Not really, because "3 dog owning" and "likes Neighbours" aren't protected characteristics. "Vegetarian" and "pierced ears" requirements may be, as eating meat or fish may be required by some religion for all I know, and I think it would have to be "some of any ears that you have are pierced"!mattsccm wrote: 11 Sep 2025, 6:30pm Purely because something similar cropped up at work today, is it not discriminatory to have women only rides in the same way that is unacceptable to have , I dunno, vegetarian/ pierced ears/3 dog owning/ likes Neighbours only rides?
Just playing devils advocate.
I believe that it would be unlawfully discriminatory to have women-only rides except that BC relies on the general exception for Sport in the Equality Act 2010 that allows them.
Subsets are not the problem, as I've tried to clarify in a recent post.Oh yeah. I agree with Nearholmer . Subsets are inevitable and to my mind desirable. You get what you want with no messing about with anything you don't want.