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

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 9:37am

silverharp wrote: »

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.

But I have a problem with that argument.

Back in the '60s in the US, it might very well have damaged the business of a restaurant or coffee shop to be seen to serve blacks. And the private property argument was very strongly advanced against civil rights legislation imposing equal treatment obligations on private business.

We wouldn't accept for an instant, would we, that "other customers won't like it" would be a good reason to refuse to serve blacks, or Jews? And yet I don't think that argument is all that different when the business becomes a cinema rather than a restaurant, and when the people excluded or rendered invisable are Christians or Atheists, rather than Blacks or Jews.

So I guess I'm saying that my right to freedom of expression, freedom of belief, etc can set some kind of limit to your right to equal treatment. But my right of private property, my right to make a profit - not so much.

Penn · 26-11-2015 9:37am

The trouble with the Asher's Bakery case, is that it was more a result of indirect discrimination than discrimination.

By refusing the custom of someone who wanted a cake saying "Support Gay Marriage", they're not directly discriminating against the customer, who may or may not be gay, but as a customer ordering a cake is more likely to be gay, it's a policy which indirectly discriminates against customers based on sexuality. As per the link above; "The rule seems fair, but it has a worse effect on this particular group of people."

It's iffy, and to be honest there's enough merit on both sides of the argument in this particular case, but that's where comparisons to the cinema fall down. The cinema is not directly or indirectly discriminating. They don't allow any religious or non-religious adverts. Their policy applies equally to everyone, and doesn't treat any groups less favourably than others.

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 9:45am

Penn wrote: »

The trouble with the Asher's Bakery case, is that it was more a result of indirect discrimination than discrimination.

By refusing the custom of someone who wanted a cake saying "Support Gay Marriage", they're not directly discriminating against the customer, who may or may not be gay, but as a customer ordering a cake is more likely to be gay, it's a policy which indirectly discriminates against customers based on sexuality.

That's not the reasoning set out in the Asher judgment. It was found that they were discrminating againt the customer who sought to order the case, who was gay. Just sayin'.

Penn wrote: »

It's iffy, and to be honest there's enough merit on both sides of the argument in this particular case, but that's where comparisons to the cinema fall down. The cinema is not directly or indirectly discriminating. They don't allow any religious or non-religious adverts. Their policy applies equally to everyone, and doesn't treat any groups less favourably than others.

All ads are either religious or non-religious, surely, so what you say here could only be true if they accepted no ads at all, which of course is not the case. The cinema would be discriminating against both atheists and theists by comparison with those who want to promote ideas unconnected with religion.

And on this note, I don't think Asher's would have helped themselves by saying that they wouldn't bake either pro- or anti-SSM cakes. There was in fact no evidence that they ever had or ever would bake an anti-SSM cake. In order to establish discrimination, the complainant only had to show that they would bake a cake which wasn't pro-SSM (such as a cake that didn't mention the issue at all) to establish that he was being discriminated against.

silverharp · 26-11-2015 9:55am

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I have a problem with that argument.

Back in the '60s in the US, it might very well have damaged the business of a restaurant or coffee shop to be seen to serve blacks. And the private property argument was very strongly advanced against civil rights legislation imposing equal treatment obligations on private business.

We wouldn't accept for an instant, would we, that "other customers won't like it" would be a good reason to refuse to serve blacks, or Jews? And yet I don't think that argument is all that different when the business becomes a cinema rather than a restaurant, and when the people excluded or rendered invisable are Christians or Atheists, rather than Blacks or Jews.

So I guess I'm saying that my right to freedom of expression, freedom of belief, etc can set some kind of limit to your right to equal treatment. But my right of private property, my right to make a profit - not so much.

no one advocates that private property is an absolute right because you are generally surrounded by other private property owners so no action should damage other owners for instance. But personally I have no problem with the christian B&B not allowing gay couples to stay , whereas the law potentially would turn them into criminals. I would see the B&B owners private property rights trumping some virtue signalling law.

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 10:04am

silverharp wrote: »

no one advocates that private property is an absolute right because you are generally surrounded by other private property owners so no action should damage other owners for instance. But personally I have no problem with the christian B&B not allowing gay couples to stay , whereas the law potentially would turn them into criminals. I would see the B&B owners private property rights trumping some virtue signalling law.

Interesting. Would you say the same for private businesses refusing to serve Jews or Blacks? Or refusing to employ women?

And, if not, where would you draw the line? Is it to do with some characteristic of the business ("A B&B can do this, but a 50-bed hotel can't") or of the individual who is discriminated against ("You can turn away gays, but not Jews")?

Penn · 26-11-2015 10:11am

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not the reasoning set out in the Asher judgment. It was found that they were discrminating againt the customer who sought to order the case, who was gay. Just sayin'.

Hence why I said "It's iffy, and to be honest there's enough merit on both sides of the argument in this particular case".

Peregrinus wrote: »

All ads are either religious or non-religious, surely, so what you say here could only be true if they accepted no ads at all, which of course is not the case. The cinema would be discriminating against both atheists and theists by comparison with those who want to promote ideas unconnected with religion.

Sorry but that's a ridiculous argument, or you're taking "non-religious" extremely literal. All ads are not either religious or non-religious. A car ad is neither religious nor non-religious, because it has nothing to do at all with religion. "Non-religious" implies an ad which is about religion but promoting a non-religious standpoint, such as ads promoting atheism etc.

It's like one of Stewart Lee's jokes about a shop he used to live near called "Fags, Foods & Non-foods", which sold cigarettes, foods, and everything else that has ever existed.

silverharp · 26-11-2015 10:20am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting. Would you say the same for private businesses refusing to serve Jews or Blacks? Or refusing to employ women?

And, if not, where would you draw the line? Is it to do with some characteristic of the business ("A B&B can do this, but a 50-bed hotel can't") or of the individual who is discriminated against ("You can turn away gays, but not Jews")?

They mostly sound like issues that wouldn't arise that much because it would hit their bottom line. But I would also see trade associations enforcing s bit of common sense and we live now where everyone can rate a business. Or even wider property rights come into play take for example a shopping centre like dundrum , everyone there has to comply with the centre rules and they are not going to bend because someone wants to set up a kkk r us outlet.

Gordon · 26-11-2015 11:20am

frostyjacks wrote: »

The PC brigade need to be reined in.

Yeah, maybe the Protestant Church brigade do need to be reined in.

Absolam · 26-11-2015 12:34pm

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 . . .).

I'd be a bit iffy on the 'refusing to do work for a customer you don’t like' bit; but I take the point generally.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

You see, I think that's wher the Judge in the Ashers case was wrong; claiming that what a person does is indissociable from what they are, and therefore acquires the protected characteristic. The fact that a Christian and an Atheist could seek to place ads doesn't mean that only a Christian and an Atheist could seek to place those ads, so the act is not indissociable from the characteristic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

I would suggest that we are not looking at weighing competing rights against each other at all; unless an act can only result from a protected characteristic, that act should not be considered to be protected.

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 1:26pm

Absolam wrote: »

I would suggest that we are not looking at weighing competing rights against each other at all; unless an act can only result from a protected characteristic, that act should not be considered to be protected.

Well, hold on. Buying a cofee is not an act that can only result from a protected characteristic. But if you refuse to sell me a coffee because I'm Black, that's plainly going to fall foul of equal treatment legislation, and I'm sure we both agree that that's as it should be. So I don't think the inherent quality of the act you are refusing to do for me is terribly relevant - except where the act is assistance in the promotion of a belief or opinion.

For me to establish a case of unlawful discrimination, I have to find someone else to whom you do sell coffee [that establishes "discrimination"] and then I have to establish that the reason you won't sell it to me is my race, or another protected ground [that establishes "unlawful'].

Now apply this to the cinema ads and the pro-SSM cake. I can establish that you do sell advertising slots/cakes to other people, so there's the discrimination. Why will you not sell a slot/a cake to me? Your answer is "because of the nature of the ad you will run/the slogan on the cake". I say "but I only want that ad/that slogan because of my belief in Christianity/the rightness of recognising gay marriage". You can't point to a non-Christian believer/non-SSM supporter who would seek to place this ad/buy this cake. Anyone who would seek to do such a thing is by definition actuated by belief or political opinion. (You don't have to be gay to buy a pro-SSM cake, but you do have to be pro-SSM.) If they held an entirely different belief/opinion and sought to place ads promoting that, you would accept them, and I can point to numerous real-world examples where you have done so.

If you're a haberdasher, you can refuse to sell a Black person coffee. But if you run a coffee shop, you can't. These people sell advertising slots. They can't refuse to sell slots to customers on the basis of their beliefs or political opinions. Since ads by definition promote some belief or opinion (even if it's only "Guinness is good for you") doesn't this put a barrier in the way of refusing to carry an ad because you don't like the content?

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 1:31pm

silverharp wrote: »

They mostly sound like issues that wouldn't arise that much because it would hit their bottom line. But I would also see trade associations enforcing s bit of common sense and we live now where everyone can rate a business. Or even wider property rights come into play take for example a shopping centre like dundrum , everyone there has to comply with the centre rules and they are not going to bend because someone wants to set up a kkk r us outlet.

That's dodging the question, though. The question I'm asking is not, do large businesses practice discrimination? The question is, should it be illegal? You're quite right to say that large business tend not to, but isn't that in large part because it's illegal? Before equal pay legislation business often did pay men and women different rates for the same job, and before employment equality legislation they frequently did operate gender bars for certain jobs.

You're not giving a straight answer to the question raised. Given that you would permit some business (specifically, B&Bs) to practice discrimination on grounds that are currently forbidden, and you justify this with an appeal to property rights, would you allow all private business to do so? If not, why not? And where do you draw the line?

Absolam · 26-11-2015 1:54pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, hold on. Buying a cofee is not an act that can only result from a protected characteristic. But if you refuse to sell me a coffee because I'm Black, that's plainly going to fall foul of equal treatment legislation, and I'm sure we both agree that that's as it should be. So I don't think the inherent quality of the act you are refusing to do for me is terribly relevant - except where the act is assistance in the promotion of a belief or opinion.

The distinction I would raise there is, am I refusing to sell you a coffee, or am I refusing to sell you anything at all? If it's anything at all, you may have a case that it's because you're black (unless I just don't sell anything at all to anyone). If it's just the coffee and I'll happily sell you anything else, then I'm leaning towards it's not because you're black, because buying coffee and being black are not indissociable. it may well be I sell a great deal of varying hot drinks, to anyone at all, but the particular blend of coffee you want is one I feel comes from the wrong sort of plantation, so I don't stock it. Or, I only sell teas...

Peregrinus wrote: »

For me to establish a case of unlawful discrimination, I have to find someone else to whom you do sell coffee [that establishes "discrimination"] and then I have to establish that the reason you won't sell it to me is my race, or another protected ground [that establishes "unlawful'].
Now apply this to the cinema ads and the pro-SSM cake. I can establish that you do sell advertising slots/cakes to other people, so there's the discrimination. Why will you not sell a slot/a cake to me? Your answer is "because of the nature of the ad you will run/the slogan on the cake". I say "but I only want that ad/that slogan because of my belief in Christianity/the rightness of recognising gay marriage". You can't point to a non-Christian believer/non-SSM supporter who would seek to place this ad/buy this cake. Anyone who would seek to do such a thing is by definition actuated by belief or political opinion. (You don't have to be gay to buy a pro-SSM cake, but you do have to be pro-SSM.) If they held an entirely different belief/opinion and sought to place ads promoting that, you would accept them, and I can point to numerous real-world examples where you have done so.

I think that where the argument falls down is I may sell advertising slots, but that doesn't mean I must sell advertising slots for everything; they may only be slots for haberdashers, if I want. Or cakes with icing I approve of, or coffee from fair trade plantations. There's no reason to limit the specificity of the kind of service a person provides if they want to be very specific about it; your haberdasher may choose to only sell houndstooth tweeds. Just because they're a haberdasher doesn't mean a homosexual negro muslim should be able to force them to sell tartan.

Penn · 26-11-2015 1:54pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you're a haberdasher, you can refuse to sell a Black person coffee. But if you run a coffee shop, you can't. These people sell advertising slots. They can't refuse to sell slots to customers on the basis of their beliefs or political opinions. Since ads by definition promote some belief or opinion (even if it's only "Guinness is good for you") doesn't this put a barrier in the way of refusing to carry an ad because you don't like the content?

They can't refuse to sell slots to customers on the basis of their beliefs or political opinions, but they can refuse to sell slots based on the content of the ads, and by refusing to sell slots to any and all adverts which are based on religion or politics, there is no discrimination against anyone's belief or opinion.

And are you really suggesting that an ad for a product promotes "some belief or opinion"? It doesn't. The product itself is for sale. With religion/politics, it's an ideology being promoted.

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 2:04pm

Penn wrote: »

They can't refuse to sell slots to customers on the basis of their beliefs or political opinions, but they can refuse to sell slots based on the content of the ads, and by refusing to sell slots to any and all adverts which are based on religion or politics, there is no discrimination against anyone's belief or opinion.

And are you really suggesting that an ad for a product promotes "some belief or opinion"? It doesn't. The product itself is for sale. With religion/politics, it's an ideology being promoted.

An ideology can be a product. Why not? (And you'll get many people arguing on this board that religion in particular is a product, and that churches flog it for revenue.)

I think you make a false distinction between the content of the ads and the beliefs and opinions of the advertisers. The two are obviously closely connected. And if Christians claim that they are discriminated against as compared with, say, brewers trying to buy cinema slots, it is no answer to say that atheists would be similarly discriminated against. Both are being discriminated against with respect to people whose beliefs, as manifested in their ads, do not touch on religious questions.

silverharp · 26-11-2015 2:44pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's dodging the question, though. The question I'm asking is not, do large businesses practice discrimination? The question is, should it be illegal? You're quite right to say that large business tend not to, but isn't that in large part because it's illegal? Before equal pay legislation business often did pay men and women different rates for the same job, and before employment equality legislation they frequently did operate gender bars for certain jobs.

You're not giving a straight answer to the question raised. Given that you would permit some business (specifically, B&Bs) to practice discrimination on grounds that are currently forbidden, and you justify this with an appeal to property rights, would you allow all private business to do so? If not, why not? And where do you draw the line?

I'd let the market find the line , A big business wont discriminate now because a "twitter army" would assemble very quickly and would damage the company. And there have been plenty of smaller businesses called out on various things.We are entering an interesting time where reputation is more important than ever and where even in a big city your practices can go national whether you are a company a small employer or employee.
You have to remember in the past a lot of discrimination was religious based anyway or based on practices which might have made sense in the 19th century but clearly dont now.
In Australia wasnt there some trouble with Irish people in the outback either destroying hostels/not paying or some work issues, and some "no Irish" signs went up. Here I'd have some sympathy with the owners, why should they put up with an avoidable cost? And by sending a signal out might not some feedback get back to these people to cop on to themselves? would I expect Dublin to be festooned with "no whaterver" I dont think so.
Also its not like these laws prevent all discrimination , anyone running a business can discriminate in a way that it would impossible to prove they have discriminated. Our Australian friend can just say he is full if he hears an Irish accent.

Penn · 26-11-2015 3:22pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

An ideology can be a product. Why not? (And you'll get many people arguing on this board that religion in particular is a product, and that churches flog it for revenue.)

I think you make a false distinction between the content of the ads and the beliefs and opinions of the advertisers. The two are obviously closely connected. And if Christians claim that they are discriminated against as compared with, say, brewers trying to buy cinema slots, it is no answer to say that atheists would be similarly discriminated against. Both are being discriminated against with respect to people whose beliefs, as manifested in their ads, do not touch on religious questions.

Not even a little bit. And no, an ideology cannot be a product. An ideology is a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual, or a set of political beliefs or ideas that characterize a particular culture. Pepsi, an example of a product, is a fizzy drink.

Just because someone believes Pepsi is better than Coke, or in their opinion Pepsi causes less acid reflux, doesn't make 'liking Pepsi' an ideology.

Ultimately, the cinema has a policy of not allowing any religion-based or politics-based adverts. None whatsoever. If the cinema allowed an advert for a new mosque but not a new church, the church is being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. If the cinema allows an advert for a new Halal restaurant but not a new Kosher restaurant, the Kosher restaurant is being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

If the cinema allows an advert for a new Audi but not for an ad promoting Christianity, the Christian organisation is not being discriminated against because the cinema has a policy of not allowing any religious based adverts from any religious or non-religious groups where religion is the focal point of the advert.

cowboyBuilder · 26-11-2015 3:24pm

Links234 wrote: »

Oh yeah, I forgot that. But then again, that is from the prequels.

Exactly, and from the weakest film of a weak trilogy ..

Can be pretty much discounted tbh..

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 3:34pm

Penn wrote: »

Not even a little bit. And no, an ideology cannot be a product. An ideology is a set of opinions or beliefs of a group or an individual, or a set of political beliefs or ideas that characterize a particular culture. Pepsi, an example of a product, is a fizzy drink.

Just because someone believes Pepsi is better than Coke, or in their opinion Pepsi causes less acid reflux, doesn't make 'liking Pepsi' an ideology.

What you're proving here is that you can have a product that's not an ideelogy. What you need to prove is that you can't have an ideology that is a product, which is a very different proposition.

Of course, it depends on how you define "product". An ideology is plainly a product in the strict sense of the word (humans produce them). It's also a product in the sense employed in the advertising industry. For them, if you can promote it through advertising, it's a product.

Penn wrote: »

Ultimately, the cinema has a policy of not allowing any religion-based or politics-based adverts. None whatsoever. If the cinema allowed an advert for a new mosque but not a new church, the church is being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. If the cinema allows an advert for a new Halal restaurant but not a new Kosher restaurant, the Kosher restaurant is being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

If the cinema allows an advert for a new Audi but not for an ad promoting Christianity, the Christian organisation is not being discriminated against because the cinema has a policy of not allowing any religious based adverts from any religious or non-religious groups where religion is the focal point of the advert.

Yes, it is. Any difference of treatment is a discrimination. The people who want to place an ad for Christianity are clearly treated differently from the people who want to place an ad for Audis.

The question is, is it unlawful or objectionable discrimination? And, if you reject the ad for Christianity because the ideas in it are religious, while the ideas in the Audi ad are not, how can you say you're not discriminating against the Christian customers based on the beliefs embodied in the ad? Which, on the face of it, is illegal. (Maybe it ought not to be. I myself think it ought not to be. But, as of now, based on what it says in the Act, it looks to be.)

oldrnwisr · 26-11-2015 4:00pm

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.

OK, here's the thing about the Asher's bakery case.

Firstly, the argument made by Asher's bakery in the case was not that the message was political or otherwise unconnected to the customers sexual orientation. Rather Asher's tried to argue that their refusal of the order was protected under Regulation 16 of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. The portion of the Act they relied on was:

16.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (8) this regulation applies to an organisation the purpose of which is —

(a)to practice a religion or belief;

(b)to advance a religion or belief;

(c)to teach the practice or principles of a religion or belief;

(d)to enable persons of a religion or belief to receive any benefit, or to engage in any activity, within the framework of that religion or belief.

However, the judge ruled that because it was a business for profit, they weren't entitled to any such exemption:

"The defendants are not a religious organisation; they are conducting a business for profit notwithstanding their genuine religious beliefs and in accordance with Regulation 16(2) are not therefor exempted by the Regulations. The defendants argue that the Regulations only protect sexual orientation and not sexual conduct. I prefer the plaintiff’s submission that same-sex marriage is or should be regarded as a union between persons having a sexual orientation and that if a person refused to provide a service on that ground then they were discriminating on grounds of sexual orientation.”

Moreover, the judge notes:
Much as I acknowledge fully their religious belief is that gay marriage is sinful, they are in a business supplying services to all, however constituted. The law requires them to do just that, subject to the graphic being lawful and not contrary to the terms and conditions of the company.”

In this case, the relevant legislation is more detailed than the equivalent UK act and leaves little room for the Asher's to make a case for themselves. In particular Regulation 3 says:

"3.—(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) discriminates against another person (“B”) if —

(a)on grounds of sexual orientation, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or

(b)A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B; but —

(i)which puts or would put persons of the same sexual orientation as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons;

(ii)which puts B at a disadvantage; and

(iii)which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; or

(c)A applies to B a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B; but —

(i)which is such that the proportion of persons of the same sexual orientation as B who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that sexual orientation who can comply with it; and

(ii)which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the sexual orientation of the person to whom it is applied; and

(iii)which is to the detriment of B because he cannot comply with it."

As a result of the wording of this section the judge commented:

"My finding is that the defendants cancelled this order as they oppose same sex marriage for the reason that they regard it as sinful and contrary to the genuinely held religious beliefs. Same sex marriage is inextricably linked to sexual relations between same sex couples which is a union of persons having a particular sexual orientation. The plaintiff did not share the particular religious and political opinion which confines marriage to heterosexual orientation. The defendants are not a religious organisation; they are conducting a business for profit and, notwithstanding their genuine religious beliefs, there are no exceptions available under the 2006 Regulations which apply to this case and the Legislature, after appropriate consultation and consideration, has determined what the law should be.”

In any event, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the Asher's case, it has little bearing on the cinema case for several reasons.

Firstly, the relevant legislation in the two jurisdictions are different and cannot be interpreted in a similar manner.

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that DCM are singling out the CoE here. All the evidence available suggests that all advertising with a religious view is not entertained which would not be in violation of Section 29 of the UK Act.

Thirdly, the Act is designed primarily to protect private citizens not companies or organisations. While companies and organisations can bring discrimination cases they must establish that they suffered serious financial loss as a direct result of the discrimination, something that cannot be demonstrated here.

Penn · 26-11-2015 4:07pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you're proving here is that you can have a product that's not an ideelogy. What you need to prove is that you can't have an ideology that is a product, which is a very different proposition.

Of course, it depends on how you define "product". An ideology is plainly a product in the strict sense of the word (humans produce them). It's also a product in the sense employed in the advertising industry. For them, if you can promote it through advertising, it's a product.

Sorry but I refuse to continue down this line of discussion, as quite frankly it's completely grasping of straws to try and claim that a religious ideology is a product because "humans produce them".

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it is. Any difference of treatment is a discrimination. The people who want to place an ad for Christianity are clearly treated differently from the people who want to place an ad for Audis.

The question is, is it unlawful or objectionable discrimination? And, if you reject the ad for Christianity because the ideas in it are religious, while the ideas in the Audi ad are not, how can you say you're not discriminating against the Christian customers based on the beliefs embodied in the ad? Which, on the face of it, is illegal. (Maybe it ought not to be. I myself think it ought not to be. But, as of now, based on what it says in the Act, it looks to be.)

They are not discriminating against Christians based on the religious beliefs in the ad because they do not allow any ads with which focus on any religious beliefs. If they allowed the same type of ad from a Muslim group but not a Christian group, then that would clearly be discrimination. If they allowed a religious advert from Scientology but not Atheist Ireland, that would clearly be discrimination.

They don't allow any religious adverts. The Christian organisation is not being discriminated against because it is being treated the same as all other religious organisations. An ad for Audi clearly has nothing to do with religion, so it's not a religious advert. Every single person who works for Audi could be a Christian and it wouldn't matter because the ad is for a car, not promoting a religious ideology.

Peregrinus · 26-11-2015 4:17pm

Penn wrote: »

Sorry but I refuse to continue down this line of discussion, as quite frankly it's completely grasping of straws to try and claim that a religious ideology is a product because "humans produce them".

It's "grasping at straws" to point out that something which is produced is a product?

That's what the word means, Penn. What did you think it meant?

Penn wrote: »

They are not discriminating against Christians based on the religious beliefs in the ad because they do not allow any ads with which focus on any religious beliefs. If they allowed the same type of ad from a Muslim group but not a Christian group, then that would clearly be discrimination. If they allowed a religious advert from Scientology but not Atheist Ireland, that would clearly be discrimination.

They don't allow any religious adverts. The Christian organisation is not being discriminated against because it is being treated the same as all other religious organisations.

That just means that they do not discriminate between religious organisations.

But they do discriminate between religious (and atheist) organisations on the one hand, and non-religious organisations on the other. The question, as I pointed out already, is not whether this discrimination exists, but whether it is lawful.

oldrnwisr · 26-11-2015 4:22pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they do discriminate between religious (and atheist) organisations on the one hand, and non-religious organisations on the other. The question, as I pointed out already, is not whether this discrimination exists, but whether it is lawful.

Yes, it's lawful. In order for the discrimination to be in breach of the UK act it has to be because of inequal treatment when considered on the basis of a protected characteristic.

So if you refuse to employ someone who is single when you would if they were married then that is discrimination. If you refuse to sell a bottle of wine to a gay couple but sell one to a straight couple then that is also discrimination.

However, if you refuse to sell a car to a gay person but will sell one to an Asian person then it's impossible to determine if there is discrimination because you're not comparing the two people on the basis of the shared characteristic.

That's the point here. DCM refuse any advertising of a religious nature.

Penn · 26-11-2015 4:36pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's "grasping at straws" to point out that something which is produced is a product?

That's what the word means, Penn. What did you think it meant?

I know what it means, I'm saying that that specific definition of the word 'product' does not apply to ideology. Pepsi, Audi, Guinness etc, are all products in the sense that they are physical items produced through work for sale.

An ideology is a set of beliefs and opinions. Just because someone thought of the general basis and framework of it does not mean an ideology is in any way shape or form comparable to a can of Pepsi. It's mixing up two definitions of the same word, and at quite a stretch too to say an ideology is "produced".

Peregrinus wrote: »

That just means that they do not discriminate between religious organisations.

Yes, and that's exactly the point.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But they do discriminate between religious (and atheist) organisations on the one hand, and non-religious organisations on the other. The question, as I pointed out already, is not whether this discrimination exists, but whether it is lawful.

If the discrimination doesn't exist, then surely it follows that it's lawful as there has been no discrimination.

Hotblack Desiato · 26-11-2015 9:27pm

silverharp wrote: »

But personally I have no problem with the christian B&B not allowing gay couples to stay , whereas the law potentially would turn them into criminals. I would see the B&B owners private property rights trumping some virtue signalling law.

OK if only one does it? What if most or all in an area do it? Still OK? Seems to me you simply haven't thought this through. Otherwise racially segregated lunch counters and buses would be perfectly OK as well - private property.

silverharp wrote: »

But I would also see trade associations enforcing s bit of common sense

I certainly wouldn't bet on that. The job of a trade association is to protect what it sees as the economic interests of its members, if it sees sexual orientation or racial or other discrimination as in their interests then it will not only encourage it, but try to enforce it on its members to boot.

and we live now where everyone can rate a business.

That's just a modern version of an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Even in the western world there are still places where substantial numbers of people support homo- or trans- phobic discrimination (just look at NI) - that certainly doesn't make it right. There are much worse things happening elsewhere in the world which are popular with most of the people living there.

silverharp wrote: »

I'd let the market find the line

I very much doubt you'd apply that argument to school patronage, for instance. The 'market' has decided that 96% religious domination is just fine with the Irish public.

A big business wont discriminate now because a "twitter army" would assemble very quickly and would damage the company.

Who needs laws and rights, when you can have a mob of SJWs :rolleyes:

In Australia wasnt there some trouble with Irish people in the outback either destroying hostels/not paying or some work issues, and some "no Irish" signs went up. Here I'd have some sympathy with the owners, why should they put up with an avoidable cost? And by sending a signal out might not some feedback get back to these people to cop on to themselves? would I expect Dublin to be festooned with "no whaterver" I dont think so.

Could we put up "No Travellers" signs on every pub and hotel in Ireland, and hope that "they" "cop on to themselves" ?

silverharp · 26-11-2015 10:14pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

OK if only one does it? What if most or all in an area do it? Still OK? Seems to me you simply haven't thought this through. Otherwise racially segregated lunch counters and buses would be perfectly OK as well - private property.

ah you are stawmanning the whole thing now. firstly I would certainly say that anything that has any sort of monopoly couldnt get notions. the only people talking about segregated transport is the left, women only carriage on trains! the state will have us segregated before anyone trying to make a buck :pac:

Hotblack Desiato · 26-11-2015 11:39pm

Not strawmanning it at all. If it's wrong when all or most businesses discriminate in that way, it's still wrong even if only one is doing it. You have not addressed the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Easy to say "what's the harm", "can't they just go somewhere else" yet these same arguments are currently being used to defend compulsory religious indoctrination and religious discrimination in enrolment in Irish schools. If you think that's wrong, but the odd homophobic B&B is just fine, then that's hypocrisy.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2015 2:26am

Penn wrote: »

I know what it means, I'm saying that that specific definition of the word 'product' does not apply to ideology. Pepsi, Audi, Guinness etc, are all products in the sense that they are physical items produced through work for sale.

Lots of things are advertised that are not "products" in that sense. Services, for example. Or non-religious ideas -e.g. a road safety campaign.

But, really, quibbling about whether religion or anti-religion are "products" is irrelevant in this context. Simply pointing out that religion is not a "product" tell us nothing at all about whether unlawful discrimination is being practised when religious ads are declined. The cinema advertising agents don't sell "products" (in your sense of the word); they sell advertising slots. If they sell them to X and not to Y, that's discrimination. Once you grasp this point, you'll then appreciate the need to consider whether it is lawful or unlawful discrimination.

Penn wrote: »

If the discrimination doesn't exist, then surely it follows that it's lawful as there has been no discrimination.

OK, once more. Try to stay with me on this.

Unless we work off some fairly idiosyncratic definition of "discrimination", if I treat X and Y differently (e.g. by selling advertising slots to one and not to the other) I discriminate between X and Y. (Discriminate, verb: To make or recognize a distinction; to distinguish among or between; to exercise discernment). So if I sell advertising slots to X and decline to sell them to Y, I discriminate between X and Y. Can I put it any more clearly than that?

The question then arises whether that discrimination is lawful or unlawful. Since we're in the UK, we must look to UK law to answer this question. Under the UK's Equality Act 2010 s. 13, discrimination is unlawful where:

"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." (Emphasis added)

"Religion or belief" is a protected characteristic (s. 4). And a reference to religion in the legislation includes a reference to a lack of religion (s.10). "Belief" means any religious or philosophical belief, and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief (s. 10 again). So atheism enjoys the same protections here as theism.

So if, on account of religion or belief, I refuse to sell A an advertising slot, when I do or would sell one to B, that's unlawful discrimination. And if my reason for refusing to sell the slot to A is that the ad he wishes to place (unlike B's ad) manifests a religion or belief, it seems to me that I'm discriminating against A because of the religion or belief that he manifests in his ad. That looks to be unlawful under s. 13. If I refuse both Justin Welby's ad and Richard Dawkins' ad, that doesn't "cancel out". I'm discriminating against both of them by comparison with someone seeking to place an ad that manifests no religion or belief, and in both cases the discrimination looks to be unlawful.

It's simple, really. If you refuse all ads that manifest a religion or belief (including atheism), then you're discriminating against people on account of their manifestation of religion or belief. Which is pretty much exactly what s. 13 forbids.

feargale · 27-11-2015 2:41am

simdan wrote: »

Religion should not be allowed to be advertised at all.

Indeed. People should only be allowed to say what I agree with, to propagate " the correct line," in the words of Mao Tse Tung. :pac:

Hotblack Desiato · 27-11-2015 2:51am

Are the thousands of churches not working?

This is an admission of failure by the C of E, which will disappear up its own orifice within 20 years.

Peregrinus · 27-11-2015 2:59am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are the thousands of churches not working?

This is an admission of failure by the C of E . . .

In the sense that beer advertising is an admission of failure by brewers?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

. . . which will disappear up its own orifice within 20 years.

Careful, now. Predictions of church disappearance are the atheist equivalent of fundies predicting the end of the world. They have occurred with similar frequency over a similar time period, and they've had a strikingly similar success rate.

Learn a lesson from the JWs. Best to be vague about these things. Never specify a time period!

ArtSmart · 27-11-2015 3:00am

The COE is confused? The opening 3 seconds, ie,the aul massive cross dangling on neck, is enough to alienate, never mind the rest.

Nonsense.

frostyjacks · 27-11-2015 7:44am

ArtSmart wrote: »

The COE is confused? The opening 3 seconds, ie,the aul massive cross dangling on neck, is enough to alienate, never mind the rest.

Nonsense.

What are you, a vampire or something? Does the sight of a cross make you recoil? I get it that some people might grind their teeth at a religious advert, but that's their problem. If we want to live in a truly free and liberal society then people should respect religion, not try and gag it.

PopePalpatine · 27-11-2015 8:25am

frostyjacks wrote: »

If we want to live in a truly free and liberal society then people should respect religion, not try and gag it.

Even Islam?

Hotblack Desiato · 27-11-2015 9:07am

frostyjacks wrote: »

Does the sight of a cross make you recoil?

You need to remember that huge numbers of people have suffered clerical abuse, physical, psychological and sexual.

frostyjacks wrote: »

If we want to live in a truly free and liberal society then people should respect religion, not try and gag it.

The same religions that say that non-belivers are lesser people, evil apostates, etc etc? What respect do they show?

Penn · 27-11-2015 9:56am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Lots of things are advertised that are not "products" in that sense. Services, for example. Or non-religious ideas -e.g. a road safety campaign.

But, really, quibbling about whether religion or anti-religion are "products" is irrelevant in this context. Simply pointing out that religion is not a "product" tell us nothing at all about whether unlawful discrimination is being practised when religious ads are declined. The cinema advertising agents don't sell "products" (in your sense of the word); they sell advertising slots. If they sell them to X and not to Y, that's discrimination. Once you grasp this point, you'll then appreciate the need to consider whether it is lawful or unlawful discrimination.

OK, once more. Try to stay with me on this.

Unless we work off some fairly idiosyncratic definition of "discrimination", if I treat X and Y differently (e.g. by selling advertising slots to one and not to the other) I discriminate between X and Y. (Discriminate, verb: To make or recognize a distinction; to distinguish among or between; to exercise discernment). So if I sell advertising slots to X and decline to sell them to Y, I discriminate between X and Y. Can I put it any more clearly than that?

The question then arises whether that discrimination is lawful or unlawful. Since we're in the UK, we must look to UK law to answer this question. Under the UK's Equality Act 2010 s. 13, discrimination is unlawful where:

"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." (Emphasis added)

"Religion or belief" is a protected characteristic (s. 4). And a reference to religion in the legislation includes a reference to a lack of religion (s.10). "Belief" means any religious or philosophical belief, and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief (s. 10 again). So atheism enjoys the same protections here as theism.

So if, on account of religion or belief, I refuse to sell A an advertising slot, when I do or would sell one to B, that's unlawful discrimination. And if my reason for refusing to sell the slot to A is that the ad he wishes to place (unlike B's ad) manifests a religion or belief, it seems to me that I'm discriminating against A because of the religion or belief that he manifests in his ad. That looks to be unlawful under s. 13. If I refuse both Justin Welby's ad and Richard Dawkins' ad, that doesn't "cancel out". I'm discriminating against both of them by comparison with someone seeking to place an ad that manifests no religion or belief, and in both cases the discrimination looks to be unlawful.

It's simple, really. If you refuse all ads that manifest a religion or belief (including atheism), then you're discriminating against people on account of their manifestation of religion or belief. Which is pretty much exactly what s. 13 forbids.

But this is the issue, it's discrimination if you treat one religion or belief different from the others. It's not discrimination if you treat all religions the same. The cinema doesn't show any religious adverts.

If the cinema did show this ad in question, but then didn't show one for an Islamic church, then that's discrimination, because one group is being treated less favourably due to their protected characteristic, because you have to compare like with like. One group of that characteristic is being treated less favourably then another group of that same characteristic.

You simply cannot say that a church is being discriminated against because the cinema will show an ad for Pepsi, but not a church, otherwise the cinema could not possibly refuse to show any type of ad whatsoever.

The Christian org isn't being refused because they're Christian, it's because the cinema doesn't allow any religious based ads, and so long as that rule is applied to all religions, being of the same protected characteristic, it cannot be deemed to be discrimination.

RDM_83 again · 27-11-2015 11:12am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Even Islam?

Yes, I don't like the Niqab but people should have the right to wear it in areas without security concerns if they choose to under their own free will. I wouldn't like to live in area where its common because of what it signals but it is their right and should be respected..
edit:cheers to legal replies way easier than reading 1000+ posts

Stealthfins · 27-11-2015 11:47am

I sense the dark side in this forum.....
ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ðŸ˜

Peregrinus · 27-11-2015 6:44pm

Penn wrote: »

But this is the issue, it's discrimination if you treat one religion or belief different from the others. It's not discrimination if you treat all religions the same. The cinema doesn't show any religious adverts.

If the cinema did show this ad in question, but then didn't show one for an Islamic church, then that's discrimination, because one group is being treated less favourably due to their protected characteristic, because you have to compare like with like. One group of that characteristic is being treated less favourably then another group of that same characteristic.

You simply cannot say that a church is being discriminated against because the cinema will show an ad for Pepsi, but not a church, otherwise the cinema could not possibly refuse to show any type of ad whatsoever.

The Christian org isn't being refused because they're Christian, it's because the cinema doesn't allow any religious based ads, and so long as that rule is applied to all religions, being of the same protected characteristic, it cannot be deemed to be discrimination.

If they treat all relgions alike, that's not discrimination between religions.

But the law, as already quoted, doesn't ban discrimination between religions. It bans discrimination on the grounds of religion, which is not the same thing.

As you say, we have to compare like with like. But where the service supplier is in the business of selling advertising slots, then any two people wanting to buy an advertising slot are "like". They are both seeking to buy the same service from the same supplier. And if he'll sell a slot to
X but not a slot to Y because X's ad expresses no religion but Y's does, that's discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.

feargale · 27-11-2015 7:21pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Even Islam?

Do you equate Islam with the atrocities committed in its name?

PopePalpatine · 27-11-2015 7:26pm

feargale wrote: »

Do you equate Islam with the atrocities committed in its name?

In the same way I equate Christianity with atrocities carried out in its name, yes. The poster I quoted had recently called for any Muslim refugees arriving in Europe to convert or be kept out, and in the Presidential Election thread in the US Politics forum agreed with Donald Trump's proposed register of every Muslim in the USA.

feargale · 27-11-2015 8:24pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

In the same way I equate Christianity with atrocities carried out in its name, yes. The poster I quoted had recently called for any Muslim refugees arriving in Europe to convert or be kept out, and in the Presidential Election thread in the US Politics forum agreed with Donald Trump's proposed register of every Muslim in the USA.

And in the same way you associate most of us here, as Irish ( including yourself?) with the Abercorn, Birmingham and Warrington atrocities? Jeepers, it's hard to avoid being fingered.

PopePalpatine · 27-11-2015 8:29pm

You're talking about a political ideology that not all on this island (or indeed, anyone claiming Irish ancestry) support, i.e. the reunification of Ireland through violence.

feargale · 27-11-2015 8:33pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You're talking about a political ideology that not all on this island (or indeed, anyone claiming Irish ancestry) support, i.e. the reunification of Ireland through violence.

And all Christians and Muslims support atrocities carried out in their name? Goodnight.

PopePalpatine · 27-11-2015 8:35pm

Where did I suggest that?

Boskowski · 27-11-2015 8:45pm

I gonna play devils advocate here.

I'm not religious in any way, but I can see their point. There stance is basically we're really just another advertising customer, so on what grounds are you refusing to do business with us?

And on that argument that people don't want to be exposed to prayers or other religion stuff, well, they don't want to be exposed to stupid ads either but have no trouble putting up with that. Whats the difference?

frostyjacks · 27-11-2015 10:00pm

I will defer to Fr. Boland of Strabane parish.

"The Lord's Prayer is not meant to be divisive and if this could cause division or insult we might be better not to do it."

http://strabanechronicle.com/2015/11/local-priest-backs-advert-ban-if-it-causes-division/

Hotblack Desiato · 27-11-2015 10:33pm

Religion is spectacularly efficient at getting peoples' backs up. Primarily, the followers of other religions

Bad for business. Who is going to get annoyed if their least favourite brand of cola or marque of car is advertised on screen?

Boskowski · 27-11-2015 10:51pm

That's true.

lazygal · 27-11-2015 11:06pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Religion is spectacularly efficient at getting peoples' backs up. Primarily, the followers of other religions

Bad for business. Who is going to get annoyed if their least favourite brand of cola or marque of car is advertised on screen?

That bloody Eir ad gets me nicely riled up.

The Randy Riverbeast · 28-11-2015 12:36am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Religion is spectacularly efficient at getting peoples' backs up. Primarily, the followers of other religions

Bad for business. Who is going to get annoyed if their least favourite brand of cola or marque of car is advertised on screen?

Considering CoE makes up less than 20% of the population that leaves the majority of the population that could get annoyed by it.

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

Comments