The refusal of a public body to allocate a male due to not having a male worker, would this be discrimination or...? Bob requested, from the public service company dealing with child issues, the presence of a male employee as he felt discriminated and intimidated with the way the female employees were leading meetings and there was never a male with them. When requesting this, the female employees started to laugh at Bob and an employee said there are no male employees available in the whole region and Bob can meet only with women. Bob asked why there are no male employees. The female employees said that men look for higher paying jobs claiming that they earn less. Regarding the employees: Wouldn't this be a discrimination against male employees? Because the company is not willing to offer a higher pay to allow the company to have the correct gender balance and not have a female-centric service? Regarding Bob receiving the service from the company: Would the refusal of the service to provide a male employee for Bob to meet with have a different scope of discrimination or what?
The first part of the question is trivial to answer - if all men consider the salary on offer to be insufficient, even though it's the same salary that's paid to the (female) employees, then that's the voluntary choice of those men. Bob in all likelihood cannot insist on the presence of a male employee in the meeting. Some countries might have rules for the gender of doctors; many have rules for police officers doing pat-downs. But those are much more personal interactions than meetings.
No. Refusing to tell the address alone is not a reason to detain somebody. But there are situations where the authorities can demand that a person identifies himself or herself, including such details as the address (or lack of a permanent residency). In such a situation, failure to identify yourself can get you locked up. Also, the tone of your posting seems to question the legitimacy of the UK government and legal system as a whole. That is a box you're putting yourself into, and the company you find there is not very pleasant.
Your description of the facts is vague enough that we can't offer an informed judgment, but to remedy this, I will paraphrase your account of the facts (you can decide whether this is what you were trying to say). I was sitting outside of the Sprint store today waiting for my step daughter to come out. While waiting, two police officers walked up to my car and asked me to turn off my vehicle and come inside. When I voluntarily went inside, the store staff said that they called the police because they had had some sort of problems with people applying for service and absconding with the phone to resell on the black market, and they thought that was part of some such criminal plan. Because of that, they refused to give her a phone or service contract. But then they also told us to never come back, threatening arrest for trespassing. I have never been in that store before. Were my rights violated? No, neither by the police nor by the manager. The police, or the store manager, can legally request you to come in for a conversation: what matters most is whether you were forced to come in against your will. By your report, you were not, so your rights were not violated. The police are irrelevant to the remainder of the question. What remains is whether your rights were violated because the manager told you to go away and never come back under pain of prosecution. The store is private property, meaning that the owner has wide latitude to grant or deny permission to enter. If they hate pink hair and your hair is pink, they can legally "ban" you. If they suspect you of involvement in a criminal activity, that can most certainly legally ban you. That does not mean that it was a righteous or justified decision on their part, or a good business choice, but it is their legal right. So, no, your rights were not violated.
Normally, an employer can decide whether someone is allowed to go on leave or not. If someone has a covered disability, that must be accommodated, except to the extent that the disability makes the person unable to perform a bona fide job qualification that cannot be accommodated by any practical means. Employers have some latitude and discretion in evaluating this question and a doctor's opinion, while it is relevant evidence that an employer should consider, isn't binding on the employer. This is because physicians can differ in their opinions on a particular case, and because physicians don't necessarily know exactly what is and isn't necessary to perform a job satisfactorily. Business owners are entitled to decide what duties go with a job, and within reason, what kind of performance of those duties meets their standards. As the case summary linked to in the comments explains: "Counseling is a medical appointment and the determination as to whether it can be required for employment is dependent on whether it is “job related” and consistent with a “business necessity” as described in the ADA." Under the circumstances described in the question, it is likely that this requirement would be found to have been met. Also, an employer could place an employee on medical leave without requiring counseling or therapy as a requirement to return, so long as some other performance standard was established for the employee. On the other hand, the employer's discretion is not unlimited. If a judge or jury finds that an employee was clearly capable of performing the job in a satisfactory manner (e.g. by noting that the disabled employee outperforms many non-disabled employees in the same position who are not put on leave), then that finder of fact could conclude that the employer had engaged in illegal discrimination based upon disability, rather than legally exercising an employer's discretion. There are, inevitably, gray areas, and no one doctor's opinion is enough to resolve that question definitively.
Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230, but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)
Even though student status is not on the list of protected classes, this still might be discrimination. By proxy. Status as student can be a proxy for age, race, and/or color. Maybe even religion if there is a religious school nearby! In fairness to the store manager, when a pack of ten kids comes rolling in on the way home from school things can get pretty hectic. Rather than try to kick out the problem kids many managers will attempt to avoid the problem in the first place. Also, a sign like this might help the manager be less discriminatory. For example, let's say he lets all kids in and only kicks out the ones who are causing problems. If those problem kids are all in one protected class and it's different from the kids who don't get kicked out, the manager looks like he's discriminating based on that protected class. Discrimination by proxy can be hard to prove and I am not sure of the burden of proof in Canada. I have read that "Canadian experience" is used as a proxy in employment discrimination and has been getting some attention lately. That might be a good issue to keep an eye on as it may define proxy discrimination jurisprudence.
Without commenting on the relatively strange situation itself, it is still useful to actually read what was actually said than what was described in a letter from a third person, even if the relayed information is technically true. The supposed basis for the claim of a zero salary is from an email allegedly sent by the department head (appendix 15): In short, you are not teaching in 2022/2023 and you have not submitted the required outline of your research or other engagement. I am very sorry that we cannot establish that you will be doing any work expected of a faculty member. Thus we cannot pay you. Starting with the Fall semester, your pay will be reduced to zero and you will be placed on unpaid personal leave. Essentially, the professor is being put on an unpaid leave because allegedly he is not doing any work. Consequently, minimum wage laws are not engaged even if the professor is not exempt as teachers since he is not being required to do any work. In the U.S., employers generally can do this (unless a work contract provides otherwise); in many circumstances, it is called being laid off (though the term has attracted a permanent connotation in parts of North America) or being suspended. An indefinite unpaid leave can be considered constructive dismissal if the employer does not reasonably allow the employee to return to work. It may not be constructive dismissal if the unpaid leave is prescribed by binding employer policies or because the employee refuses to work (and the employer allows the employment relationship to continue). Even if it is constructive dismissal, it is not automatically wrongful.
You do have freedom of conscience but you do not have a blanket right to refuse work you were ordered to perform. You have to perform work you were ordered to perform. If you refuse, you can get an Abmahnung (disciplinary letter). A second Abmahmung would be grounds for firing. The Abmahnung is invalid if the work you refused would have been unreasonable – but you'd have to litigate this. Your freedom of conscience does affect what work you can be reasonably asked to perform. You have the burden of proof to show that the work would have been unreasonable. You are required to alert the employer in advance. If you took a job where you could reasonably have been expected to know that it might come into conflict with your conscience, you should have mentioned this during the interview. Taking the job anyway effectively waives your freedom of conscience. Of course this doesn't apply if your job changed after you were hired. If you successfully claim freedom of conscience, you are not entitled for pay for the work that you didn't perform. Here, your claim of freedom of conscience does not seem to stand on very strong footing. It is normal for web development to include analytics, ads, and social integrations (what you seem to call “trackers”). This is a bit like taking a job as a nurse and claiming “my conscience doesn't allow me to perform blood transfusions” or taking a job at a defense contractor and claiming “my conscience doesn't allow me to work on weapons”. Your personal conscience may be more strict than applicable laws, but don't forget that there are laws. You might reasonably see it as your professional obligation to alert stakeholders of their compliance obligations. You have a stronger case for refusing work than the difficult to prove “freedom of conscience” if the work you are asked to perform would be illegal. You'd have a stronger argument for exercising your freedom of conscience if your work would endanger users that live under oppressive governments.