The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

Not fussed about this, they're a private business and can do what they want. As long as it's a policy they apply to all religious and political groups then fair fucks.

The 'offence' thing is a funny one though.

If I'm of a wide berth and have type 2 diabetes can I call up Cineworld and request that they pull an advert for Lucozade Sport because I found it offensive?

I really don't like the manner in which 'offence' is quickly becoming a manner in which to shut down anything that someone takes exception to.

I think South Park nailed it in a recent episode about 'safe spaces'.
 
You would think people would just ignore it and eat their popcorn, I don't want to see an advert for one directions latest tour or the lastest vaginal anti itch cream, I wouldn't say this constitutes bothering me
 
George Hannah said:
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.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't be the first lawyer to ignore the technical difficulties with his argument in favour of a bit of sabre rattling
 
Never Mind The Pollocks said:
Intolerant and foul mouthed I'll accept. As for 'ignorant', that is very very rich.
Click to expand...
They're funny aren't they these religious folk. I wouldn't have willingly accepted the accusation of intolerant by the way. Only a religious person could accuse athiests of being both intolerant and ignorant and not see the irony. I wonder what the current running death toll is resulting from arguments between religions because of their respective ignorance and intolerance.
 
5604533_700b.jpg
 
Damocles said:
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.
Click to expand...
Chris in London said:
He wouldn't be the first lawyer to ignore the technical difficulties with his argument in favour of a bit of sabre rattling
Click to expand...
It is curious that the CoE don't seem to have embarked on a legal challenge yet. I thought they may have been able to argue from the definition of religion or belief in the Act without recourse to a comparator. That by restricting their services in this way DCM are in effect discriminating against all religions/belief systems of which the CoE is one.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/EqualityAct/servicescode.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.