The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[George Hannah]

All a load of shite anyway.

Intolerant - check, Ignorant - check,
Foul-mouthed - check. BM atheist trademarks.

 

[aguero93:20]

It's an unlawful policy actually. It's also absurd to ban the Lord's Prayer in these circumstances in a Christian country.

Please explain in what way it's unlawful.

 

[aguero93:20]

It's unlawful to withhold the provision of a service on religious grounds according to the Equality Act as I have already posted.

No, it's not. It's unlawful to discriminate against a specific religion or religious group. A blanket policy against all religious issues is perfectly legal. What you're asking for, that they make an exception for the COE, now that's unlawful.

 

[hilts]

My first point was to highlight your unfair analogy.

The Lord's Prayer is a religious article and the subject of this thread, so it doesn't seem inappropriate to discuss it here. I apologise though, if I offended you or anyone.

There is no need to apologise to anyone fella, you're entitled to your opinion, it seems they should run a film on good manners for some on here,

 

[Bluemoon115]

No, it's not. It's unlawful to discriminate against a specific religion or religious group. A blanket policy against all religious issues is perfectly legal. What you're asking for, that they make an exception for the COE, now that's unlawful.

Is the right answer.

 

[cleavers]

It's unlawful to withhold the provision of a service on religious grounds according to the Equality Act as I have already posted.

Why should that refer to an advert in the cinema, if there is a "law" it should be scrapped immediately as it isn't relevant to this day and age, what next, objections to ISIS videos ?

I don't want ANY religion invading my night out either, I don't have any time for it in my leisure periods, if you want the lords prayer in your life, or any other prayer, I fully recommend church, and the like.

 

[Chris in London]

How is it unlawful?

I don't think it is.

I think GH's argument is that it is unlawful to refuse to provide a service that is otherwise freely offered on the grounds of the particular religion of the person who is refused the service. That isn't what is happening, however.

If (say) Cineworld were happy to show religious advertisements from the Jewish faith, or Islam or Buddhism, but refused to provide the same service to Christianity, that would amount to discrimination. However that isn't what is happening. Theirs is a commercial decision not to screen any religious advertisement. So it isn't the particular religious view that that is being expressed that is the problem, it is the fact that a religious view is being expressed at all. That is not, I don't think, unlawful.

 

[creditunionhero]

They won,t accept religious or political adverts, however Jedi is now an accepted religion but I don,t suppose they will refuse to show the next Star Wars film, which could be interpreted as an advert for Jedism

 

[Damocles]

It's unlawful to withhold the provision of a service on religious grounds according to the Equality Act as I have already posted.

They aren't withholding the provision of service though, as there's no requirement by the public to see religious advertising.

Essentially if they were to refuse to show a film because of Christian content then it seems like it would fall under the Equality Act. But choosing not to purchase a product themselves doesn't.

That's where this and the cake place differs. The cake place provides a service of making cakes; the law suggests that they cannot refuse to provide a cake because of discrimination of sexuality. The cinema on the other hand provides a service of presenting films; not buying a specific advertisement due to its content isn't discriminatory because they aren't discriminating against their paying public.

As I also said previously, I'm against this entire thing philosophically and think any business can serve or not serve any people they like for any reasons they choose without prejudice.

 

[George Hannah]

I don't think it is.

I think GH's argument is that it is unlawful to refuse to provide a service that is otherwise freely offered on the grounds of the particular religion of the person who is refused the service. That isn't what is happening, however.

If (say) Cineworld were happy to show religious advertisements from the Jewish faith, or Islam or Buddhism, but refused to provide the same service to Christianity, that would amount to discrimination. However that isn't what is happening. Theirs is a commercial decision not to screen any religious advertisement. So it isn't the particular religious view that that is being expressed that is the problem, it is the fact that a religious view is being expressed at all. That is not, I don't think, unlawful.

I was encouraged in my view by the OP quote "Stephen Slack, the Church's chief legal adviser, warned the banning of the advert could "give rise to the possibility of legal proceedings" under the Equality Act, which bans commercial organisations from refusing services on religious grounds." It seems unlikely that your point would have escaped his professional notice.