Marriage & The Equality Act

Comms69

nat_dooley said:

AskAsk said:theoretica said:

I would guess it is something about single people being able to simply move to where the work is and not need a permanent base somewhere, or maybe hire out their house because it will of course be empty when they aren't there.  When was this policy written?

seems a bit weird that you have to be married.  what is the logic with that??

But who is to say that I don’t need a permanent base? Children could be involved etc. I understand that you’re probably implying that this is an old ruling that needs updating. I think that also.

I would also have to prove that I wouldn’t be making a profit from the property. In fact the extreme opposite would apply. We both need out of parents house and I am willing to brunt the cost of this. However I find it extremely unfair that a colleague in the exact same job position as me would be better off financially through the employer simply because they are married. 

I think the ruling is archaic and they just can’t be bothered to change it’s it would be too much hard work.

Life's unfair, however this isn't even that. Married people have huge tax benefits that you don't. perfectly lawful and perfectly fair. 

Emmia

What is your aversion to marriage? Ultimately it's a piece of paper (although legally binding) showing you're committed to another person, and you don't need to spend £20k doing it.
There's lots of tax and other advantages to being married, rather than just unmarried "partners".

pphillips

nat_dooley said:

pphillips said:

Yep, being single is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
But not everything that is discriminatory is unlawful.
For example, single people can't expect to have the same tax advantages as married couples.

That’s something I found in my research. I know I’m not going to be able to change this however found it quite amazing that the ‘equality act’ isn’t equal 🙄😂

I don't think that most people would agree that being single is equal to being married, it's a bit like saying that children and adults are equal (no offence intended).

AskAsk

nat_dooley said:

AskAsk said:theoretica said:

I would guess it is something about single people being able to simply move to where the work is and not need a permanent base somewhere, or maybe hire out their house because it will of course be empty when they aren't there.  When was this policy written?

seems a bit weird that you have to be married.  what is the logic with that??

But who is to say that I don’t need a permanent base? Children could be involved etc. I understand that you’re probably implying that this is an old ruling that needs updating. I think that also.

I would also have to prove that I wouldn’t be making a profit from the property. In fact the extreme opposite would apply. We both need out of parents house and I am willing to brunt the cost of this. However I find it extremely unfair that a colleague in the exact same job position as me would be better off financially through the employer simply because they are married. 

I think the ruling is archaic and they just can’t be bothered to change it’s it would be too much hard work.

i do think it is all about you having a permanent base and can't move closer to work.  and they determine that you can't easily move if you have a family.  their way of determining if you have a family is to see the marriage certificate as proof.  it was probably established in the olden days when people have families within a marriage.

they haven't bothered to update the policy or they can't be bothered to establish whether you have a family unit by other means than the marriage certificate.  at the end of the day, it is their policy and they can do what they want, so not much that you can do about it I am afraid.

avawat20

The act protects you because you ARE married or in a civil partnership i.e. someone interviewing a woman and seeing a wedding ring on her finger and not giving her the job because 'she's married and is just going to have babies and want time off' is discriminatory. Think about the marriage tax relief - it's a benefit of being married but not every single person is discriminated against because they are single!

It's like getting !!!!!! off because someone with a blue badge gets a better parking space but you're 'being discriminated against' because you don't have a disability...

Malthusian

Before getting riled up, did you ask your employer whether they would pay for your accommodation even though you aren't married, because you're in the kind of situation that the benefit was designed for apart from being married to your partner?

It's an employee perk, if they value you enough they'll give you the perk whether you're married or not.

If I'm miffed that my employer pays for a gym which I don't use, then I could either get steamed up about it, or I could just ask for a pay rise. Either I'm getting enough in return for my labour or I'm not.