Hypocrisy?

[Abigail]

The church of England are banned from screening an advert for payer in Cinemas this Christmas:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-s-prayer.html

Read the linked article and think back to the Northern Ireland bakery episode where the bakery was forced to bake a cake advertising a 'support' meeting for gay marriage. In that case the baker was found guilty of offending gay people by refusing to bake the cake. Here the cinema is allowed to refuse the CofE advertising space on the grounds that it might be offensive to other customers. How is this since the cake would surely have been offensive to many of the bakery customers too - and yet the baker was still found guilty of discrimination. I have just listened to a debate on tv where the anti side said that the cinema should be allowed to determine what adverts they screen in their own cinema as the CofE would surely not be happy if they were forced to screen an advert for, say, radical feminism in Church. However the Church cannot be equated with the cinema as they are entirely different organizations. The cinema however offers a commercial service just like the bakery and if the bakery as a service provider was forced to offer a service they didn't want to on the grounds it would be offensive to the customer by making them feel excluded then surely the same standards should be applied to the cinema. We have been told by people like Tassman and Starlight that service providers in the public square, like cinemas and bakeries should not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds. I hope they will be taking up the cause of the CofE. The cinema allows people to buy advertising space so why has the CofE been discriminated against.

[Adam]

Yes, it's surely another "What's the world coming to!" moment--but for England, not for us so much in the U. S. The Church of England has placidly accepted deChristianization of England and now wonders why it's too late to fight back for England's soul.
On the merits of the case, the cinemas are wrong even in England's case, England is where we got our free speech traditions. However, a one-minute film of The Lord's Prayer strikes me as violating the freedom of religion of the people out in the audience. They become participants in one of the holiest moments of the Christian mass. Some Protestants are totally non-liturgical. Even Roman Catholics might object as it's not in the context of their mass.
Yet what I have presented here as a reasonable defense (though quite deficient) of the cinemas was not mentioned in the article. Go figure. No argument they made could begin to overcome freedom of speech/religion.

[Roy]

The church of England are banned from screening an advert for payer in Cinemas this Christmas:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-s-prayer.html

Read the linked article and think back to the Northern Ireland bakery episode where the bakery was forced to bake a cake advertising a 'support' meeting for gay marriage. In that case the baker was found guilty of offending gay people by refusing to bake the cake. Here the cinema is allowed to refuse the CofE advertising space on the grounds that it might be offensive to other customers. How is this since the cake would surely have been offensive to many of the bakery customers too - and yet the baker was still found guilty of discrimination.

You are conflating customers, who pay for a service, with advertisers, who pay a business for access to that business's customers. Adverts accepted by a cinema are aimed at the cinema's customers. Cakes baked by a baker are not. The situations are not equivalent.

I have just listened to a debate on tv where the anti side said that the cinema should be allowed to determine what adverts they screen in their own cinema as the CofE would surely not be happy if they were forced to screen an advert for, say, radical feminism in Church. However the Church cannot be equated with the cinema as they are entirely different organizations. The cinema however offers a commercial service just like the bakery and if the bakery as a service provider was forced to offer a service they didn't want to on the grounds it would be offensive to the customer by making them feel excluded then surely the same standards should be applied to the cinema. We have been told by people like Tassman and Starlight that service providers in the public square, like cinemas and bakeries should not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds. I hope they will be taking up the cause of the CofE. The cinema allows people to buy advertising space so why has the CofE been discriminated against.

Because the CofE wants to promote its views to the business's other customers. The people buying the cake do not.

[Roy]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the Daily Mail report was inaccurate.

[rogue06]

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the Daily Mail report was inaccurate.

Would you prefer the BBC?

Source: Lord's Prayer cinema ad snub 'bewilders' Church of England

The Church called the decision "plain silly" and warned it could have a "chilling" effect on free speech.

It had hoped the 60-second film would be screened UK-wide before Christmas ahead of the new Star Wars film.

The agency that handles adverts for the cinemas said it could offend those of "differing faiths and no faith".

The advert features the Christian prayer being recited or sung by a variety of people.

They include refugees, a grieving son, weightlifters at a gym, a sheep farmer, a gospel choir and the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Justin Welby.

'Everyday life'

The advert was passed uncut by the British Board of Film Classification and given a "U" certificate, as well as receiving clearance from the Cinema Advertising Authority.

However, the Digital Cinema Media (DCM) agency, which handles British film advertising for the major cinema chains, Odeon, Cineworld and Vue, refused to show the advert because it believed it would risk upsetting or offending audiences.

In a statement, DCM said it had a policy of not accepting political or religious advertising content in its cinemas.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

The story continues at the link provided above.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the DCM permit ads concerning Scottish independence to be run and weren't those by any definition political? And didn't both sides object to various ads from the other side? So it appears that DCM does indeed allow "political or religious advertising content" including those that upset and offend the audience.

Anyhow, here is the "offending" commercial:

[Starlight]

I would suspect the CofE is likely to win in court on this issue, just as the gay people did against the bakery. The anti-discrimination laws will apply equally to both issues. So nothing to see here really, other that a cinema acting illegally.

[Adam]

Actually the fact that Scottish Independence commercials were shown in theaters was stated in the article as a cause of banning anything political or religious--it was very badly received.
Now that I have seen the commercial, I rescind my token defence of the ban. It is absolutely unlike a church service and would more likely offend traditionalists than non-Christians. The clips and the few words each are basically a "feel-good" balm.
Thanks for waking me up.

[rogue06]

I would suspect the CofE is likely to win in court on this issue, just as the gay people did against the bakery. The anti-discrimination laws will apply equally to both issues. So nothing to see here really, other that a cinema acting illegally.

It is very likely that they will win in that the refusal appears to be a violation of Britain's Equality Act's prohibition on commercial organizations from refusing services on religious grounds, but would such a decision take lace in time for them to get the commercial played before the new Star Wars movie comes out in a couple weeks? They very specifically wanted it to run before a movie seen by a huge audience -- one which has smashed records for advance ticket sales at British cinemas. If not it would be like being prevented from running a commercial advertisement during the final match of the World Cup (or here in the U.S. during the Super Bowl) only to win approval to run it later.

[Starlight]

It is very likely that they will win in that the refusal appears to be a violation of Britain's Equality Act's prohibition on commercial organizations from refusing services on religious grounds, but would such a decision take lace in time for them to get the commercial played before the new Star Wars movie comes out in a couple weeks? They very specifically wanted it to run before a movie seen by a huge audience -- one which has smashed records for advance ticket sales at British cinemas. If not it would be like being prevented from running a commercial advertisement during the final match of the World Cup (or here in the U.S. during the Super Bowl) only to win approval to run it later.

Are you advocating for swifter resolutions for discrimination cases?

Before you say yes to that, just bear in mind it's usually Christians doing the discriminating.

[Roy]

However, the Digital Cinema Media (DCM) agency, which handles British film advertising for the major cinema chains, Odeon, Cineworld and Vue, refused to show the advert because it believed it would risk upsetting or offending audiences.

Can't see why, it looks very innocuous to me. Certainly no worse than the dodgy adverts for hair salons and alcohol I used to see when I frequented the cinema.

[Teallaura]

In the US the church would have recourse. If the court failed to act and the cinemas lawyer's didn't step in the loss would include serious damages for the loss of revenue. I assume the UK has similar mechanisms.

The real solution is to dump the entire precedent.

[Starlight]

So here's another situation where there's encouragement to pray:

Hamtramck (pronounced Ham-tram-ik) ...in 2013 earned the distinction of becoming what appears to be the first majority-Muslim city in the United States...

And while [mayor] Majewski advocated to allow mosques to issue calls to prayer, she understands why some longtime residents are struggling to adjust to the sound that echos through the city’s streets five times each day.

I'm sure the Christians here are 100% fine with that right? The Muslims are just encouraging people to pray.

[rogue06]

So here's another situation where there's encouragement to pray:

Hamtramck (pronounced Ham-tram-ik) ...in 2013 earned the distinction of becoming what appears to be the first majority-Muslim city in the United States...

And while [mayor] Majewski advocated to allow mosques to issue calls to prayer, she understands why some longtime residents are struggling to adjust to the sound that echos through the city’s streets five times each day.

I'm sure the Christians here are 100% fine with that right? The Muslims are just encouraging people to pray.

Several towns have sought to silence church bells that have wrung for decades or well over a century on Sunday morning using noise ordinance laws. I wonder if they would have the guts to go after mosques that do the equivalent not just once a week but five times each and every day.

And that does not compare to seeing an advertisement inside a movie theater in the same way a commercial on TV or the radio is different than a commercial blasted all over town through loud speakers.

But you already realized that, didn't you?

[Adam]

Easy now. I think Star was offering some additional support to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Christmas commercial.
Of course he gets in some snide irony as if five times a day every day is not imposition. Even Star is human, people.

[Starlight]

Several towns have sought to silence church bells that have wrung for decades or well over a century on Sunday morning using noise ordinance laws. I wonder if they would have the guts to go after mosques that do the equivalent not just once a week but five times each and every day.

Are you saying you support church bells but not Muslim calls to prayer? Or that you would support both equally if they happened with the same frequency?