Cinema Prayer Banned........

[ChrisJones 7,975]

What about the Christian baker Chris, seems it's double standards, I think business should be able to choose who an what, but it needs to be across the board, not just these secularists enterprises,

 

What about him? Same rules apply. He doesn't have to sell. We don't have to buy. What's the problem?

[Francie 6,368]

He was taken to court, because he refused to write gay slogans on a cake, an was done, do you think this was wrong?

[ChrisJones 7,975]

He was taken to court, because he refused to write gay slogans on a cake, an was done, do you think this was wrong?

 

Yes I do.

 

If he wasn't willing to do it then they should have gone to someone who was. He's entitled to his beliefs, and should also be protected from discrimination and coercion.

 

If Britain has indeed changed the law that you can sue for discrimination, based on a refusal to serve, then you're all f****d! Good luck with Blighty. I won't be back!

[Francie 6,368]

Well there's something we agree on.

[BGD 6,436]

 

He was taken to court, because he refused to write gay slogans on a cake, an was done, do you think this was wrong?

 

Yes I do.

 

If he wasn't willing to do it then they should have gone to someone who was. He's entitled to his beliefs, and should also be protected from discrimination and coercion.

 

If Britain has indeed changed the law that you can sue for discrimination, based on a refusal to serve, then you're all f****d! Good luck with Blighty. I won't be back!

 

 

You can refuse service to anyone on an individual basis but the law gets involved if you start refusing service to whole groups of protected minorities, the same as in the states with the laws that put an end to segregation i think?

[Blackbriar 8,569]

The cinemas had agreed to show the ad before it had even been made, then had a sudden change of heart, and stated that they don't show any religious or political adverts.

 

So, why agree to show it in the first instance, in the full knowledge that it had been commissioned by the Church of England ?

 

Now, suppose we were to substitute "Mosque" for "Church". I wonder how that might have changed the situation........??

[jacknife 2,005]

The cinemas had agreed to show the ad before it had even been made, then had a sudden change of heart, and stated that they don't show any religious or political adverts.

 

So, why agree to show it in the first instance, in the full knowledge that it had been commissioned by the Church of England ?

 

Now, suppose we were to substitute "Mosque" for "Church". I wonder how that might have changed the situation........??

 

 

There would have been a media storm shouting Islamaphobia....Racism....Bigots

 

I dont blame Odeon cinemas they should be allowed but it just shows how one sided this country is in many things

[ChrisJones 7,975]

You can refuse service to anyone on an individual basis but the law gets involved if you start refusing service to whole groups of protected minorities, the same as in the states with the laws that put an end to segregation i think?

 

I'm not familiar with this particular case but what was the problem. That they were gay or that he didn't want to write the slogan? I see what you mean about whole groups but we are talking about individuals. This particular baker is in the minority. He still deserves a degree of protection as such.

 

Even if his beliefs prevented him from doing so he could have avoided this by selling them the cake, without the slogan? No?

 

We haven't reached a society where hate crime laws aren't necessary but they could've gone to a baker that would have catered to them. I'm not going to stand outside his shop and protest his views but he sure as hell wouldn't see a penny of my money.

 

The cinemas had agreed to show the ad before it had even been made, then had a sudden change of heart, and stated that they don't show any religious or political adverts.

 

So, why agree to show it in the first instance, in the full knowledge that it had been commissioned by the Church of England ?

 

Now, suppose we were to substitute "Mosque" for "Church". I wonder how that might have changed the situation........??

 

Again it's the same issue. They're not accepting their business, it's not like they're refusing anyone access to the cinema. The CofE could have quite easily gone to another cinema chain to peddle their advert. It's not anyone's place to decide what adverts they show, except them.

 

There would have been a media storm shouting Islamaphobia....Racism....Bigots

 

I dont blame Odeon cinemas they should be allowed but it just shows how one sided this country is in many things

 

You're right. There probably would have been but that's still a problem with the perception of the issue than with what the cinema chain did. That's the real villain of the piece. Looks like Britain is truly f****d after all.

 

 

[neems 2,406]

 

You can refuse service to anyone on an individual basis but the law gets involved if you start refusing service to whole groups of protected minorities, the same as in the states with the laws that put an end to segregation i think?

 

I'm not familiar with this particular case but what was the problem. That they were gay or that he didn't want to write the slogan? I see what you mean about whole groups but we are talking about individuals. This particular baker is in the minority. He still deserves a degree of protection as such.

 

Even if his beliefs prevented him from doing so he could have avoided this by selling them the cake, without the slogan? No?

 

We haven't reached a society where hate crime laws aren't necessary but they could've gone to a baker that would have catered to them. I'm not going to stand outside his shop and protest his views but he sure as hell wouldn't see a penny of my money.

 

The cinemas had agreed to show the ad before it had even been made, then had a sudden change of heart, and stated that they don't show any religious or political adverts.

 

So, why agree to show it in the first instance, in the full knowledge that it had been commissioned by the Church of England ?

 

Now, suppose we were to substitute "Mosque" for "Church". I wonder how that might have changed the situation........??

 

Again it's the same issue. They're not accepting their business, it's not like they're refusing anyone access to the cinema. The CofE could have quite easily gone to another cinema chain to peddle their advert. It's not anyone's place to decide what adverts they show, except them.

 

There would have been a media storm shouting Islamaphobia....Racism....Bigots

 

I dont blame Odeon cinemas they should be allowed but it just shows how one sided this country is in many things

 

You're right. There probably would have been but that's still a problem with the perception of the issue than with what the cinema chain did. That's the real villain of the piece. Looks like Britain is truly f****d after all.

 

 

 

 

 

As a libertarian,why would that be a problem?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to refuse christians entry?

[ChrisJones 7,975]

As a libertarian,why would that be a problem?

 

Why shouldn't they be able to refuse christians entry?

 

I've already commented that they can do as they please, but it wouldn't be the right thing to do. Exercising their freedoms reduces the freedoms of others. When I approach a political problem I ascertain whether this proposal will increase/reduce that. I'm a libertarian, yes, but I'm a human being first and foremost.

 

I certainly wouldn't support a business that denies individuals access, and neither would other decent folk. Judging by the strides in equality that have been made in the last few decades I'm certainly not in a minority. Rights of a corporate entity versus those of people, people's rights win every time in my book. The C of E is a corporate entity that has used it's teachings, and influence, to repress the rights of others for centuries. Odeon cinemas charge a fortune to show many bad films. Their professional grievance is of no concern of mine, and neither is it an attack on free speech. If I choose to engage with either of these entities it's on my terms alone.

 

Islam is an ideology. Christianity is an ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology. Muslims are people, as are Christians, and Libertarians. Their individual rights matter to me, even if they refuse to extend me similar courtesy and I frankly don't care whether it offends the followers of the ideology, or not. By definition, ideologies cannot possess the ability to be offended. Even you, who I vehemently disagree with on many occasions, I would stand and support your individual rights to express such opinions even though I sincerely doubt you'd offer me the same indulgence despite the fact that discourse genuinely embodies the ideology of free speech.

 

As a fascist how would you handle the situation differently?

[neems 2,406]

That's fair enough,so the rights of the corporation are always trumped by the rights of the individual?

 

What if the small baker had of refused entry to the homosexual attention seekers?

 

I would say the health,strength and posterity of the nation should always come first,then the liberty of the individual or business,so no to sodomy cakes and the odeon would need a better excuse than what they've put forward.

[JDHUNTING 1,817]

 

 

He was taken to court, because he refused to write gay slogans on a cake, an was done, do you think this was wrong?

Yes I do.

 

If he wasn't willing to do it then they should have gone to someone who was. He's entitled to his beliefs, and should also be protected from discrimination and coercion.

 

If Britain has indeed changed the law that you can sue for discrimination, based on a refusal to serve, then you're all f****d! Good luck with Blighty. I won't be back!

he isnt entitled to hos beliefs though as he was taken to court and lost

[ChrisJones 7,975]

That's fair enough,so the rights of the corporation are always trumped by the rights of the individual?

 

Yes. Corporations aren't people.

 

What if the small baker had of refused entry to the homosexual attention seekers?

 

As I said in the previous post. That would be his prerogative, but it wouldn't be the right thing to do. If he wishes to exercise that right so be it. If his business model would last the course, I'd be surprised. I certainly wouldn't support him, and as I also stated earlier, there are plenty of other bakers that would have taken their custom, without quibble. This is 2015, decent folk wouldn't support that kind of business but if they chose to they should be allowed to without harassment. He has that right. His customers can choose to support him, or those he refused. Let the market decide.

 

I would say the health,strength and posterity of the nation should always come first,then the liberty of the individual or business,so no to sodomy cakes and the odeon would need a better excuse than what they've put forward.

 

Two genuine questions.

 

1. Why should the nation come before the individual? The nation cannot exist without the support of the individual.

 

2. Given fascism's historical impact, it's violent, and often brutal treatment of contradictory opinion. What safeguards should be implemented to protect individual civil liberty?

 

he isnt entitled to hos beliefs though as he was taken to court and lost

 

Britain truly is f****d then isn't it? The nation has ruled that the individual is no longer allowed his opinion, under penalty of law. Let that sink in for a moment...

 

Do you think it's acceptable for the state to dictate what opinions you can/cannot have?

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by ChrisJones

[Ideation 8,216]

Why should a religion be allowed to advertise in cinemas....... It's just weird!

 

R.e the baker - they discriminated against an individual I.e it would be equivalent to the cinema not allowing a Christian family in to watch a film.

 

As Chris said it's merely a Buisness decision....... Not some crazy pro Islam thing so calm down!

[neems 2,406]

As I said in the previous post. That would be his prerogative, but it wouldn't be the right thing to do. If he wishes to exercise that right so be it. If his business model would last the course, I'd be surprised. I certainly wouldn't support him, and as I also stated earlier, there are plenty of other bakers that would have taken their custom, without quibble. This is 2015, decent folk wouldn't support that kind of business but if they chose to they should be allowed to without harassment. He has that right. His customers can choose to support him, or those he refused. Let the market decide.

 

-He could have gained a lot of business,imo any decent person would respect his decision.

 

Two genuine questions.

1. Why should the nation come before the individual? The nation cannot exist without the support of the individual.

2. Given fascism's historical impact, it's violent, and often brutal treatment of contradictory opinion. What safeguards should be implemented to protect individual civil liberty?

 

The right of a nation to exist as a distinct entity outweighs the right of any individual to engage in destructive activities,a society can't imo thrive without a fair degree of freedom,which is the ultimate goal of nationalism.