UK cinemas refuse to play Lord's Prayer ad in front of Star Wars

Cabaal · 23-11-2015 7:23pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a ban..

Its not a ban,
The advert is available on whatever other medium they choose to release it on, the cinema have simply chosen not to display it within their private property.

Banning it would be ensuring that it can't even be shown or sold..

You know, like the catholic church did with Life Of Brian years ago in Ireland...it wasn't given a film rating so it couldn't be brought out in cinema's or sold on video legally until it was unbanned.

Cabaal · 23-11-2015 7:25pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a ban. That's how all the media are reporting it, unless they're all wrong and you're right.

David Cameron and Stephen Fry have criticised the move. Even Dawkins, Mr.Atheist himself. has criticised the ban,

"I still strongly object to suppressing the ads on the grounds that they might ‘offend’ people. If anybody is ‘offended’ by something so trivial as a prayer, they deserve to be offended.”

I think a bit of humble pie-flavoured popcorn will be eaten soon (at the usual exorbitant price).

You do know that Fry and Dawkins are just single views right?

Atheists don't have a leadership like religious organisations, as such their views don't really carry much weight with other Atheists...unless the atheists like that specific viewpoint.

frostyjacks · 23-11-2015 7:38pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Its not a ban,
The advert is available on whatever other medium they choose to release it on, the cinema have simply chosen not to display it within their private property.

Banning it would be ensuring that it can't even be shown or sold..

You know, like the catholic church did with Life Of Brian years ago in Ireland...it wasn't given a film rating so it couldn't be brought out in cinema's or sold on video legally until it was unbanned.

If they're refusing to screen it in the cinema, that's a ban in anyone's book.

The assistant sec-gen of the Muslim council of Britain is cool with the ad, he's "flabbergasted that anyone would find this prayer offensive to anybody, including people of no particular religious belief".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3329824/DOMINIC-LAWSON-wife-s-tears-anger-Lord-s-Prayer-ban-Muslims-don-t-want.html

"The cinema distributors appear to have fallen for the same cringing, cowering mindset that has afflicted so many public bodies: this is the view that Muslims are especially offended by language with Christian references, and that this alleged sensitivity should take priority over all other considerations."

This is how those Muslim gangs in Britain got away with grooming vulnerable, underage girls for so long. The simpering, spineless PC brigade would rather see girls repeatedly gang-raped than be accused of bias against one religion over another.

magicbastarder · 23-11-2015 7:44pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

The assistant sec-gen of the Muslim council of Britain is cool with the ad, he's "flabbergasted that anyone would find this prayer offensive to anybody, including people of no particular religious belief".

of course he is. if he came out against it, he'd be refusing the opportunity of broadcasting muslim prayer in the cinema too.

your comment re preference for gang rape is beyond hysterical.

Cabaal · 23-11-2015 7:45pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

If they're refusing to screen it in the cinema, that's a ban in anyone's book.

Its private property, they can choose to display whatever they want.
If they decide not to screen some random arthouse movie does that mean they are banning that too?
:rolleyes:

The assistant sec-gen of the Muslim council of Britain is cool with the ad, he's "flabbergasted that anyone would find this prayer offensive to anybody, including people of no particular religious belief".

Interesting, so a Muslim can speak for all individual Atheists now? :eek:
No doubt he has a agenda in relation to getting Muslim adverts into cinema's in the future, of course its in his interest to downplay this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3329824/DOMINIC-LAWSON-wife-s-tears-anger-Lord-s-Prayer-ban-Muslims-don-t-want.html

"The cinema distributors appear to have fallen for the same cringing, cowering mindset that has afflicted so many public bodies: this is the view that Muslims are especially offended by language with Christian references, and that this alleged sensitivity should take priority over all other considerations."

Excuse me if I don't pay attention to the Daily Fail,

I will however give you the daily fail song....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

This is how those Muslim gangs in Britain got away with grooming vulnerable, underage girls for so long. The simpering, spineless PC brigade would rather see girls repeatedly gang-raped than be accused of bias against one religion over another.

Wtf are you even on about?
Do you want to bring catholic priests raping children into this too?...because its about as relevant to this discussion,

magicbastarder · 23-11-2015 7:46pm

anyway, overt displays of a political or religious nature are generally frowned upon in pretty much most corporate environments.

seamus · 23-11-2015 7:47pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm only going by the definition in Irish law, "any premises or other place to which at the material time members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether as of right or by express or implied permission, or whether on payment or otherwise"

Only for the purposes of public order offences. That's not an absolute definition in law.

So if someone starts a fight with you in a cinema then they can be charged with a public order offence. But that doesn't make it a "public place" in general. If you start talking loudly the owner has the absolute right to throw you out; you do not have the right to do things in a cinema that you would in an actual public place.

seamus · 23-11-2015 7:50pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

"The cinema distributors appear to have fallen for the same cringing, cowering mindset that has afflicted so many public bodies: this is the view that Muslims are especially offended by language with Christian references, and that this alleged sensitivity should take priority over all other considerations."

Ah the Daily Mail. Never miss an opportunity to complain about Muslims or the PC brigade.

In reality this is a commercial decision. The cinema doesn't want to become known as "the one that shows that bloody prayer", because teenagers and others will go to the cinema down the road instead.

Cabaal · 23-11-2015 7:54pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyway, overt displays of a political or religious nature are generally frowned upon in pretty much most corporate environments.

Indeed they are and rightly so,
Years back I was a representative for a company onsite in one of their outsourced operations in Scotland for a few weeks. The outsourced operation in Scotland didn't allow anyone to wear any football jerseys at all...ever because of the crap that comes with Celtic/Rangers.

Other company's I've worked for tell employee's they can't say "god bless you" etc to customers when dealing with them.

Worked for another company once where one employee handed out leaflets about how Harry Potter and how it was the work of the devil...how HR didn't hand her her notice I'll never know.

RDM_83 again · 23-11-2015 8:04pm

While I agree that the firm shouldn't be forced to carry the advert there is two things to consider.

1) This firm controls a hefty chunk (a majority?) of screen in the UK, therefore it has a much larger chilling effect than may be apparent.

2)The gay cake judgement. This point will get heat but the cake had a political message and as such could be considered a "tool" in promotion of a political view (remember this was in NI, it wasn't a wedding cake).(hate the way I now have to add the not a homophobe support right to same sex marriage disclaimer ). In relation to point 1, this was a fairly small independent bakery (3/4 branches) yet the fact there was numerous other places that would fulfill the order (unlike with this case) was not a defence

The Randy Riverbeast · 23-11-2015 9:10pm

Can anyone remind me when there was a case against a bakery refusing to make a cake because of their policy against making political cakes? It keeps getting brought up but I'm not seeing it anywhere.

magicbastarder · 23-11-2015 10:03pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

2)The gay cake judgement. This point will get heat but the cake had a political message and as such could be considered a "tool" in promotion of a political view (remember this was in NI, it wasn't a wedding cake).

the relationship here is different though; in the cake case it was between a business and a member of the public. this is more a business and a supplier issue.

the_syco · 23-11-2015 10:07pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

This is how those Muslim gangs in Britain got away with grooming vulnerable, underage girls for so long. The simpering, spineless PC brigade would rather see girls repeatedly gang-raped than be accused of bias against one religion over another.

AS OPPOSED TO THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO RAPED LITTLE CHILDREN?

RDM_83 again · 23-11-2015 10:21pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Can anyone remind me when there was a case against a bakery refusing to make a cake because of their policy against making political cakes? It keeps getting brought up but I'm not seeing it anywhere.

Is there any evidence the bakery had a formalized position on political works and had agreed to political works at a previous time?
As I said I support the right of the cinemas not to show this advert (and am thankful that they have this stance as the Scientologists have a lot of cash in the UK), however to my mind it doesn't seem to match.

magicbastarder wrote: »

the relationship here is different though; in the cake case it was between a business and a member of the public. this is more a business and a supplier issue.

Is there a separation between customer, "business" and "personal" though?Does equality stuff still not apply? If the cake had been bought by a Gay rights advocacy group would it have been legal to refuse their order?

Penn · 23-11-2015 10:56pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Is there any evidence the bakery had a formalized position on political works and had agreed to political works at a previous time?
As I said I support the right of the cinemas not to show this advert (and am thankful that they have this stance as the Scientologists have a lot of cash in the UK), however to my mind it doesn't seem to match.

Is there a separation between customer, "business" and "personal" though?Does equality stuff still not apply? If the cake had been bought by a Gay rights advocacy group would it have been legal to refuse their order?

I would argue that the bakery did have a right to not provide a cake with a pro-LGBT message, but would not have the right to not provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. Similarly, the cinema should have the right to not show a pro-Christianity advert/prayer, but would not have the right to not allow Christians into the cinema.

In both cases, the former is the company's right to not provide their service for political/religious reasons, but the latter is discrimination where they do not provide a service they provide to others and discriminate directly against the customer based on sexuality/religion.

magicbastarder · 23-11-2015 11:05pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Is there a separation between customer, "business" and "personal" though?Does equality stuff still not apply? If the cake had been bought by a Gay rights advocacy group would it have been legal to refuse their order?

you cannot refuse to deal with a customer because that customer is gay. can you refuse to deal with a supplier - i.e. a company - because that company is gay?

RDM_83 again · 23-11-2015 11:38pm

Penn wrote: »

I would argue that the bakery did have a right to not provide a cake with a pro-LGBT message, but would not have the right to not provide a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. Similarly, the cinema should have the right to not show a pro-Christianity advert/prayer, but would not have the right to not allow Christians into the cinema.

In both cases, the former is the company's right to not provide their service for political/religious reasons, but the latter is discrimination where they do not provide a service they provide to others and discriminate directly against the customer based on sexuality/religion.

But the cake did have a pro-lgbt political message and wasn't for a wedding?

magicbastarder wrote: »

you cannot refuse to deal with a customer because that customer is gay. can you refuse to deal with a supplier - i.e. a company - because that company is gay?

Ok religion is covered by the same equality legislation as sexuality and by definition the COE is that religion?

Turtwig · 24-11-2015 12:37am

This is how those Muslim gangs in Britain got away with grooming vulnerable, underage girls for so long. The simpering, spineless PC brigade would rather see girls repeatedly gang-raped than be accused of bias against one religion over another.

the_syco wrote: »

AS OPPOSED TO THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO RAPED LITTLE CHILDREN?

Mod:
Time to stop the extreme whataboutery folks. It's not adding anything to the discussion.

Penn · 24-11-2015 12:38am

RDM_83 again wrote: »

But the cake did have a pro-lgbt political message and wasn't for a wedding?

Agreed. Apologies, I meant that in my opinion, the bakery should have been allowed to refuse to make the pro-LGBT cake, but should not be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an LGBT couple.

One is promoting a particular ideology, the other is providing the exact same service they provide to opposite-sex couples. Therein lies the difference imo.

Absolam · 24-11-2015 2:45am

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Frosty, if you make the cinema show the turbo-christian advert then the homophobes have to sell their cakes to the gays.....

Sooo... if the cinema doesn't have to show the turbo-christian advert then the homophobes don't have to sell their cakes to the gays?

Absolam · 24-11-2015 2:47am

Penn wrote: »

Agreed. Apologies, I meant that in my opinion, the bakery should have been allowed to refuse to make the pro-LGBT cake, but should not be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for an LGBT couple.

One is promoting a particular ideology, the other is providing the exact same service they provide to opposite-sex couples. Therein lies the difference imo.

My POV also. Equally, the cinema in question should be allowed to decline advertising that promotes a religion (or political party), but not decline advertising from a person or body on the basis that they are a religion/religious. Or a Tory.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-11-2015 2:53am

If they'd succeeded in this, it would have backfired spectacularly (and worth noting that religious advertising is banned on TV.)

Peregrinus · 24-11-2015 3:00am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, interestingly enough, when bus companies in New Zealand refused to accept the "There's probably no God" ads a few years back, the Humanist Society of New Zealand (who had sought to place the ads) brought a discrimination case before the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal. (They were not successful.)

So it seems it's not just priests who have a hazy grasp of what freedom of speech entails.

Cabaal wrote: »

Why are you picking another country to make a comparison? . . . Why you decided to pick another country with a different government and different laws for your comparison is rather odd I must admit, it must be just to suit your agenda . . . Now if you do want to look at other countrys then we know Christians get upset about Atheists advertising as we only need to look at Spain . . .

Myself, I don't think the fundamentals of human rights vary from country to country. If Vibe666 can point out that a British priest doesn't grasp the fundamentals of human rights, then I can with equal validity point to some New Zealand humanists who appear to have the same problem. I don't see why this puzzles you. But, given that it does puzzle you, I don't see why you head off to Spain to find yet another comparison.

silverharp wrote: »

Out of curiosity did said company take adverts from churches. If it was a level playing field I can't see that they would have had a case either

Good question. I don't know whether any churches sought to place adverts with the bus company and, if they did, I don't know what the response of the bus company was.

seamus wrote: »

Have you got any more info on this?

All the info I can find is that the bus company(s) accepted the ads, then reversed their decision. A human rights lawyer agreed it was discriminatory and would represent the group with the human rights review tribunal, but then the trail goes dark. I can't find any indication that it ever went to the tribunal or what decisions were made.

From the data available it looks more like they decided to save their money and spend it on billboards rather than lawyers. But a link or two would be much appreciated.

I have no link, I'm afraid. There's no reported judgment on the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal website, or any of the other resources I have searched, which suggests that the complaint never got as far as a formal judgment. All I do have is what's in the Wikipedia article, which cites what look to be newspaper reports, but the links are dead.

YOu can't go to the NZ Human Rights Review Tribunal unless you have first made a complaint to the NZ Human Rights Commission, and find yourselves dissatisfied with the outcome. So if the humanists got as far as the Tribunal, as the Wikipedia article says, they obviously pursued their grievance for some time.

Once you get through the Human Rights Commission and get to the Review Tribunal, the outcome of that process is a decision of the Tribunal which is legally enforceable. If you don't like the decision, you can appeal it to the High Court. There was certainly no appeal to the High Court in this matter.

So, assuming the correctness of what's in the Wikipedia article, in this case the aggrieved humanists complained to the Human Rights Commission, didn't like what they got there, brought their complaint to the Review Tribunal and either (a) abandoned it at some point, or (b) got an adverse decision which they did not appeal. I'm guessing (a) is more likely.

I agree, it looks as though at some point they reckoned their dollars were better spent on a different poster campaign rather than on pursuing this grievance. But that decision may have been arrived at partly on the basis of advice that their grievance would not succeed.

Absolam · 24-11-2015 3:22am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

worth noting that religious advertising is banned on TV.

In what countries is it banned?

pauldla · 24-11-2015 6:09am

Absolam wrote: »

In what countries is it banned?

Well there's not much of it in this neck of the woods, anyhow.

Peregrinus · 24-11-2015 6:34am

Political and religious advertising on television is banned in the UK, Ireland, Singapore, Denmark, Sweden and quite possibly other countries.

This one is hard to nail down, because in many countries broadcasting is regulated by a combination of laws and ostensibly voluntary codes of practice. I say "ostensibly" because very often a restriction is included in the code of practice to avoid having it included in a law - it suits both government and industry to present a restriction as voluntary and emanating from the industry when in reality it may be neither. The countries listed above all have legal prohibitions on TV advertising to promote a religion/TV advertising by a religious group/something of the kind, but there are many more where religious advertising on TV is controlled or forbidden by industry codes.

Absolam · 24-11-2015 8:14am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Political and religious advertising on television is banned in the UK, Ireland, Singapore, Denmark, Sweden and quite possibly other countries.
This one is hard to nail down, because in many countries broadcasting is regulated by a combination of laws and ostensibly voluntary codes of practice. I say "ostensibly" because very often a restriction is included in the code of practice to avoid having it included in a law - it suits both government and industry to present a restriction as voluntary and emanating from the industry when in reality it may be neither. The countries listed above all have legal prohibitions on TV advertising to promote a religion/TV advertising by a religious group/something of the kind, but there are many more where religious advertising on TV is controlled or forbidden by industry codes.

That may be why I'm having trouble finding a ban; I can see in the UK the ban on religious advertising was lifted, and BCAPs code of practice only requires that that TV adverts mustn't 'expound doctrines or beliefs' unless they are on specialist faith channels. So ostensibly an advert simply saying "Join the Church of England" would be both legal and permitted under the code. Whereas in Ireland (holy Catholic Ireland no less) we have direct legislation, the Radio and Television Act 1988, which specifically prohibits broadcasting any advertisement directed towards any religious end. Which I was surprised by!

Is this where we cue a new discussion about the Angelus being illegal religious advertising? Just thought I'd get in there before Hotblack Desiato et al

oldrnwisr · 24-11-2015 1:07pm

RDM_83 again wrote: »

1) This firm controls a hefty chunk (a majority?) of screen in the UK, therefore it has a much larger chilling effect than may be apparent.

Digital Cinema Media (DCM), the firm in question provides the advertising for 61% (455) of UK cinemas. However, I fail to see how relevant this is. The evidence so far suggests that the firm has a policy not to display any advertising with a religious viewpoint. Therefore, there is no breach of the Equality Act 2010.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

2)The gay cake judgement. This point will get heat but the cake had a political message and as such could be considered a "tool" in promotion of a political view (remember this was in NI, it wasn't a wedding cake).(hate the way I now have to add the not a homophobe support right to same sex marriage disclaimer ). In relation to point 1, this was a fairly small independent bakery (3/4 branches) yet the fact there was numerous other places that would fulfill the order (unlike with this case) was not a defence

The Asher's case is not comparable to this story. At all.

The Asher's baking company were in clear breach of Section 29 of the Equality Act (pursuant to Section 12 of the same act).

DCM in this case are not similarly guilty, for two reasons.

Firstly, the policy is applied to all religious viewpoints and so does not qualify. Section 13(1) of the Act states:

"A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. "

Since all religious adverts are refused, the group in question did not suffer differently than any other group under the same grounds.

Secondly, while the legislation is designed to protect individual consumers, a ruling in the Employment Appeals Tribunal by Mr. Justice Langstaff in 2015 showed that companies and organisations can also bring claims for discrimination under limited circumstances. A company or other organisation would need to demonstrate that they suffered a serious finanical loss as a result of the discrimination in order to qualify, something not possible in this case.

Cabaal · 24-11-2015 2:32pm

The other issue with the cake comparison is you must remember that the bakery inititally ACCEPTED the order for the cake but then later decided to not fulfill it based on their narrow-minded, backwards, bigoted views.

In this case the cinema simply don't want to bring religion into their business, its not uncommon in this day and age for large company's to not want to get involved in religious stuff so its easier for them to just not do anything with any of them.

frostyjacks · 24-11-2015 3:06pm

I could kind of understand something like this happening in a secular country (I can already picture the usual suspects threatening self-immolation if it was screened in Ireland), but not in England. The CofE is part of the establishment, their head of state is leader of the Church. Part of her official title is, "Defender of the Faith". It's a sinister decision. I like to think we can make our own minds up on what we find offensive, not have some faceless pen pushers decide for us.

What's next to be deemed offensive? Should we ban Ramadan? Make Jews wear a star of David on their clothes? The PC brigade need to be reined in.

kylith · 24-11-2015 3:12pm

Nonsense. No one is impeding Christians from practising their religion. A private company has decided on a blanket policy of no religion if the churches don't like that then it's their tough luck.

If the cinema accepted/was made to accept this ad then they could face discrimination suits if they didn't then show every ad every other religion submitted to them. They don't want that, hence 'no religion, no politics'.

magicbastarder · 24-11-2015 3:17pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

What's next to be deemed offensive? Should we ban Ramadan? Make Jews wear a star of David on their clothes? The PC brigade need to be reined in.

what the what?

Delirium · 24-11-2015 3:20pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

I could kind of understand something like this happening in a secular country (I can already picture the usual suspects threatening self-immolation if it was screened in Ireland), but not in England. The CofE is part of the establishment, their head of state is leader of the Church. Part of her official title is, "Defender of the Faith". It's a sinister decision. I like to think we can make our own minds up on what we find offensive, not have some faceless pen pushers decide for us.

What's next to be deemed offensive? Should we ban Ramadan? Make Jews wear a star of David on their clothes? The PC brigade need to be reined in.

What PC brigade?? A company made a business decision not to screen political/religious ads.

robindch · 24-11-2015 3:24pm

Delirium wrote: »

What PC brigade?

A bit like the deity - it's imaginary.

Penn · 24-11-2015 3:28pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

What's next to be deemed offensive? Should we ban Ramadan? Make Jews wear a star of David on their clothes? The PC brigade need to be reined in.

Asked and answered.

The Randy Riverbeast · 24-11-2015 3:39pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

I could kind of understand something like this happening in a secular country (I can already picture the usual suspects threatening self-immolation if it was screened in Ireland), but not in England. The CofE is part of the establishment, their head of state is leader of the Church. Part of her official title is, "Defender of the Faith". It's a sinister decision. I like to think we can make our own minds up on what we find offensive, not have some faceless pen pushers decide for us.

What's next to be deemed offensive? Should we ban Ramadan? Make Jews wear a star of David on their clothes? The PC brigade need to be reined in.

The irony in blaming the PC brigade for things you support.

PopePalpatine · 24-11-2015 6:33pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

I could kind of understand something like this happening in a secular country (I can already picture the usual suspects threatening self-immolation if it was screened in Ireland), but not in England. The CofE is part of the establishment, their head of state is leader of the Church. Part of her official title is, "Defender of the Faith". It's a sinister decision. I like to think we can make our own minds up on what we find offensive, not have some faceless pen pushers decide for us.

What's next to be deemed offensive? Should we ban Ramadan? Make Jews wear a star of David on their clothes? The PC brigade need to be reined in.

I dunno, how about Muslims?

frostyjacks wrote: »

I do think concentration camps are wrong at times of peace. But when a nation is at war, and the enemy have their people inside your country, you are obliged to keep an eye on them. Camps might be a little extreme at the moment, but I imagine voters would be in favour of be extra vigilance over the Muslim population; tracking their movements, large cash movements in their bank accounts, that sort of thing. Trump isn't afraid to tell it like it is, unlike our politicians.

recedite · 25-11-2015 1:54pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

What's next to be deemed offensive? Should we ban Ramadan? Make Jews wear a star of David on their clothes? The PC brigade need to be reined in.

Its not the cinema deeming something is offensive. They are just afraid the customers might.
Would you support the cinema's choice not to run political adds? Say they ran a series of adds for either Labour or Tories, and as a result half their customers went elsewhere. Is that a smart move?
I don't find the add itself offensive, but a commercial policy not to run religious or political adds makes sense.

the_syco · 25-11-2015 10:06pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

The CofE is part of the establishment, their head of state is leader of the Church.

It'd only be discrimination if they let CofE display their propaganda, and didn't allow the Muslims/Mormons/Scientology/Satanists show their propaganda.

So if they don't allow any religions to show their propaganda, it's not discrimination.

kylith · 25-11-2015 11:32pm

frostyjacks wrote: »

I could kind of understand something like this happening in a secular country (I can already picture the usual suspects threatening self-immolation if it was screened in Ireland), but not in England. The CofE is part of the establishment, their head of state is leader of the Church. Part of her official title is, "Defender of the Faith". It's a sinister decision. I like to think we can make our own minds up on what we find offensive, not have some faceless pen pushers decide for us.

She might be the head of the church, but she's not the head of the cinema, is she?

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 2:02am

the_syco wrote: »

It'd only be discrimination if they let CofE display their propaganda, and didn't allow the Muslims/Mormons/Scientology/Satanists show their propaganda.

So if they don't allow any religions to show their propaganda, it's not discrimination.

Nitpick: It would still be discrimination if they refused ads from all religions, but accepted "there's probably no god"-type ads from atheist organisations. What they have to do (and what in fact they do do, I imagine is to refuse ads which promote any position on a religious question, no matter who offers them.

It is slightly curious, though, that there's no objection to showing films which address religious or political questions, but the ads shown before the film can't. But I guess the answer to that is that people have generally chosen to come and see the film, and have some knowledge - or at least the opportunity for some knowledge - of what it's about, so they can avoid exposing themselves to offence. Whereas they have no idea what's going to be in the ads.

Absolam · 26-11-2015 2:35am

the_syco wrote: »

It'd only be discrimination if they let CofE display their propaganda, and didn't allow the Muslims/Mormons/Scientology/Satanists show their propaganda.
So if they don't allow any religions to show their propaganda, it's not discrimination.

Well, strictly speaking it is discrimination against religion. But as far as I know, unlike discriminating against a person because of their religion, discriminating against a religion (or all religions) is not illegal.
[EDIT] I imagine that's also a nitpick...

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 2:41am

Absolam wrote: »

Well, strictly speaking it is discrimination against religion. But as far as I know, unlike discriminating against a person because of their religion, discriminating against a religion (or all religions) is not illegal.

I can discriminate between ideologies as much as I like. Nothing illegal there. The law only regulates discrimination affecting people.

In Ireland, it's unlawful to treat one person less favourably than another on the basis "that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not". I haven't checked the UK legislation, but it will be in similar terms.

So, if two people offer me ads addressing the question "is there a god?", and I accept the one that suggests no, there isn't, while rejecting the one that says yes, there is, I think I'm in a sticky situation, legally speaking. Or, if reject the first and accept the seond. But if I reject them both or accept them both I'm fine.

Absolam · 26-11-2015 3:12am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can discriminate between ideologies as much as I like. Nothing illegal there. The law only regulates discrimination affecting people.
In Ireland, it's unlawful to treat one person less favourably than another on the basis "that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not". I haven't checked the UK legislation, but it will be in similar terms.

Pretty much what I'm saying; discrimination against religion isn't illegal, only discrimination against people based on their religious position.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, if two people offer me ads addressing the question "is there a god?", and I accept the one that suggests no, there isn't, while rejecting the one that says yes, there is, I think I'm in a sticky situation, legally speaking. Or, if reject the first and accept the seond. But if I reject them both or accept them both I'm fine.

And that's where the similarity with the bakers comes in; at least in theory you should be in a sticky situation only if you accept one and reject the other based on each persons religious opinion. If your decision is based entirely on the content, and has no regard to the person offering the ad, you ought not to be subject to any sanction.

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 3:50am

Actually, isn't that a point of difference with respect to the baker's case? If I recall correctly, in the baker's case, the commission wasn't for a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding; it was for a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage", to be consumed at a function to mark International Anti Homophobia Day.

Obviously, it's possible for someone who's not gay to support gay marriage and to oppose homophobia, and examples abound. But the baker's didn't support gay marriage (and I don't know what their stance was with respect to homophobia) and on that basis they didn't want to bake the case. As it happens, the person who sought to place the order was in fact gay, but I don't think he identified himself as such when he placed the order and, even if he did, there's no reason to think that that was a factor in the baker's decision. (If one of the many straight supporters of SSM had sought to commission this cake, do we think the baker would have accpted the commission?)

This looks fairly strongly to me like a case in which the decision to reject the order was based very much on on the content, and had no regard to the sexual orientation of the person offering the order.

Maybe we are wrong in trying to analyse this in terms of equality principles. Consider freedom of speech and freedom of association. In a democracy, I should be free to campaign for the cause I believe in. A necessary corollary is that I should be free not to campaign, or support a campaign, for causes that I don't support or that I actively oppose. If Asher's bakers could be compelled to supply a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan, then another baker could be compelled to supply a cake with a "support traditional marriage" slogan. Are we entirely comfortable with that?

Maybe the issue here is that advertising for a political or religious cause (the activity the cinema advertising people won't touch) is a lot more like political campaigning than it is like supplying wedding services or serving coffees. My freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc, don't allow me to refuse to sell you wedding photography services because I don't like your sexuality or to refuse to serve you coffee because I don't like your skin colour. But they do allow me to refuse to provide promotional materials for a cause that I don't support. On that basis the Asher's Bakery decision was wrong in principle. Also on that basis the cinema advertisers could not only refuse all religious ads but accept anti-religious ads (if they were so minded) but the could also accept only (say) Christian ads and refuse all other religious and anti-religious ads.

Absolam · 26-11-2015 4:37am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, isn't that a point of difference with respect to the baker's case? If I recall correctly, in the baker's case, the commission wasn't for a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding; it was for a cake with the slogan "Support Gay Marriage", to be consumed at a function to mark International Anti Homophobia Day.
Obviously, it's possible for someone who's not gay to support gay marriage and to oppose homophobia, and examples abound. But the baker's didn't support gay marriage (and I don't know what their stance was with respect to homophobia) and on that basis they didn't want to bake the case. As it happens, the person who sought to place the order was in fact gay, but I don't think he identified himself as such when he placed the order and, even if he did, there's no reason to think that that was a factor in the baker's decision. (If one of the many straight supporters of SSM had sought to commission this cake, do we think the baker would have accpted the commission?)
This looks fairly strongly to me like a case in which the decision to reject the order was based very much on on the content, and had no regard to the sexual orientation of the person offering the order.

But the baker was found to have discriminated against the person who ordered the cake on the grounds of his sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion. Not the content of the cake, which goes to my point. It wouldn't have been illegal to make a discriminatory decision based on the content of the cake, which is what the bakers maintain they did, only on the customers protected status, which is what the Court found they did.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe we are wrong in trying to analyse this in terms of equality principles. Consider freedom of speech and freedom of association. In a democracy, I should be free to campaign for the cause I believe in. A necessary corollary is that I should be free not to campaign, or support a campaign, for causes that I don't support or that I actively oppose. If Asher's bakers could be compelled to supply a cake with a "support gay marriage" slogan, then another baker could be compelled to supply a cake with a "support traditional marriage" slogan. Are we entirely comfortable with that?

Personally, I don't support the notion that any business or person can be compelled to engage in work they don't want to do, purely because the person that wants them to do it belongs to a protected class.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe the issue here is that advertising for a political or religious cause (the activity the cinema advertising people won't touch) is a lot more like political campaigning than it is like supplying wedding services or serving coffees. My freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc, don't allow me to refuse to sell you wedding photography services because I don't like your sexuality or to refuse to serve you coffee because I don't like your skin colour. But they do allow me to refuse to provide promotional materials for a cause that I don't support. On that basis the Asher's Bakery decision was wrong in principle. Also on that basis the cinema advertisers could not only refuse all religious ads but accept anti-religious ads (if they were so minded) but the could also accept only (say) Christian ads and refuse all other religious and anti-religious ads.

Indeed, I don't have a problem with the cinema refusing any ad because it doesn't conform with their own Muslim ethos, so long as they don't refuse the ad because the person placing it doesn't conform with their Muslim ethos.

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 5:43am

Absolam wrote: »

But the baker was found to have discriminated against the person who ordered the cake on the grounds of his sexual orientation, religious belief or political opinion. Not the content of the cake, which goes to my point. It wouldn't have been illegal to make a discriminatory decision based on the content of the cake, which is what the bakers maintain they did, only on the customers protected status, which is what the Court found they did.

I think the court finding is a bit iffy, is my point. If the same customer, with the same orientation, beliefs and opinions, had asked them to bake conventional child's birthday cake, have we any reason to think they would have refused? Conversely, if a straight Christian event organiser with no personal opinions one way or the other about SSM had asked them to bake the "support gay marriage" cake, is it not likely that they would have refused? I think the "support gay marriage" slogan on the cake is crucial.

Absolam wrote: »

Personally, I don't support the notion that any business or person can be compelled to engage in work they don't want to do, purely because the person that wants them to do it belongs to a protected class.

This is the nub of the thing, and it's basically a sound principle. If I'm in the restaurant business, I can't refuse your booking because you're black, or gay, or whatever.

But it's a difficult principle to apply where the customer’s reason for wanting the service provider to do particular work for you is closely connected with characteristics that put the customer in a protected class. Sticking with Asher, on the on hand the customer's support for, and campaigning for, gay marriage, is likely to have been something that emerged at least in part from his own experiences and insights as a gay man. On the other hand, Asher's reluctance to do any work for such a campaign likely had nothing to do with the fact that the customer was a gay man. So is supporting a gay marriage campaign work that Asher’s can legitimately decline to do? Or is the fact that they are asked to do the work by a customer who wants them to do it because he is a gay man enough to mean that they have to do it.

Similarly with your Muslim cinema advertisement. Or, better still, stick with a Christian cinema advert, because (a) that's the real world example we have, and (b) Christianity is a missionary religion, so wanted to place the ad was very much an expression of the customer's Christian identity and beliefs.

Let's take two hypotheticals:

First, the cinema owners generally accept ads, and they have in the past accepted a Dawkins-esque “probably no God” ad. But they refuse the Christian ad, arguing that religious evangelism is not work they wish to do. They don’t care who offers them money to run the ad - the immediate customer may in fact be a secular advertising agency - and they say that this means their decision is not based on the customer belonging to a selected class.

I think they’re in difficulty, if we take Asher’s to be rightly decidedc. It makes no difference that there is an advertising agency interposed between them and the ultimate customer. (Just as it would make no difference if a restaurant owner rejected a booking from a white customer on the grounds that one of the party the customer intended to host was black.) The ultimate customer’s desire to place the ad can’t be disentangled from their Christianity; it is in fact an expression of their Christianity (even more than support for SSM is an expression of homosexuality).

But, the second hypothetical: The cinema owners generally accept ads, but refuse to accept ads addressing religions questions, arguing that promoting views on religious questions is work that they do not wish to do. They have in the past knocked back a Dawkins-esque “probably no God” ad.

None of this changes the fact that the ultimate customer’s desire to place the Christian ad is an expression of their Christianity. If Asher was rightly decided, doesn’t it follow that the cinema owners must accept this ad? The distinction between these two hypotheticals is that in one case “religious evangelism” is the work the cinema owners don’t want, in the other the work they don’t want is “addressing religious questions”. That makes no difference to the customer; in each hypothetical the work being knocked back is an expression of his religious identity, and if he offered them work which was not such an expression, they would have accepted it (as was also true in Asher’s case).

In other words, I don’t think there’s much mileage in a distinction between a service provider refusing “work they don’t want to do” and refusing “work offered by a member of a protected class”. Pretty much by definition, any work they refuse is work they don’t want to do. Isn’t the real question whether the reason they don’t want to do it is connected with the customer’s membership of a protected class? And if the work is campaigning, publicity, etc, for a particular belief or opinioni, and the protected class is persons holding the belief or opinion, isn’t that pretty much a slam-dunk?

Absolam · 26-11-2015 6:38am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the court finding is a bit iffy, is my point. If the same customer, with the same orientation, beliefs and opinions, had asked them to bake conventional child's birthday cake, have we any reason to think they would have refused? Conversely, if a straight Christian event organiser with no personal opinions one way or the other about SSM had asked them to bake the "support gay marriage" cake, is it not likely that they would have refused? I think the "support gay marriage" slogan on the cake is crucial.

I agree; I hope the Appeals Court thinks the same way next year.

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is the nub of the thing, and it's basically a sound principle. If I'm in the restaurant business, I can't refuse your booking because you're black, or gay, or whatever.
But it's a difficult principle to apply where the customer’s reason for wanting the service provider to do particular work for you is closely connected with characteristics that put the customer in a protected class. Sticking with Asher, on the on hand the customer's support for, and campaigning for, gay marriage, is likely to have been something that emerged at least in part from his own experiences and insights as a gay man. On the other hand, Asher's reluctance to do any work for such a campaign likely had nothing to do with the fact that the customer was a gay man. So is supporting a gay marriage campaign work that Asher’s can legitimately decline to do? Or is the fact that they are asked to do the work by a customer who wants them to do it because he is a gay man enough to mean that they have to do it.

I would say that it is work that Ashers should be able to legitimately decline to do; the Judge obviously thought differently. The logic behind that decision seems pretty spurious to me; the Judge said that Ashers must have known the sexual orientation of the customer, and that support for same sex marriage is indissociable from sexual orientation.
The result being, not facilitating the customer's support for same sex marriage is discriminating against the customer based on his sexuality.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Similarly with your Muslim cinema advertisement. Or, better still, stick with a Christian cinema advert, because (a) that's the real world example we have, and (b) Christianity is a missionary religion, so wanted to place the ad was very much an expression of the customer's Christian identity and beliefs.

Which is where I become troubled.. if the customer's support for Christian proselytism is indissociable from his Christian religious beliefs, then by the same token it is illegally discriminatory to refuse the ad.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Let's take two hypotheticals:
First, the cinema owners generally accept ads, and they have in the past accepted a Dawkins-esque “probably no God” ad. But they refuse the Christian ad, arguing that religious evangelism is not work they wish to do. They don’t care who offers them money to run the ad - the immediate customer may in fact be a secular advertising agency - and they say that this means their decision is not based on the customer belonging to a selected class. I think they’re in difficulty, if we take Asher’s to be rightly decided. It makes no difference that there is an advertising agency interposed between them and the ultimate customer. (Just as it would make no difference if a restaurant owner rejected a booking from a white customer on the grounds that one of the party the customer intended to host was black.) The ultimate customer’s desire to place the ad can’t be disentangled from their Christianity; it is in fact an expression of their Christianity (even more than support for SSM is an expression of homosexuality).

But, the second hypothetical: The cinema owners generally accept ads, but refuse to accept ads addressing religions questions, arguing that promoting views on religious questions is work that they do not wish to do. They have in the past knocked back a Dawkins-esque “probably no God” ad.

None of this changes the fact that the ultimate customer’s desire to place the Christian ad is an expression of their Christianity. If Asher was rightly decided, doesn’t it follow that the cinema owners must accept this ad? The distinction between these two hypotheticals is that in one case “religious evangelism” is the work the cinema owners don’t want, in the other the work they don’t want is “addressing religious questions”. That makes no difference to the customer; in each hypothetical the work being knocked back is an expression of his religious identity, and if he offered them work which was not such an expression, they would have accepted it (as was also true in Asher’s case).

In other words, I don’t think there’s much mileage in a distinction between a service provider refusing “work they don’t want to do” and refusing “work offered by a member of a protected class”. Pretty much by definition, any work they refuse is work they don’t want to do. Isn’t the real question whether the reason they don’t want to do it is connected with the customer’s membership of a protected class? And if the work is campaigning, publicity, etc, for a particular belief or opinioni, and the protected class is persons holding the belief or opinion, isn’t that pretty much a slam-dunk?

I agree, in both cases if the Ashers decision is right, the cinema owner may be compelled to run the ad for the Church of England so long as the ad is requested by someone who is, or associates with, a person with a religious belief in the tenets of the Church of England. Or Islam, just for the hell of it

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 8:50am

Well, we’ve identified the problem. We don’t like the Asher’s Bakery decision. But have we identified a solution?

If I can paraphrase, you’ve suggested a distinction between refusing to do work you don’t want to do (acceptable) and refusing to do work for a customer you don’t like (not acceptable, if the reason for you not liking him is one of the protected grounds - gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation . . .).

But I don’t think this approach is helpful if the reason the customer asks you to do the work is itself closely connected with one of the protected grounds. Justin Welby and Richard Dawkins wouldn’t seek to place their ads if they weren’t, respectively, a Christian and an atheist. In both cases, I don’t think you can separate the content of the ad they want to place from the fact that they possess characteristics which are protected grounds under the equality legislation. And you discriminate against both of them as compared to a third person when you accept their ad promoting the idea that we should increase our consumption of fat, salt and sugar.

I’m suggesting a different approach, in which Welby’s and Dawkins’ rights to equal treatment have to be weighed against your right to free speech, freedom of association, etc. On this approach, you’re entitled to refuse any ad that promotes an idea that you personally object to promoting.

(We do run up against a different issue if you happen to be someone who controls a significant chunk of the media outlets. In that context there may be case for limiting your rights so that competing ideas can get exposure, and democratic debate and discourse can flourish. But let’s ignore that issue here. Let’s say you only own one cinema. And let’s not worry about how many cinemas you would have to own, or whether you would also have to control newspapers and television stations, before this would be a factor.)

This principal wouldn’t be limited to ads, of course. On this principal you could decline to do any work in support of promoting an idea that you object to (such as baking a cake with a campaigning slogan on it).

silverharp · 26-11-2015 9:25am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, we’ve identified the problem. We don’t like the Asher’s Bakery decision. But have we identified a solution?

If I can paraphrase, you’ve suggested a distinction between refusing to do work you don’t want to do (acceptable) and refusing to do work for a customer you don’t like (not acceptable, if the reason for you not liking him is one of the protected grounds - gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation . . .).

But I don’t think this approach is helpful if the reason the customer asks you to do the work is itself closely connected with one of the protected grounds. Justin Welby and Richard Dawkins wouldn’t seek to place their ads if they weren’t, respectively, a Christian and an atheist. In both cases, I don’t think you can separate the content of the ad they want to place from the fact that they possess characteristics which are protected grounds under the equality legislation. And you discriminate against both of them as compared to a third person when you accept their ad promoting the idea that we should increase our consumption of fat, salt and sugar.

I’m suggesting a different approach, in which Welby’s and Dawkins’ rights to equal treatment have to be weighed against your right to free speech, freedom of association, etc. On this approach, you’re entitled to refuse any ad that promotes an idea that you personally object to promoting.

(We do run up against a different issue if you happen to be someone who controls a significant chunk of the media outlets. In that context there may be case for limiting your rights so that competing ideas can get exposure, and democratic debate and discourse can flourish. But let’s ignore that issue here. Let’s say you only own one cinema. And let’s not worry about how many cinemas you would have to own, or whether you would also have to control newspapers and television stations, before this would be a factor.)

This principal wouldn’t be limited to ads, of course. On this principal you could decline to do any work in support of promoting an idea that you object to (such as baking a cake with a campaigning slogan on it).

this case wasnt about objecting to ideas that the owners disagreed with , they probably didnt care either way. it was more about having adverts that might damage the business in terms of the customer experience. in the case of a something like a cinema owner you cant separate free speech from private property so the owners get to dictate free speech , what adverts are shown and what movies are shown etc.

UK cinemas refuse to play Lord's Prayer ad in front of Star Wars

Comments