Women only "Wonder Woman" screening violated equality law

[floivanus]

What about boy scouts and girl scouts? What about men's hockey?

Not even close to a good comparisson, fella...

It's alright, there's been a push to integrate the boyscouts.

 

[BVG]

It's alright, there's been a push to integrate the boyscouts.

christ tell me about it...

 

[Islam Imamate]

Could one say the same about the gay wedding cake fiasco? There are hundreds of bakers baking wedding cakes...

I think people object to this for many reasons. Some are petty for sure, but others are annoyed at the double standards that lgbt advocacy groups have aroused. I think it's obvious many people are arguing that if you allow one you should allow all. I for one think having women-only spaces is a good thing and should be tolerated.

Well that's not really the case here since the lawyer who filed the complaint is a gay professor from New York who specializes in anti-discrimination law. Seems like he's applying only one standard.

 

[BigggerNog]

What about boy scouts and girl scouts? What about men's hockey?

Not even close to a good comparisson, fella...

Sure, that actually agrees and backs up my post. There are places where it's men only, or women only. So why are dudes so triggered about a women's only screening of a movie?

 

[BVG]

Sure, that actually agrees and backs up my post. There are places where it's men only, or women only. So why are dudes so triggered about a women's only screening of a movie?

Because if their were a man only screening, woman would be triggered.

It's not the action here, it's the double standard. I can't explain it any more simply than that.

 

[The Money Belt]

I'm ok with this.

 

[BigggerNog]

Because if their were a man only screening, woman would be triggered.

It's not the action here, it's the double standard. I can't explain it any more simply than that.

There are men only club. If that's okay then why isn't this? Either they're both wrong or both right.

 

[BVG]

There are men only club. If that's okay then why isn't this? Either they're both wrong or both right.

Dude. You are comparing a CLUB to that of a place that sells a service that is denying said service for one night based off of sex.

It's not the same thing. A social club isn't selling something to the "public".

Remember that outcry because a cake store refused to sell cakes to a gay wedding?

This is the same as that.

Now personally I don't care if a company wants to only sell to woman or gays or straights or whatever. That's their choice. However. There was an uproar over the gay cake shit, their would be an uproar if woman were not allowed to go to a men only movie screening, so yes...their should be the SAME uproar over men being denied service based off of their sex.

Again.

IT'S THE DOUBLE STANDARD that is what the problem is.

Say that again before responding to me because I refuse to repeat myself.

DOUBLE STANDARD.

Say it again one more time!

DOUBLE STANDARD.

"a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups."

In this case, society says it's completely ok to deny service for a night to men, but it wouldn't be ok to deny service to woman. Because THAT'S the society we live in today.

 

[HomerThompson]

Could one say the same about the gay wedding cake fiasco? There are hundreds of bakers baking wedding cakes...

I think people object to this for many reasons. Some are petty for sure, but others are annoyed at the double standards that lgbt advocacy groups have aroused. I think it's obvious many people are arguing that if you allow one you should allow all. I for one think having women-only spaces is a good thing and should be tolerated.

Because these two examples aren't even remotely comparable.

 

[HomerThompson]

Dude. You are comparing a CLUB to that of a place that sells a service that is denying said service for one night based off of sex.

It's not the same thing. A social club isn't selling something to the "public".

Remember that outcry because a cake store refused to sell cakes to a gay wedding?

This is the same as that.

Now personally I don't care if a company wants to only sell to woman or gays or straights or whatever. That's their choice. However. There was an uproar over the gay cake shit, their would be an uproar if woman were not allowed to go to a men only movie screening, so yes...their should be the SAME uproar over men being denied service based off of their sex.

Again.

IT'S THE DOUBLE STANDARD that is what the problem is.

Say that again before responding to me because I refuse to repeat myself.

DOUBLE STANDARD.

Say it again one more time!

DOUBLE STANDARD.

"a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups."

In this case, society says it's completely ok to deny service for a night to men, but it wouldn't be ok to deny service to woman. Because THAT'S the society we live in today.

These things aren't even remotely the same.

 

[panamaican]

Sure, that actually agrees and backs up my post. There are places where it's men only, or women only. So why are dudes so triggered about a women's only screening of a movie?

Because there's no compelling reason to exclude men from a public movie venue.

 

[BVG]

These things aren't even remotely the same.

It's absolutely the same as far as discriminating. In this case sex versus sexual preference. So the example works. You, being the idiot that you are...don't consider them the same because one was just for one evening while the other was the policy of the store. But the denial of service or to single out due to race, creed, sex, religion or sexual preference is what I am comparing.

Had we denied woman the right to go watch a movie on any given night, we would see a back lash. Just as you would if you thought it would be smart as a marketing ploy you said no gays could watch a movie for a night. Or no blacks. So of course it's not cool to do this to men, regardless of how harmless they thought it was.

If I felt confident that we could get away with banning all woman from watching a movie for a night, I'd be totally ok with this. But I'm sure that we couldn't without hearing about the evils of such an idea from the left.

YA GET IT NOW?

Now go away, you insane little monkey.

 

[HomerThompson]

It's absolutely the same as far as discriminating. In this case sex versus sexual preference. So the example works. You, being the idiot that you are...don't consider them the same because one was just for one evening while the other was the policy of the store. But the denial of service or to single out due to race, creed, sex, religion or sexual preference is what I am comparing.

Had we denied woman the right to go watch a movie on any given night, we would see a back lash like no other. Just as you would if you thought it would be smart as a marketing ploy you said no gays could watch a movie for a night. Or no blacks.

YA GET IT NOW?

Now go away, you insane little monkey.

I disagree with your reasoning. One business outright refused service based on sexual orientation. One business had a promotion and a one off event for a women's only screening. Men have been, and will continue to be catered to by that business. They're world's apart.

It's like saying flicking someone's ear is the same as murdering them. All violence is identical in every way!!!

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I can't imagine the neck beards that actually complained to the city about this. Fucking embarrassing.

So you are against Austin's equality laws?

 

[BVG]

I disagree with your reasoning. One business outright refused service based on sexual orientation. One business had a promotion and a one off event for a women's only screening. Men have been, and will continue to be catered to by that business. They're world's apart.

It's like saying flicking someone's ear is the same as murdering them. All violence is identical in every way!!!

No. You stupid piece of shit.

Severity doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the examples. And I'm not explaining it to you again because you are a waste of fucking time.

Reread my first response again until you get it.

 

[HomerThompson]

So you are against Austin's equality laws?

I don't know how they work. They're probably fine, but I'd have to read them to be sure. Also, I'm a big spirit of the law type of guy. Letter of the law isn't my bag.

 

[BVG]

So you are against Austin's equality laws?

Some people just don't get it.

 

[BVG]

I don't know how they work. They're probably fine, but I'd have to read them to be sure. Also, I'm a big spirit of the law type of guy. Letter of the law isn't my bag.

English isn't "your bag" either.

 

[HomerThompson]

No. You stupid piece of shit.

Severity doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the examples. And I'm not explaining it to you again because you are a waste of fucking time.

Reread my first response again until you get it.

Shut the fuck up pussy. I disagreed with your reasoning and then explained why. Crying and insulting me won't help you win the argument.

 

[HomerThompson]

English isn't "your bag" either.