Talk:Equality Act 2010

R (Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

The text says:

Although the Act was never going to change the law from its existing position, or binding European Union law which covers many more Catholics than in the UK, and this position was spelled out in the High Court in R (Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

The appears to be original research, specifically synthesis. A 2004 judgement does not directly address the effect of a 2010 act of parliament. Does there exist a published source supporting this argument? If not, I will remove it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 06:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Equality Act 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100103215847/http://cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=18231 to http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=18231
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141014070515/http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=5374 to http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=5374

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

A question

re the text "In the case of gender, there are special protections for pregnant women"

As "gender" is not a protected characteristic, is this referring to sex?  pablo 10:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected characteristics

So the "nine protected characteristics" are "age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation".

Not "nationality" any more? I confess myself surprised.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Long title

Why is the long title included in the info box when said title is rarely used. It wastes space and little value. BUSHMAN1024 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sport

I am deleting the addition of the mention of sport in the Exempt Occupations section because the sport exemption does not relate to an occupation. This exemption is one of many in Part 14. Our article is not detailed enough to justify a separate section relating to sport. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)