Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • Options
    #123
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    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.


  • Options
    #124
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,230 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    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.


  • Options
    #125
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,900 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    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" ?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #126
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    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:

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,900 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    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.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #128
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • Options
    #129
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    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:


  • Options
    #130
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,900 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    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.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #131
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    ArtSmart
    Registered Users Posts: 5,614 ✭✭✭ArtSmart


    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.


  • Options
    #133
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    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.


  • Options
    #134
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,842 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    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?


  • Options
    #135
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,900 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    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?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #136
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,230 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    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.


  • Options
    #137
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    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


  • Options
    #138
    Stealthfins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,141 ✭✭✭Stealthfins


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


  • Options
    #139
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    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.


  • Options
    #140
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Even Islam?

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


  • Options
    #141
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,842 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    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.


  • Options
    #143
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,842 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    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.


  • Options
    #144
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    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.


  • Options
    #145
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,842 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Where did I suggest that? :confused:


  • Options
    #146
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    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?


  • Options
    #147
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    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/


  • Options
    #148
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,900 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    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?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #149
    Boskowski
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    That's true.


  • Options
    #150
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    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.


Advertisement