You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us
June 6 2023 10.52am

Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 29 of 35 < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 >

 

View berlinpalace's Profile berlinpalace Flag berlin 01 Jan 23 1.31pm Send a Private Message to berlinpalace Add berlinpalace as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

The exclusion zone was introduced by Birmingham City Council on September 7 to prohibit anyone ďengaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapprovalĒ of abortion in proximity to the clinic, including through ďverbal or written means, prayer or counsellingĒ.
Therefore, if she had been standing there not silently praying, that would have been ok - she would not have been arrested. She wasn't even sure that she had been praying, she said she might have been praying silently in her mind, but also thinking about her lunch and other trivial things.


'In footage captured on the street, a police officer is heard asking Ms Vaughan-Spruce: "What are you here for today?" She tells him she's "just standing here."

The officer responds: "Why here of all places? I know you don't live nearby." She replies: "But this is an abortion centre." The PC then says: "Ok, that's why you're stood here. Are you here as part of a protest? Are you praying?"'
So there you are, she admits that the only reason she's there is because of the 'abortion centre', the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that she's engaged in a protest and she gets arrested. Whatever is going on in her head doesn't matter, her physical presence is enough if she doesn't give a reasonable excuse for being there. Much as you would like this to be a persecution of a poor downtrodden christian, it isn't.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 1.57pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by georgenorman

Which is what happened - their reasoning was not discriminatory. People and businesses should be able to turn down business if they want.

.

As I said they can, but not if they discriminate in a way thatís prohibited.

Their reasoning was discriminatory. It was solely based on a message that they didnít approve of but which wasnít theirís to approve or disapprove.

Imagine a laundry refusing to wash your Palace shirt just because the owner supports Brighton. Is that discrimination? Itís not their shirt. The only thing thatís theirís are the washers and the detergent. That example would be discriminatory but not in a way thatís prohibited. Discrimination involving any kind of sexual orientation is.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 01 Jan 23 2.18pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As I said they can, but not if they discriminate in a way thatís prohibited.

Their reasoning was discriminatory. It was solely based on a message that they didnít approve of but which wasnít theirís to approve or disapprove.

Imagine a laundry refusing to wash your Palace shirt just because the owner supports Brighton. Is that discrimination? Itís not their shirt. The only thing thatís theirís are the washers and the detergent. That example would be discriminatory but not in a way thatís prohibited. Discrimination involving any kind of sexual orientation is.

They were charged with discrimination against the gay agitator because he was gay. Clearly, they did not and the Supreme Court agreed that they did not.
People and businesses should be able to turn down business whenever they want and, in practice, that is what they do - good job too.
If a cleaners turned down washing my shirt I would go elsewhere. If they want to lose business, fine that's their choice.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eden Eagle's Profile Eden Eagle Flag Kent 01 Jan 23 3.47pm Send a Private Message to Eden Eagle Add Eden Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

.

That was what they claimed and was the technicality that got them off.

They did though refuse to bake a cake because they objected to the message that was requested to be put on it, saying they would have refused to do so whoever requested it.

That though is still discriminatory. They bake cakes. Only if they bake their own cake and offer it for sale can they decide what, and what not, can be iced on top. This was not theirs. It was a subcontracted arrangement and as it was only the message they objected to, and neither their clients nor too heavy a work load, they were, in my and many others opinion, breaking the law. That the Supreme Court decided otherwise means that the law now needs clarification.

I seem to remember WE that you suggested in the US Politics thread that Twitter, as a business, were within their rights to decide what content they allowed and what they can ban however in this instance you seem to be suggesting that companies cannot have a say in the content?

Are you confused or hypocritical?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
MrWhyNot Flag 01 Jan 23 4.25pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

People and businesses should be able to turn down business if they want.

So by consequence you're therefore of the mind that hotels should again be able to have 'No Blacks, No Irish' signs in their window and refuse custom on those grounds?

While businesses should certain have a degree of autonomy, sweepingly denying services that people may not otherwise be able to access in an area - say in a theoretical return to the above - clearly is unworkable and not what the vast majority of people would want to see.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
MrWhyNot Flag 01 Jan 23 4.28pm

Originally posted by Eden Eagle

I seem to remember WE that you suggested in the US Politics thread that Twitter, as a business, were within their rights to decide what content they allowed and what they can ban however in this instance you seem to be suggesting that companies cannot have a say in the content?

Are you confused or hypocritical?

I would assume that any terms of service of online providers would still exist within the framework of established law.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 01 Jan 23 4.31pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

So by consequence you're therefore of the mind that hotels should again be able to have 'No Blacks, No Irish' signs in their window and refuse custom on those grounds?

While businesses should certain have a degree of autonomy, sweepingly denying services that people may not otherwise be able to access in an area - say in a theoretical return to the above - clearly is unworkable and not what the vast majority of people would want to see.

No, they shouldn't put signs in their windows, that would put off trade. They should just turn down anyone they didn't want to do business with.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
MrWhyNot Flag 01 Jan 23 4.35pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

No, they shouldn't put signs in their windows, that would put off trade. They should just turn down anyone they didn't want to do business with.

Why should they not put signs in their window if that's what they believe and policies they intend to implement?

Is the unacceptable part to you in telling people, of say, a certain race or nationality that they arbitrarily and unreasonably won't be accommodated, rather than actually deciding not to do so?


Personally I think the 'general default' of businesses that are very much customer facing and frequently used is that people feel they too will be able to use them. Of course there are situations like this 'message on a cake' one that are more open to interpretation. My point though is that if taken too far, we go back to situations that are clearly unworkable and unreasonable.


Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 4.39pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 01 Jan 23 4.40pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

Why should they not put signs in their window if that's what they believe and policies they intend to implement?

Is the unacceptable part to you in telling people, of say, a certain race or nationality that they arbitrarily and unreasonably won't be accommodated, rather than actually deciding not to do so?

Edited by MrWhyNot (01 Jan 2023 4.35pm)

Well, for a start, they would be prosecuted for putting up the signs. As I said, it would also be bad for trade if you exclude a great number of potential customers. I think a business that was doing that would soon go broke.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
MrWhyNot Flag 01 Jan 23 4.44pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

Well, for a start, they would be prosecuted for putting up the signs. As I said, it would also be bad for trade if you exclude a great number of potential customers. I think a business that was doing that would soon go broke.

Do you think it's a good thing that they would be prosecuted for putting up the signs, or do you personally believe that these business should explicitly be able to state that they do not want to do business with blacks, Irish etc? That after all was your point, that businesses should be able to refuse custom to whoever they please.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View georgenorman's Profile georgenorman Flag 01 Jan 23 4.47pm Send a Private Message to georgenorman Add georgenorman as a friend

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

Do you think it's a good thing that they would be prosecuted for putting up the signs, or do you personally believe that these business should explicitly be able to state that they do not want to do business with blacks, Irish etc? That after all was your point, that businesses should be able to refuse custom to whoever they please.

I don't think it is good or bad, it is just the reality. I think people and businesses should deal with whoever they choose to and that is what happens in practice.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
MrWhyNot Flag 01 Jan 23 4.54pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

I don't think it is good or bad, it is just the reality. I think people and businesses should deal with whoever they choose to and that is what happens in practice.

I'm not sure that it solely comes down to that. I think businesses primarily seek to do business (their purpose) and to operate within the law. Said laws offer a certain reassurance to the public to be able to access services in as straight forward a manner as possible, without an absurd level of fragmentation as to who can and who can't use them. There are of course case by case 'exceptions to the rule', but in most public facing businesses they are largely just that.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 29 of 35 < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us