To think that 'marriage' isn't a relevant protected characteristic any more?

[Owlsintowels]

Very happy to be told IAU, preferably with an explanation why being married might mean you're discriminated against, but at the moment I don't get it

I do understand that someone migjt be discriminated against due to their sex, race, age, disability, gender reassignment, religion, sexuality or pregnancy

I also acknowledge that in the past married women were considered to be unsuitable for employment as they were supposed to have zero aspirations beyond a tidy home and children.

However in 2019 does anyone get discriminated against due to being married? I'm talking about being in a civil partnership, that's already covered by sexuality.

I can just about imagine people women being discriminated against for being unmarried (spinster jokes).

I can definitely imagine people women being discriminated against for having caring responsibilities. But for being married?

What am I missing, or is this archaic? Would anyone care if this was removed from the list?

My employers have always found it a plus. I'm not 'distracted'. . .Sigh.

I didn’t realise it was covered ...toddles off to google

It’s marital status so people are discriminated afford being unmarried and being married. Cases are brought every year so just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean anything.

I was refused a job interview for being married in 1990, apparently it makes you more likely to get pregnant. Also may make you less focused on career as you may have domestic responsibilities, less flexible as you need to co-ordinate hours, holidays and location with OH.

Yes you can do these things without being married, but being married makes it more of a risk to an employer. IMO discrimination based on sexuality makes less sense.

It’s marital status so people are discriminated afford being unmarried and being married.

No, that's not the case.

See info :

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/marriage-and-civil-partnership-discrimination

It does seem unlikely OP but can you really have 'too much' protection from discrimination?

There are still people in the UK, including employers, who’d count it as a black mark against someone’s morals if they were living in sin, were divorced, or had children out of wedlock. Let’s not forget that the official teaching of the CofE is still that sex outside marriage is a sin and that’s before we get into anywhere else. Conservative constituency associations have always been notoriously twitchy about unmarried candidates.

And there are a lot of employers who get very twitchy about employing recently married women below fifty years of age.

Oh, looking at that link, it may be fair game to discriminate against people for living in sin.

Being married does get you a transferable tax allowance.
And if you are unmarried, you aren't automatically the next of kin - so when it comes to someone turning off your loved one's life support machine, there can be issues.

There's lots of advantages to being married that people often don't realise until they get refused something for being unmarried

What gets me about some of those things on the list.
You don't choose to be LGBT, disabled or to have a different skin colour. You have no choice to be old.

There are other characteristics that are not on the list that people discriminate against and that you have no choice over. Class, accent, height, appearance......

And there are things such as religion that you do have choice over and are on the list.

No one should be treated unfavourably regardless.

I don't think it is unlawful to discriminate against someone who is single. It's been unlawful since the 1970s to discriminate against those who are married (and obviously those in civil partnerships are also now covered).

I'm living in sin and when pregnant felt very discriminated against by a super Christian boss who would constantly look between my ring finger and belly. I don't think he realised he did, and I didnt lose out as a result, but I get this. However this is definitely being married, not marital status.

A quick google gave the archaic example of wifey being told to jack in her job and stay home.

That's sex discrimination though surely, as a man wouldn't be told the same when he gets marred.

Sexuality I guess some people don't like gays, or think they're too busy taking drugs and being promiscuous to be career minded. Or hairy lesbian jokes.

@zsazsajuju I would love to be explained why this is, hence why I posted. So rather than tell me I'm wrong please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong

I'm clearly living a life of unmarried privilege. Cos that is actually the logical conclusion is this is a real charateristic which needs protecting?!

@chomalungma indeed. This is partially behind my question. Unmarried face various discriminations, I can't see any that married face. Which is why my point that I hav unmarried privilege is a semi real one. Tell me the disadvantages! I think they're all covered by sex

Civil partnership isn’t covered under sexual orientation , the protected characteristic is marriage and civil partnership.

I agree with you btw. I wouldn’t mind a link to some recent cases on marriage and civil partnership that a PP alluded to being brought every year, not something I’ve often come across at all.

@57Varieties I meant I'm not considering people being discriminated against for being in a civil partnership as part of this one because the gay/bi bit is covered by sexuality and the married bit is covered by marriage. I was just preempting anyone telling me this was to avoid discriminating against people married to someone of the same sex and/or gender?

That is already covered under another characteristic

I'm becoming more and more convinced, especially since a few PP hav given examples of how unmarried people can be discriminated against, which was also my feeling on this. The marrieds have it made

I am also very in favour of protection for everyone, I'm in a union, etc etc. I just wanted to see if there was something I'm missing here.

I'm getting married next year and don't want any unpleasant surprises

I was once asked in an interview if my husband would be ok with me going away for training courses does that count as discrimination for being married?

I'm not sure @anxietydream

I guess it might be, though again it does feel just as much sex - would they ask a man if his wife would be OK about it?

This is one of the problems with the title Mrs - everyone knows you're married. Mr doesn't tell them that info, so a man can't be asked in the same way

So maybe the title Mrs goes against the anti discrimination law?!

Oooh I feel a law case coming on 🤣

I was once asked in an interview if my husband would be ok with me going away for training courses

Depends if they would ask the same question to someone who was unmarried but in a relationship...

What did you say in response?

I was treated unfairly at work by a colleague because she didn't approve of me living with a partner I wasn't married to, she claimed it was being disrespectful of her religion. Her attitude to me changed literally the day I got back from my honeymoon. I was glad the protection was there in law in case her behaviour escalated, fortunately it didn't progress much beyond her giving me the silent treatment for two years, which was awkward and counter-productive in terms of getting our work done, but hey-ho. She refused to engage with divorced colleagues on religious grounds, too.

You don't necessarily have a choice about religion, in that you don't choose what you're born into. The history of religious discrimination in the UK includes a lot of sectarianism, and saying I don't actually believe in any of it didn't exempt people from being discriminated against and worse. Religion can also be a tribal marker.

I was told at work that I couldn't take the leave I'd booked because an unmarried colleague had asked for the same week (some weeks after I'd booked it) and it would be easier for me to rearrange plans with my husband than it would for her to sort out another suitable date with her friends.
I suggested that they should find out what jobs this woman's friends did as my husband was a teacher at the time and therefore was pretty hard to book holidays for. They never mentioned it again and my holiday went ahead.

I know that my mum was told that she'd lost out on a job interview because she was recently married and they assumed she'd have babies soon so didn't want to bother themselves. More fool them - she went back to the business several years (and still no children, at that point) and ended up managing the person who had told her this, but it was par for the course in the 'good old days' and I don't think it even annoyed her until more recently!

There's a case involving an unmarried partner of a man (think he may have been in the military) who died - she initially was refused a pension because if you weren't married a form had to have been filled in when he was still alive, but if they'd been married she would have got the pension automatically. She won the case - Google Brewster pensions case and the details will come up.

@mrsmalcolmreynolds that only reinforces my point - the law as I and PP understand it prohibits discriminating against someone for being married. Your example discriminates against someone for being unmarried, and therefore doesn't come under the protected characteristics point

This all reinforces my initial view that this isn't a relevant characteristic to protect any more.

@CharityConundrum you've got a decent example here, thanks. And current too!
Good response, I'm glad you got the leave you wanted

I have seen women not get interviews r jobs because they are recently married and the employer thinks that means (especially when they are early 30s) they are likely to have babies soon. And they turned out to be correct in some cases.

I find it crazy though that this still goes on given men can now take paternity leave, and women can still have babies if they are younger and unmarried.

I'd have loved it if one of the men who got the jobs had turned round and said they were off for 10 months parental leave after joining!

I'm not sure if this comes under sex discrimination or marriage but maybe both?

I get that, OP, just thought it was interesting. I assume marriage/CP is protected as a matter of public policy because it's considered socially and economically desirable for people to be married (hence also tax breaks etc).