I must of missed or forgot the post where the people from betat posted they have the right to close anybody's account for no reason. About the case you mentioned i doubt anyone would advise a person to sue someone if they didn't have evidence, seems like it would be a waste of time and money to me if they had no evidence.
Anna
This is the original quote from Betat:-
Regarding the explanation: no business can be forced to take your custom (from your Cable provider, onwards), and no business can be forced to explain why they choose not to offer a service. That said, it's rarely for no reason
This used to be the case, but then we had anti discrimination laws.
It probably started back in the 1960's and 1970's when signs saying "No coloureds, no dogs, no Irish" were often seen on guest houses, and they were perfectly legal. This was outlawed under racial discrimination laws. We then had discrimination based on gender outlawed. However, with the PC brigade in charge, we now have a multitude of minorities for people to claim to be a member of, and then cite as possible reasons why a business has refused them service. It is then up to the business to show that they refused service for a reason that is not outlawed if the potential customer accuses them of refusing service based on one of the protected categories. Because the burden of proof lies with the business, not the accuser, it's an easy law to abuse, as well as use for it's intended purpose. The bakery lost because it refused to serve a customer because of their sexual orientation (they were gay), because their religious views prevented them from supporting what they regarded as a "sin". It's because the customer was gay that they thought it worth while taking to court. If the customer was NOT gay, but simply wanted a cake that the bakery was not prepared to produce because of their religious views, the bakery would most likely have won, and the customer would probably have been advised not to embarrass themselves by losing in court. This is how the laws can actually give minorities "special treatment", usually because the business is advised by it's lawyers that it had better agree to the request or face the risk of defeat in a lawsuit.
I am not aware of this ever having been used as leverage in a dispute with an online casino, but it's just possible that one day this will bite them in the ass.
I can imagine a possible scenario where a casino might routinely allow "husband and wife" to both play from the same household, but refuse to accept a "husband and husband" as a legitimate couple in the same household. This is the kind of thing that could end up in court, and the casino losing, even though the reason was nothing to do with them being gay, and more to do with their risk assessment in determining whether such requests came from legitimate couples or two friends "trying it on" just to get two shots at the bonuses from one address. They can't insist on marriage certificates either, as this discriminates against non-married but otherwise legitimate couples.
Of course, casinos could simply have the inflexible one account rule for all, and avoid the minefield of their discretion backfiring when they say "no" to the "wrong couple".
I have already mentioned in the past that having terms that discriminate against certain countries might fall foul of race discrimination laws, but casinos are currently confident that using countries would not. In my argument, I am thinking more of the "indirect discrimination" aspect of the legislation, rather than obvious "direct discrimination". Indirect discrimination is where an otherwise legitimate rule has the indirect effect of applying more to a given race than another. This could be ruled as "indirect discrimination", and it's a provision that is often used.
The effect of such lawsuits is often to get monetary compensation, rather than force a business to accept a customer, a club a member, or an employer an employee. The prospect of compensation is often cited as the reason for many of the dafter cases making it to court, as often the person taking action has no desire to actually win the right they are fighting for, but rather they want some compensation as "revenge" for the perceived insult.
