When Cultural = discrimination

When various governments of the UK came up with legislation to 'enforce' equality it was as ever poorly written and designed mainly to keep either men or the English in general in their place, ie. the bottom of the pile. Various 'buzzwords' were trotted out by the powers that be (and often enough socialists) to try and shame people into either silence or acquiescence. Couldn't stop us thinking what we wanted of course, but if you said or wrote something that didn't fit in with the 'accepted' view then woe betide you. 'Fascist, racist, islamophobe, sexist, bigot' etc. all used to try and silence those who were, but also to stifle any debate on any subject where minorities or non white male genders were running roughshod over true equality where everyone was/is supposed to be treated equally. Though sadly there are more than enough cases to prove that this is not really the case and that equality for some actually means that they are the top dog and different rules must apply to them because they aren't 'white and/or male'
Birmingham Mail.

A BIRMINGHAM children’s centre has been plunged into a sexism row after openly telling dads: “You’re banned.”
Kids Go Wild recently opened in Sparkhill and boasts it is the first soft play venue in the country for just mums and their kids.
Staff have told dads they are not allowed in for ‘‘cultural’’ reasons – but the Equality and Human Rights Commission is now looking into the ban.
Kids Go Wild advertises itself as “the UK’s first ladies and children’s only soft play centre.”
Staff openly tell men they are not allowed in and a flyer posted to homes in the city reads: “Ladies and children only. No boys over nine allowed.”
They claim the ban is for “cultural” reasons and in the interests of the “predominantly Asian” local community.

For 'Asian' as ever read 'Muslim' which appears to be a piss poor MSM way to deflect blame from the Muslim community who constantly demand their own way because it's a) cultural and b) Muslims are ubermensch because allah said so to a 7th century barbarian paedophilic warlord.
Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if this was reversed? That men had set up a business that wouldn't allow women entry and specifically stated that this was the case. Feminists would have went mental, miles of column inches in the Guardian would have been taken up castigating the people involved. But when it's women doing it and it's 'cultural' different rules are believed to apply.

When the Birmingham Mail rang the play centre a woman who claimed to be the manageress, but who refused to give her name, defended the policy.
She said: “It’s a predominantly Asian community around here and we’re catering for that. It’s a cultural thing.
“We’ve had ladies coming in and they’ve not questioned it [ban on men]. They’ve been asking for it for a long time.”

You can spot the fact that they think they are on very dodgy ground when names are refused, nor would I expect women to question it, after all they are pretty much used to not thinking equality rules apply to them, but to men alone. Throw in the 'Asian' buzzword for raving Muslim fanatics who are so afraid to show their faces in case (only Muslim) men will sexually assault them for just showing an ankle. Then obviously they thought they could get away with ignoring the law because it's 'culture'
Still it would be nice to see the law being applied equally in this case, espescially as it's being applied to those who usually think it only applies to others...