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 one external links on Equality Act 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

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)