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

The Randy Riverbeast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peregrinus

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

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

worth noting that religious advertising is banned on TV.

In what countries is it banned?

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

In what countries is it banned?

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

Peregrinus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delirium wrote: »

What PC brigade?

A bit like the deity - it's imaginary.

Penn

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

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

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

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

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

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?