Business' right to refuse providing services

[Bust Nak]

A UK cinema chain has refused to show a minute long advert of The Lord's Prayer. Is this analogous to photographers and bakers refusing to provide service to gay weddings?

The cinema chain (or rather the company handling cinema advertising) has a standing policy "not to run advertising connected to personal beliefs, specifically those related to politics or religion. Our members have found that showing such advertisements carries the risk of upsetting, or offending, audiences," citing considerable negative feedback from audiences. Does that change anything?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

Your right they didn't unlawfully discriminate nor did they face legal action for it. If people choose not to go there or choose to boycott their services they are equally welcome to do that.

[Bust Nak]

But what is depicted on that screen time can effect sales. Think about the Disney channel if Howard Stern wanted to buy advertising space on a 2pm slot and Disney denied him would Disney be discriminating or protecting their economic interests?

I think refusing to host the Lord prayer ad for protecting their economic interests is a valid reason, the same way refusing to host a Howard Stern ad is valid.

This rises another interesting question. If a baker can demonstrate that baking a gay wedding cake would affect his business because his other customers are extremely conservative, would/should that protect him for refusing to serve a gay wedding?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 12 by Bust Nak]

Yes especially if they could demonstrate a negative effect on sales. However they never site this and almost always cite religious freedom. Which if you look at those cases who have been found at fault, the law specifically says you cannot use religion to discriminate. Some have attempted to use free speech, such as the case of denying a confederate flag on a Cake. Which could also prove effective. Unfortunately for them their religious zeal is to pronounced to be effective.

[jgh7]

I think a company has the right to refuse religious advertising it if they want to.

Being prosteletyzed with a long Christian ad is discomforting to many, and to others it's even offensive when they have another religion they're devoted to and have to listen to this prosteletyzing.

I can't speak for the law, but morally I support them being able to not show it. Now as for denying service to someone because they're gay, that's wrong imo. That's prejudice. There's no excuse for being prejudice, even with an odd idea like it will affect your sales because your conservative customers will find out. There's simply no excuse for prejudice.

[SailingCyclops]

A UK cinema chain has refused to show a minute long advert of The Lord's Prayer. Is this analogous to photographers and bakers refusing to provide service to gay weddings?

Here in the U.S. and elsewhere, advertising is restricted to "truth". You can't lie!

Truth In Advertising
When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses.

Advertising snake oil, little liver pills, Voodo dolls, or religious myths couched in fact, are all examples of false advertising, and subject to rejection.

[Monta]

"Here in the U.S. and elsewhere, advertising is restricted to "truth". You can't lie! "

It's not April Fool's Day, is it?

[micatala]

[Replying to post 4 by Bust Nak]

But what is depicted on that screen time can effect sales. Think about the Disney channel if Howard Stern wanted to buy advertising space on a 2pm slot and Disney denied him would Disney be discriminating or protecting their economic interests?

But this can cut both ways. Could a diner refuse service to blacks because they are afraid that serving blacks will drive away their other customers?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 17 by micatala]

It's not whom they are serving but what they are serving. Your example is not apples to apples.