Women only "Wonder Woman" screening violated equality law

[BVG]

Exactly.

 

[dontsnitch]

Because these two examples aren't even remotely comparable.

The two are not the same, but that doesn't mean they don't share similar aspects which can be compared. I was specifically responding to someone who said that the reason it's no big deal is because one could simply go to another theater, which is the same reasoning one can apply to the bakery. If you are discriminated against, just find another business...

 

[HomerThompson]

Exactly.

So, you have nothing. You made a random comment about my mastery of the English language, but you have no actual error to point out. It's just like how you have no argument. Weird, right?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

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.

But isn't this according to the spirit of those laws?

To me, it should be fine for a theater to have a women only screening. So if the the laws are written such that it is illegal to do so, then I'm against those laws.

It seems like a lot of people are anti-sex discrimination or racial discrimination only some of the time but not all the time. I get why. Some race and sex discrimination is relatively benign and others isn't. But it seems hard to write laws that can allow the benign stuff while prohibiting worse examples.

And people are right to point out the draconian fines levied on a bakery fro breaking law very similar to this one. It's relevant to compare the difference. I'd argue that giving the men a DVD is just about right. And the bakery should have been fined a few hundred bucks at most.

 

[HomerThompson]

But isn't this according to the spirit of those laws?

To me, it should be fine for a theater to have a women only screening. So if the the laws are written such that it is illegal to do so, then I'm against those laws.

It seems like a lot of people are anti-sex discrimination or racial discrimination only some of the time but not all the time. I get why. Some race and sex discrimination is relatively benign and others isn't. But it seems hard to write laws that can allow the benign stuff while prohibiting worse examples.

And people are right to point out the draconian fines levied on a bakery fro breaking law very similar to this one. It's relevant to compare the difference. I'd argue that giving the men a DVD is just about right. And the bakery should have been fined a few hundred bucks at most.

It's not nearly similar enough to compare them. The bakery outright refused service because they were gay. If the theater outright refused to allow men to ever watch movies, they would be the same.

Every bar that has a ladies' night isn't comparable to a bar that doesn't ever allow black people in. This is silly.

 

[HomerThompson]

But isn't this according to the spirit of those laws?

To me, it should be fine for a theater to have a women only screening. So if the the laws are written such that it is illegal to do so, then I'm against those laws.

It seems like a lot of people are anti-sex discrimination or racial discrimination only some of the time but not all the time. I get why. Some race and sex discrimination is relatively benign and others isn't. But it seems hard to write laws that can allow the benign stuff while prohibiting worse examples.

And people are right to point out the draconian fines levied on a bakery fro breaking law very similar to this one. It's relevant to compare the difference. I'd argue that giving the men a DVD is just about right. And the bakery should have been fined a few hundred bucks at most.

Also, no. The spirit of the law would be impact. There is no impact here. There is a huge impact to outright refusing service.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Also, no. The spirit of the law would be impact. There is no impact here. There is a huge impact to outright refusing service.

I don't follow the logic. There is almost no appreciable impact to either refusing to bake a cake or to refusal of admission to a theater. Both are refusals of service, and both are insignificant in terms of damages.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It's not nearly similar enough to compare them. The bakery outright refused service because they were gay. If the theater outright refused to allow men to ever watch movies, they would be the same.

Every bar that has a ladies' night isn't comparable to a bar that doesn't ever allow black people in. This is silly.

Did the bakery refuse service because they were gay? Not exactly. As I understand it, they didn't have a policy of refusing service to gays, but of refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings. So they'll happily bake a fabulously gay birthday cake.

So the refusal of service seems narrower in that case than you are allowing here.

 

[HomerThompson]

I don't follow the logic. There is almost no appreciable impact to either refusing to bake a cake or to refusal of admission to a theater. Both are refusals of service, and both are insignificant in terms of damages.

One is complete refusal of service, and the other is an additional service not being offered to all customers. It's extra women's only screenings, not no men allowed to partake in the this service. Do you think senior discounts are comparable to refusing service based on race, gender, etc. How about kids' meals?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

One is complete refusal of service, and the other is an additional service not being offered to all customers. It's extra women's only screenings, not no men allowed to partake in the this service. Do you think senior discounts are comparable to refusing service based on race, gender, etc. How about kids' meals?

Senior's discount s and kids meals are not prohibited by law. I think businesses are legally allowed to discriminate based on age. So bad example.

And again, the bakery was not completely refusing all service to a gay couple. They'd sell them any kind of cake they wanted with the exception of a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Whether one thinks that is reasonable or unreasonable, it cannot be construed as a complete refusal of service.

 

[HomerThompson]

Senior's discount s and kids meals are not prohibited by law. I think businesses are legally allowed to discriminate based on age. So bad example.

And again, the bakery was not completely refusing all service to a gay couple. They'd sell them any kind of cake they wanted with the exception of a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Whether one thinks that is reasonable or unreasonable, it cannot be construed as a complete refusal of service.

LMAO. No they aren't.



Any kind of cake they wanted.
<puh-lease75>


They refused them service because of their sexual orientation.

 

[panamaican]

But isn't this according to the spirit of those laws?

To me, it should be fine for a theater to have a women only screening. So if the the laws are written such that it is illegal to do so, then I'm against those laws.

It seems like a lot of people are anti-sex discrimination or racial discrimination only some of the time but not all the time. I get why. Some race and sex discrimination is relatively benign and others isn't. But it seems hard to write laws that can allow the benign stuff while prohibiting worse examples.

And people are right to point out the draconian fines levied on a bakery fro breaking law very similar to this one. It's relevant to compare the difference. I'd argue that giving the men a DVD is just about right. And the bakery should have been fined a few hundred bucks at most.

I think the law is benign, it's people who are not.

Discrimination laws aren't aggressively enforced by municipalities. They're enforced by the public. It requires members of the public to report their neighbors before the government apparatus starts moving.

It's unfortunate how what should have been basic human decency has devolved into this current model. It shouldn't have required a fight to get and maintain basic equal rights for blacks in post-Civil War America. If those political fights happened, there wouldn't have been a need for the federal government to step in and protect those rights from local/state abuse. And thus there wouldn't have been a government apparatus to be abused decades later. And thus the tit for tat spitefulness the current era embodies would not have occurred either.

But such is history. Cyclical and 20/20 hindsight and etc.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Senior's discount s and kids meals are not prohibited by law. I think businesses are legally allowed to discriminate based on age. So bad example.

You're not allowed to discriminate based on age but that only protects senior citizens(defined as >55 IIRC) so having meals exclusively for seniors doesn't violate age discrimination laws and those laws are more often relevant in the context of employment anyway.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Discrimination laws aren't aggressively enforced by municipalities.

I think relatively current events show us that this is not necessarily true. It's more accurate to say that discrimination laws aren't enforced evenly.

 

[panamaican]

I think relatively current events show us that this is not necessarily true. It's more accurate to say that discrimination laws aren't enforced evenly.

They are absolutely enforced evenly. But someone has to complain before something happens.

That's why I said they're not enforced aggressively by municipalities. If they were, the municipalities would be out there searching for violations proactively but they don't. They wait on the public and then react.

And this makes sense. The municipalities have no way of knowing if some baker is denying cakes to gay people or if movie theaters are denying seats to men. They are dependent on gay people getting married or men who want to watch Wonder Woman to bring it to their attention.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

They are absolutely enforced evenly.

Nonsense. Is any law enforced absolutely evenly? How about the speed limit? So why the need to insist that these particular laws are enforced evenly?

Do you believe a theater that held a whites only screening of a movie would be punished only by having to supply a DVD of the movie to non-whites who bought tickets? I don't believe that at all. What about a straight -only screening?

 

[irish_thug]

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.

I tend to agree with spirit of the law, that can prove tricky to argue though.

 

[BigggerNog]

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.

They also do events for first responders, and veterans. Why no outrage over that?

 

[BigggerNog]

Where were all of you when this happened?!

https://www.kingstonregion.com/comm...ast-and-present-military-members-in-kingston/

 

[cincymma79]

Who complains about this to get it to court? Wtf difference did it make