Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Peter Lloyd: 'Why I'm suing my gym over their sexist women-only hours' Watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    He's being a right little princess.

    So they have female-only hours, big deal, go some other time, or go to some other gym.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Many people here are stating how the gym in question is a private business, and therefore can dictate however it would like to operate. This simply is not true:

    There are several statute laws forbidding discrimination (whether racial, sexual, age, gender or what have you), and one has to question the legality of the "women-only hours" of the gym without the male members getting something in return (ie male-only hours, or a suitable discount to make up for the lost hours). Therefore, one can disregard whether this gym is private or not, as even private businesses have to abide by the law.

    Other people on here are suggesting that Peter Lloyd is just wasting his time. As one user nicely summed it up: "he is being a little princess", or something to that effect, anyway. Now, in response to such things, let me give you a scenario:

    Go-Shop is a chain of convenient stores (doesn't actually exist - this is just an example). It hires a multitude of people to do simple jobs, such as stacking shelves and manning the tills. However, because the workers of ethnicity group X feels uncomfortable around ethnicity group Y, Go-Shop decides to make all of its shops on Wednesdays ban ethnicity group Y from entering, whether worker or shopper.

    Now this scenario would give rise to major outcry against the company, and is fundamentally illegal - one cannot stop an ethnic group from entering somewhere just for the fact people feel uncomfortable with them around. If someone even suggested that ethnicity group Y should just go shop somewhere else (lets say Go-Shop was the only shop around), it is likely they'd have to be running for their lives if they were found out. Now, let's apply this to the situation here. This gym is barring males from going to the gym for a limited time, purely because some females feel uncomfortable around them. That's just plain wrong. Nobody decides to be male or female.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    generally, the point of the law is for justice and fair play... cant really do that if discrimination exists...

    the whole "If you don't like how a gym operates then go elsewhere" is bullcrap here... that line is for issues like the gym not being open 24/7 like you want...not things that are not concerning issues like how different genders are treated... my nearest gym is open till 10.30, my friends one is 24/7, that line of yours would be adequate for my time example, but it is not adequate here... understand this...

    no, at the end of the day, the gym owner should be like everyone else, who is expected to behave in a civilised and non discriminatory manner... you might get away with discrimination in small frivolous scenarios like handing out chocolate to your friends, but not in a place of business... if you discriminate me in your place of business, prepare to get sued...

    They can do what they will with their equipment, sell it/whatever, but they cannot treat one paying customer different to another like this. dont confuse smashing up equipment and windows with how they treat people, they are two different things :lolwut:

    I do hope Peter Lloyd is successful with resolving this and hope other organisations, not just gyms, take note...
    The law should be for justice and fair play, but in my opinion that should mean not misleading people, fufilling your contractual obligations, protecting private property etc.
    In this case the gym belongs to it's owner - not Peter Lloyd - surely it's 'just' and 'fair' to allow the owner to manage his/her own property as they see fit, even if it's 'n a civilised and non discriminatory manner'. Surely a company isn't really your property if someone from the state is telling you how to run it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    The law should be for justice and fair play, but in my opinion that should mean not misleading people, fufilling your contractual obligations, protecting private property etc.
    In this case the gym belongs to it's owner - not Peter Lloyd - surely it's 'just' and 'fair' to allow the owner to manage his/her own property as they see fit, even if it's 'n a civilised and non discriminatory manner'. Surely a company isn't really your property if someone from the state is telling you how to run it?
    the law should have uniform aspects so that everyone is reasonably treated fairly. if something like what you suggest is allowed, it just helps breed more intolerance. what stops all restaurants and places that sell food were being "straight only" or "white only"? why should I have to travel far and wide just so that i can find a place that accepts non-whites?

    Discrimination should be wiped out not condoned and tolerated... managing his or her property and treating people are two different things, why cant you understand that?

    The hell are you talking about? Its hardly the same thing as telling a person how to run it, they can do what they want with the company, they can even run it to the ground if they wanted, but the law is meant to treat everyone fairly, your company is no different.... what so you think you can only ever be fully in charge if youre allowed to commit whatever abomination you want? Doing this is not civilised in the slightest, just barbaric reasoning... by your logic, why do we need morals or ethics? why cant chaos run free? where i can do whatever i want such as kill all your relatives and rape every female you love... this might be overly extreme but the point still stands.. the law is there to maintain order, not having discrimination is a part of that order...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    the law should have uniform aspects so that everyone is reasonably treated fairly. if something like what you suggest is allowed, it just helps breed more intolerance. what stops all restaurants and places that sell food were being "straight only" or "white only"? why should I have to travel far and wide just so that i can find a place that accepts non-whites?

    Discrimination should be wiped out not condoned and tolerated... managing his or her property and treating people are two different things, why cant you understand that?

    The hell are you talking about? Its hardly the same thing as telling a person how to run it, they can do what they want with the company, they can even run it to the ground if they wanted, but the law is meant to treat everyone fairly, your company is no different.... what so you think you can only ever be fully in charge if youre allowed to commit whatever abomination you want? Doing this is not civilised in the slightest, just barbaric reasoning... by your logic, why do we need morals or ethics? why cant chaos run free? where i can do whatever i want such as kill all your relatives and rape every female you love... this might be overly extreme but the point still stands.. the law is there to maintain order, not having discrimination is a part of that order...

    If the government bans theese 'women only hours', then they are telling the manager how to run the gym - they're telling him/her to change the services they provide.

    I've never said we don't need morals or ethics, but we do need to respect individuals right to their own property. Rape is wrong because it violates women's bodies -which is their own property - and murder is wrong because it destroys people's bodies - again their own property.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    If the government bans theese 'women only hours', then they are telling the manager how to run the gym - they're telling him/her to change the services they provide.

    I've never said we don't need morals or ethiohich is their own property - and murder is wrong because it destroys people's bodies - again their own property.
    youre missing the point, this is not the same thing as telling them how to run their gym like what hours or what prices to have, or what equipment to have etc... cant you comprehend that the examples i made are different to how you treat a person? :facepalm: just because its their gym DOES NOT mean they can treat people different

    did i say you said that? no...:lolwut: im just using the same dopey logic as you and giving another example... you talking about tolerating discrimination within the law is no different to my example... it doesnt matter whether they have property or not... if they rape or mug a person within their property they will be punished, their property is no sanctuary from the law, and discrimination is no different...

    you justify that murder is wrong, but then what about discrimination? that is wrong also, and i can give justification...... you repeating 'it's their property', 'it's their property', means nothing, thats not justification, thats uselessly repeating something like a child... you can say murder is wrong, but then what if i keep repeating it is their property? they have a gym which is located in a land that has law and order to prevent things such as discrimination which is a crime... if they dont want the law to apply, then they have to campaign for it to be removed (which WILL fail), or they can move to whatever scumbag area where they also probably think theres nothing wrong with rape...

    the law is to maintain order, fair treatment and justice... this IS needed otherwise we will descend into chaos... its not like this is the first time the law stops a person from doing something... the law also protects customers from being ripped off to.. e.g. advertising a microwave online and receiving a plunger instead... discrimination should also be a part of the law. what decent civilised country exists where discrimination is tolerated? thats practically an oxymoron...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    in the gym i used to go to there was a seperate little room, with just a little bit less equiplemt in than what there is in the main room. it is mainly there as an overflow i think for when it is busy. but it has women and men only hours. theres a lot more women only hours because a lot of women go in these times, but theres less men only hours simply because a lot less men use it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    youre missing the point, this is not the same thing as telling them how to run their gym like what hours or what prices to have, or what equipment to have etc... cant you comprehend that the examples i made are different to how you treat a person? :facepalm: just because its their gym DOES NOT mean they can treat people different

    did i say you said that? no...:lolwut: im just using the same dopey logic as you and giving another example... you talking about tolerating discrimination within the law is no different to my example... it doesnt matter whether they have property or not... if they rape or mug a person within their property they will be punished, their property is no sanctuary from the law, and discrimination is no different...

    you justify that murder is wrong, but then what about discrimination? that is wrong also, and i can give justification...... you repeating 'it's their property', 'it's their property', means nothing, thats not justification, thats uselessly repeating something like a child... you can say murder is wrong, but then what if i keep repeating it is their property? they have a gym which is located in a land that has law and order to prevent things such as discrimination which is a crime... if they dont want the law to apply, then they have to campaign for it to be removed (which WILL fail), or they can move to whatever scumbag area where they also probably think theres nothing wrong with rape...

    the law is to maintain order, fair treatment and justice... this IS needed otherwise we will descend into chaos... its not like this is the first time the law stops a person from doing something... the law also protects customers from being ripped off to.. e.g. advertising a microwave online and receiving a plunger instead... discrimination should also be a part of the law. what decent civilised country exists where discrimination is tolerated? thats practically an oxymoron...

    Surely general opening hours, prices and equipment also come under 'how you treat a person'?

    I never said murdering/raping someone on your property is acceptable. This is because although it's taking place on your land you're still damaging their bodies (their property). If you discrimminate against someone on your land you're not damaging their any of their property - you're just telling them to go away (for an arbitary reason).
    In my opinion no-one has a right to be on anyone else's property, visitors should be there on the permission of the owner and should leave there if the owner tells them to go.

    I agree the law's to maintain order etc.. I'm not arguing people should be able to what they want whenever - I'm arguing people should be able to do as they please with their own property, so long as it doesn't damage other people's property.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    Surely general opening hours, prices and equipment also come under 'how you treat a person'?

    I never said murdering/raping someone on your property is acceptable. This is because although it's taking place on your land you're still damaging their bodies (their property). If you discrimminate against someone on your land you're not damaging their any of their property - you're just telling them to go away (for an arbitary reason).

    I agree the law's to maintain order etc.. I'm not arguing people should be able to what they want whenever - I'm arguing people should be able to do as they please with their own property, so long as it doesn't damage other people's property.
    no... no it isnt...tell me how opening hours relates to how a person is being treated... show me how this is exactly the same as not letting someone into the gym because of their sex...

    are you intentionally being dense? get this through your head, i never said you did... im just giving an example that uses the same dopey logic as you are using...youre just basing this on some irrational reasoning in order to justify condoning discrimination and not murder... alright then... what about theft with no damage inflicted... by your dopey reasoning, does that mean the business owner can do this? no damage is inflicted afterall... should the gym owner be allowed to mug you? :lolwut:

    how would you feel if every place of business you like going to discriminates against you and doesnt want you in there? imagine you were living on your own and every restaurant/place for food you could travel to denies you access to food... how pissed off would you be? how would you eat? its not right to discriminate even if there isnt any physical damage... in my opinion, i think your opinion is too naive... you could argue this for frivolous scenarios such as who you let into your house, but you cannot do it in a place of business, you cannot stop black people for example... it is immoral, and such a view should not be tolerated...

    protecting people from discrimination is a part of the law (and should be). just like you cannot kill, hurt or mug people, you shouldnt be able to discriminate either... not being able to do any of these, does not mean you are losing control of your business nor that someone else is running it for you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand how people are arguing that this is acceptable. if there were men only hours, or white only hours, or Muslim only hours, there would be an outcry. men are paying the same as women for a reduced service, that is completely wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    no... no it isnt...tell me how opening hours relates to how a person is being treated... show me how this is exactly the same as not letting someone into the gym because of their sex...

    are you intentionally being dense? get this through your head, i never said you did... im just giving an example that uses the same dopey logic as you are using...youre just basing this on some irrational reasoning in order to justify condoning discrimination and not murder... alright then... what about theft with no damage inflicted... by your dopey reasoning, does that mean the business owner can do this? no damage is inflicted afterall... should the gym owner be allowed to mug you? :lolwut:

    how would you feel if every place of business you like going to discriminates against you and doesnt want you in there? imagine you were living on your own and every restaurant/place for food you could travel to denies you access to food... how pissed off would you be? how would you eat? its not right to discriminate even if there isnt any physical damage... in my opinion, i think your opinion is too naive... you could argue this for frivolous scenarios such as who you let into your house, but you cannot do it in a place of business, you cannot stop black people for example... it is immoral, and such a view should not be tolerated...

    protecting people from discrimination is a part of the law (and should be). just like you cannot kill, hurt or mug people, you shouldnt be able to discriminate either... not being able to do any of these, does not mean you are losing control of your business nor that someone else is running it for you.
    If the gym is open 24/7 and new equipment is being bought all the time then customers are being treated well. If the gym's rarely open and all the equipment's bad then the customers are being treated badly.

    You didn't actually say that I did, but you implied that's what I ought to believe if I followed my opinions to their extreme.
    No, obviously as someone who strongly believes that individuals should have control over their property I don't believe theft is acceptable.

    You raise a very interesting point here - what would happen if say ... you were in a strange city and then all the hotels refused to house you, the shops refused to sell you food, the train company refused to take you home etc. Like I said in a previous post (I think), mabye the government should intervene to stop discrimmination - but only when the discrimminating company/companies have a monopoly. So, in the analogy of being in the strange city, I would expect the government to intervene, but only because the traveller is experiancing discrimmion from every company. I wouldn't expect the government to do anything if a few companies refused to serve him, but others allowed him in.
    The case of Peter Lloyd is totally different however. One gym in the area (unfortunately the one he currently goes to) is discrimminating, but he still has plenty of non-discrimminating gyms to go to, so I don't think the state should do anything.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danehill897)
    If the gym is open 24/7 and new equipment is being bought all the time then customers are being treated well. If the gym's rarely open and all the equipment's bad then the customers are being treated badly.

    You didn't actually say that I did, but you implied that's what I ought to believe if I followed my opinions to their extreme.
    No, obviously as someone who strongly believes that individuals should have control over their property I don't believe theft is acceptable.

    You raise a very interesting point here - what would happen if say ... you were in a strange city and then all the hotels refused to house you, the shops refused to sell you food, the train company refused to take you home etc. Like I said in a previous post (I think), mabye the government should intervene to stop discrimmination - but only when the discrimminating company/companies have a monopoly. So, in the analogy of being in the strange city, I would expect the government to intervene, but only because the traveller is experiancing discrimmion from every company. I wouldn't expect the government to do anything if a few companies refused to serve him, but others allowed him in.
    The case of Peter Lloyd is totally different however. One gym in the area (unfortunately the one he currently goes to) is discrimminating, but he still has plenty of non-discrimminating gyms to go to, so I don't think the state should do anything.
    thats not referencing treating a person specifically, thats just being convenient... what you say impacts everyone, and does not directly impact a particular group of people, like kicking men out at certain times but still charging them... having 24/7 access for everyone is convenience for everyone, no one is treated different to another, giving preferential treatment to one sex and not giving a rats ass about the other regards how people are actually treated...

    all i did was give an example using the same logic as you...

    if i were in such a scenario, i would be screwed, as would you or anyone else... such a scenario is not impossible... this emphasises the need for the law to step in...
    "maybe the government should intervene to stop discrimination"? the government definitely should... whether a company is a monopoly or not is irrelevant, youre just making random excuses... using your strange city example, you would still be screwed whether all these businesses were monopolising companies or not... its not fair, especially if it concerns something you cannot change about yourself...

    face it, discrimination must be in the law, it must be in there just as how theft, murdering, offense, is in there... it may not be as significant as murder but that is NOT justification for it not being in the law... dopey justification such as it not being physical like assault/murder is not significant justification, just a poor excuse...

    this most likely involves the city council of wherever he lives or something...regardless of the result:
    1) discrimination needs to be in the law just like anything e, AND apply to everyone...
    2)just because there are other gyms that dont discriminate, does NOT mean that gym should be allowed to get away with discrimination. period.

    discrimination isnt like having a different favourite colour to everyone else, why is it so hard for you to understand that it should not be condoned?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Gym attendance is for tossers anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    For all the people saying it's ok because they're a private business, why not have white only or Muslim only hours? This is exactly the same with car insurance, cause gender discrimination has a lower stigma compared to discriminating based on race or religion companies/businesses have the balls to discriminate based on that but wouldn't dare do it for the latter two.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Movember)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...men-hours.html

    what do you think of the view expressed in this article and womens only hours in general?

    i can see where the guy is coming from. why do women need their special hours where men are excluded but men can't have the same thing? it says in the article because women are self conscious, have body hang ups, hate the way they look when they exercise and would rather men did not see this. but if i dont like the way i look when exercising around women, i cant ask for men only hours because i would be laughed at for being pathetic and told to man up. it is completely ridiculous in this day and age.
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    It's simple supply and demand I'm afraid. We are a western, capitalist state like it or not. And gyms are a business. They will do what sells. If there was a high demand for men's hours, they would cater to this - but I'm afraid there isn't. There IS a high demand for women's hours.

    I find the whole issue around this extremely petty - I mean my local pool does children and family hours - would you sue for that?



    Edit - I'd also like to add that what I think is a worse issue is the suing and claiming culture we seem to have inherited from America - you can make a quick buck from anything that offends you these days and this man is taking full advantage of that
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

    It's simple supply and demand I'm afraid. We are a western, capitalist state like it or not. And gyms are a business. They will do what sells. If there was a high demand for men's hours, they would cater to this - but I'm afraid there isn't. There IS a high demand for women's hours.

    I find the whole issue around this extremely petty - I mean my local pool does children and family hours - would you sue for that?



    Edit - I'd also like to add that what I think is a worse issue is the suing and claiming culture we seem to have inherited from America - you can make a quick buck from anything that offends you these days and this man is taking full advantage of that
    You wouldn't be saying the same if admission into the gym was based on race. It's the same thing.

    I'm very very liberal when it comes to letting businesses run themselves but everyone should draw the line at discrimination. It's not about making a quick buck or being offended, it's about fair treatment and making a statement.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeBuche)
    You wouldn't be saying the same if admission into the gym was based on race. It's the same thing.

    I'm very very liberal when it comes to letting businesses run themselves but everyone should draw the line at discrimination. It's not about making a quick buck or being offended, it's about fair treatment and making a statement.
    Well no because I see no correlation between race and exercise and neither does anybody. However there are times when race (or culture rather) comes into it - for example at college, rooms which we would normally use for study were turned into prayer rooms during Ramadan, and we weren't allowed to enter - we were fine with this! Live and let live. If people want to have some time and space set aside for them to feel comfortable, and it means you aren't invited, then deal with it! I wouldn't care if there were men's sessions at gyms - let alone complain and LET ALONE sue!! It's ridiculously petty.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc:))
    Well no because I see no correlation between race and exercise and neither does anybody. However there are times when race (or culture rather) comes into it - for example at college, rooms which we would normally use for study were turned into prayer rooms during Ramadan, and we weren't allowed to enter - we were fine with this! Live and let live. If people want to have some time and space set aside for them to feel comfortable, and it means you aren't invited, then deal with it! I wouldn't care if there were men's sessions at gyms - let alone complain and LET ALONE sue!! It's ridiculously petty.
    It's not about the correlation between race and exercise it's about not letting someone use your business because of their sex, which funnily enough I don't control. It's fundamentally unfair and massively hypocritical. If i'd paid for a gym membership I expect to be able to use said gym whenever it's open.

    On your college example I'd be pretty pissed off if I can't study because people were praying, they should use empty classrooms which they know aren't going to be used.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeBuche)
    It's not about the correlation between race and exercise it's about not letting someone use your business because of their sex, which funnily enough I don't control. It's fundamentally unfair and massively hypocritical. If i'd paid for a gym membership I expect to be able to use said gym whenever it's open.

    On your college example I'd be pretty pissed off if I can't study because people were praying, they should use empty classrooms which they know aren't going to be used.
    Haha, I guess we have different levels of toleration then - I'm glad mine isn't as low as yours
    Offline

    15
    What about swimming pools that have adults only hours, parent and child hours, school children hours... Should we be throwing our toys out of the pram at that too?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 27, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.