Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

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 >

berlinpalace berlin 01 Jan 23 1.31pm
Originally posted by georgenorman The exclusion zone was introduced by Birmingham City Council on September 7 to prohibit anyone “engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval” of abortion in proximity to the clinic, including through “verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”. 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 a moderator to this post

berlinpalace

berlin 01 Jan 23 1.31pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

The exclusion zone was introduced by Birmingham City Council on September 7 to prohibit anyone “engaging in any act of approval or disapproval or attempted act of approval or disapproval” of abortion in proximity to the clinic, including through “verbal or written means, prayer or counselling”.
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 a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 1.57pm
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 that’s prohibited. Their reasoning was discriminatory. It was solely based on a message that they didn’t approve of but which wasn’t their’s to approve or disapprove. Imagine a laundry refusing to wash your Palace shirt just because the owner supports Brighton. Is that discrimination? It’s not their shirt. The only thing that’s their’s are the washers and the detergent. That example would be discriminatory but not in a way that’s prohibited. Discrimination involving any kind of sexual orientation is. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 01 Jan 23 1.57pm

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 that’s prohibited.

Their reasoning was discriminatory. It was solely based on a message that they didn’t approve of but which wasn’t their’s to approve or disapprove.

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

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Jan 23 2.18pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle As I said they can, but not if they discriminate in a way that’s prohibited. Their reasoning was discriminatory. It was solely based on a message that they didn’t approve of but which wasn’t their’s to approve or disapprove. Imagine a laundry refusing to wash your Palace shirt just because the owner supports Brighton. Is that discrimination? It’s not their shirt. The only thing that’s their’s are the washers and the detergent. That example would be discriminatory but not in a way that’s 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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Jan 23 2.18pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As I said they can, but not if they discriminate in a way that’s prohibited.

Their reasoning was discriminatory. It was solely based on a message that they didn’t approve of but which wasn’t their’s to approve or disapprove.

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 a moderator to this post

Eden Eagle Kent 01 Jan 23 3.47pm
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 a moderator to this post

Eden Eagle

Kent 01 Jan 23 3.47pm

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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

01 Jan 23 4.28pm

Originally posted by Eden Eagle

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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Jan 23 4.31pm
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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Jan 23 4.31pm

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?

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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Jan 23 4.40pm
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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Jan 23 4.40pm

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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

01 Jan 23 4.44pm

Originally posted by georgenorman

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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman 01 Jan 23 4.47pm
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 a moderator to this post

georgenorman

01 Jan 23 4.47pm

Originally posted by MrWhyNot

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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot 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 a moderator to this post

MrWhyNot

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 a moderator to this post

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

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Woman arrested for silent prayer, god save us

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors