity to who can and who cant demand " no jab, no service ". 

[domino-710]

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

---

---

You forgot to include this link from the same organisation .... the opening line says it all " Everyone has a right to equal access to goods and services. "

And the second line ...." Businesses are legally obliged to prevent discrimination and harassment when providing goods, facilities or services to the public.

https://https://www.eoc.sa.gov.au/rights/services/rights/services 

---

Which is all overridden by the phrase 'Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone'

You can stop someone from entering your business, or refuse to serve someone, as long as you don't breach any anti-discrimination laws

Refuse service | business.gov.au

You'll notice the link is a Government link - not just an organisation, as you labelled it.

---

Your post perfectly highlights the problems I have raised with current legislation and shows how easy it is for people including businesses and social media posters to become confused and get it wrong.

The link I posted was for State based legislation, applicable to South Australia only. ( The state in which a hotel owner has decreed he will not provide service to interstate truck drivers ). His decision clearly breaches the legal requirements for a business to provide service to everyone equally in that state. 

The link you have posted which you claim nullifies this duty is actually for FEDERAL based laws. While this is starting to get a bit above my pay grade, I do have some basic knowledge of legal process and I think you will find that while the laws run concurrently to each other, a claim of discrimination made under a states laws would take precedent over conflicting federal legislation, designed for claims made under federal law.

This is illustrated by the current states of emergency, where each state, headed by its own police commissioner  is making decisions about borders which the federal government opposes and which it appears take precedent over federal laws  which require freedom of movement between the federated states.

All up, as already stated, a lawyers picnic which hotel owners and social media responders are never likely to get right. Hence the reason why the states must take control of this issue through states of emergency legislation  to bring clarity to who can and who cant demand " no jab, no service ". 

---

So now - some can & some can't.

[chameleon54]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

---

@chameleon54 wrote:

In many cases businesses ARE breaching anti discrimination laws.

---

Which businesses & how ??

---

The hotel in Adelaide that yesterday announced it was banning all interstate truck drivers, clearly breaching South Australian anti discrimination law,  with appropriate links regarding these laws provided in recent posts.

See my previous post for further explanations of the complexities involved.

[domino-710]

Check discrimination.

Those people no matter their choice of employment - may or may not be infected with Covid - having crossed a border.

Should just one of them be infected - and it has happened - who foots the ' total close & deep clean ' bill.

The Hotel is a private business which has the ability to deny service on reasonable grounds.

A Pandemic it seems is reasonable grounds.

It could be said - being an Hotel - a certain area could have been set aside - for the use of - and comfort of - those truck drivers - with the necessary amenities.

[chameleon54]

No back peddling here.

My point from the start ( noted in my first post on this issue ) was that it is not reasonable for random individual businesses to decree no jab no entry with the decision often based on Virtue signalling and brand placement rather being scientifically and legally based.

If allowed to continue it risks turning our society into a dysfunctional, fragmented, dystopian society which ignores hard won laws designed to provide equality for everyone.

Our family is strongly opposed to discrimination and if you must know, this week the wife was one of three keynote speakers at a conference attended by 150 senior state government delegates discussing inclusion of disability provisions in future state planning and legislation.

We do have some experience and specialist knowledge of the subject at hand.

[domino-710]

Good grief - and all that has to do with the current Pandemic - how.??

I just reread the article you posted.

No mention whatsoever of ' no jab - no entry ' - it does however mention :

But when one truck driver accidentally made it a COVID-19 hotspot, 30 workers and their families were forced into isolation.

I'd say reasonable grounds.

[chameleon54]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Good grief - and all that has to do with the current Pandemic - how.??

I just reread the article you posted.

No mention whatsoever of ' no jab - no entry ' - it does however mention :

But when one truck driver accidentally made it a COVID-19 hotspot, 30 workers and their families were forced into isolation.

I'd say reasonable grounds.

---

Should have gone to spec savers. Title of article ...........South Australian pub bans interstate truck drivers over coronavirus concerns