Yeah about those "Women only" showings....

[Moonglow]

If the story is true then the movie house owner was definitely a liberal, no further information is needed. Why? Because a conservative would not insult one half the customer base as did the owner. This is the same as Hillary calling 1/2 the voting base a basket full of deplorables. Idiotic on any level.

Plus the owner declared he didn't really mean they couldn't go to the movie. He only meant to insult men, and women, but is more then willing to take their money, if that isn't a liberal I don't know what is.

Capitalistic is what you call it since it had more to do with making a profit and not making a political ideology...

 

[Rexx Taylor]

oh never mind,,,i thought this thread was referring to womens body parts that men dont have

 

[JoeB131]

fuh fuh fuh, it's the law, fuh fuh fuh.

That's the best you got.

And you really are a self-hating person.

your concession is duly noted.

I can't help but wonder if the people who supported the women's only showing of Wonder Woman which doesn't bother me are the same people who complained about Dunkirk not having very many if any non white characters and no strong female lead one?

I wasn't aware anyone credible had said that about Dunkirk.

Then again, if they did a realistic Dunkirk, then they'd have to admit that the reason why the Germans didn't crush the Brits like a grape was because Hitler was still trying to make nice with the UK.

Colleges began pumping out idiots thinking the USSR was morally superior, we abandoned millions in Vietnam to be sent to reeducation camps, we tore down numerous historical sites in America, we took God out of schools, and the BeeGees played nonstop on the radio.

Yeah, it's all the BeeGee's fault.

 

[JoeB131]

So how do you stop the Lesbians in the theater for hooting about her tits?

ban them?

And you are showing your hypocrisy as usual, you dime store hack-fuck.

I've never met a Lesbian who acts crudely like that... but never mind. Then again, they aren't overcompensating like this guy.

 

[martybegan]

fuh fuh fuh, it's the law, fuh fuh fuh.

That's the best you got.

And you really are a self-hating person.

your concession is duly noted.

I can't help but wonder if the people who supported the women's only showing of Wonder Woman which doesn't bother me are the same people who complained about Dunkirk not having very many if any non white characters and no strong female lead one?

I wasn't aware anyone credible had said that about Dunkirk.

Then again, if they did a realistic Dunkirk, then they'd have to admit that the reason why the Germans didn't crush the Brits like a grape was because Hitler was still trying to make nice with the UK.

Colleges began pumping out idiots thinking the USSR was morally superior, we abandoned millions in Vietnam to be sent to reeducation camps, we tore down numerous historical sites in America, we took God out of schools, and the BeeGees played nonstop on the radio.

Yeah, it's all the BeeGee's fault.

No concession, you hack.

And now you go with 3 people in a response you lazy oxygen thief.

 

[martybegan]

So how do you stop the Lesbians in the theater for hooting about her tits?

ban them?

And you are showing your hypocrisy as usual, you dime store hack-fuck.

I've never met a Lesbian who acts crudely like that... but never mind. Then again, they aren't overcompensating like this guy.

You need to meet more lesbians.

 

[Conservative65]

Sometimes a law comes back and bites you on the ass....

Alamo Drafthouse: Hey, we made a mistake advertising those 'women's only' screenings of Wonder Woman - Hot Air

In the letter it sent to the city, the Alamo Drafthouse argues that advertising the shows as “women only” and “No guys allowed” was done in a “tongue-in-cheek” way. The theater claims anyone could still have purchased a ticket and entered the theater for the showing, whether man or woman. However, the Drafthouse does admit that advertising the show as “women only” was a mistake saying, “Respondents did not realize that advertising a ‘women’s only’ screening was a violation of discrimination laws.”

Considering a movie theater is an actual "Public Accommodation" this doesn't contradict my views on contracted services. However, why should a theater NOT be able to host an all women, all men, all midget or whatever movie night?

Oh, the "we got caught but we really didn't mean it" excuse.

 

[Conservative65]

If the story is true then the movie house owner was definitely a liberal, no further information is needed. Why? Because a conservative would not insult one half the customer base as did the owner. This is the same as Hillary calling 1/2 the voting base a basket full of deplorables. Idiotic on any level.

Plus the owner declared he didn't really mean they couldn't go to the movie. He only meant to insult men, and women, but is more then willing to take their money, if that isn't a liberal I don't know what is.

It's the typical "we really didn't intend it" excuse. That tells me it's a bunch of Liberals. Wonder if they would have accepted that from the baker that didn't bake a cake for the homosexual couple?

 

[Conservative65]

I can't help but wonder if the people who supported the women's only showing of Wonder Woman which doesn't bother me are the same people who complained about Dunkirk not having very many if any non white characters and no strong female lead one?

I can't help but wonder if the people that supported it and will buy the "we really didn't mean it" excuse would have been as forgiving had the theatre posted a "White Only" sign?

 

[JoeB131]

I can't help but wonder if the people that supported it and will buy the "we really didn't mean it" excuse would have been as forgiving had the theatre posted a "White Only" sign?

Probably not. Mostly because we have a 400 year history of that sort of thing that had really bad results, so you can see where most sensible people would be a tad worried about it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And we can all see by this "JoeB" guy...why the world has gone insane.
Hilarious.

 

[Conservative65]

I can't help but wonder if the people that supported it and will buy the "we really didn't mean it" excuse would have been as forgiving had the theatre posted a "White Only" sign?

Probably not. Mostly because we have a 400 year history of that sort of thing that had really bad results, so you can see where most sensible people would be a tad worried about it.

The double standard answer from you, huh. Not surprised. In other words, you're OK with discrimination as long as those being discriminated against are the ones you think deserve it?

 

[martybegan]

I can't help but wonder if the people that supported it and will buy the "we really didn't mean it" excuse would have been as forgiving had the theatre posted a "White Only" sign?

Probably not. Mostly because we have a 400 year history of that sort of thing that had really bad results, so you can see where most sensible people would be a tad worried about it.

The double standard answer from you, huh. Not surprised. In other words, you're OK with discrimination as long as those being discriminated against are the ones you think deserve it?

JoeB is all about getting government to do his dirty work against people he doesn't like.

 

[Freewill]

If the story is true then the movie house owner was definitely a liberal, no further information is needed. Why? Because a conservative would not insult one half the customer base as did the owner. This is the same as Hillary calling 1/2 the voting base a basket full of deplorables. Idiotic on any level.

Plus the owner declared he didn't really mean they couldn't go to the movie. He only meant to insult men, and women, but is more then willing to take their money, if that isn't a liberal I don't know what is.

Capitalistic is what you call it since it had more to do with making a profit and not making a political ideology...

So pissing off 1/2 of the potential customer base is good capitalism? Just thinking so is just so liberal.

 

[Freewill]

If the story is true then the movie house owner was definitely a liberal, no further information is needed. Why? Because a conservative would not insult one half the customer base as did the owner. This is the same as Hillary calling 1/2 the voting base a basket full of deplorables. Idiotic on any level.

Plus the owner declared he didn't really mean they couldn't go to the movie. He only meant to insult men, and women, but is more then willing to take their money, if that isn't a liberal I don't know what is.

No, i think they would have tried to deny entry, or at least make a stink about it. The sudden reversal is purely because they realize they are 100% on the wrong side of the law here, even if the law's application is stupid.

I think the whole affair, along with the reversal has more to do with them being idiots then it does anything else.

 

[Conservative65]

And we can all see by this "JoeB" guy...why the world has gone insane.
Hilarious.

Joe's Ok with the women only discrimination but has a problem if it was white only. He justifies it by saying it's OK "punish" certain groups he perceives as offenders by using the very thing he says the perceived were wrong for using. That's my entire complaint against affirmative action. The supporters use the very characteristics to benefit groups they say were wrong when it harmed those groups.

 

[Moonglow]

If the story is true then the movie house owner was definitely a liberal, no further information is needed. Why? Because a conservative would not insult one half the customer base as did the owner. This is the same as Hillary calling 1/2 the voting base a basket full of deplorables. Idiotic on any level.

Plus the owner declared he didn't really mean they couldn't go to the movie. He only meant to insult men, and women, but is more then willing to take their money, if that isn't a liberal I don't know what is.

Capitalistic is what you call it since it had more to do with making a profit and not making a political ideology...

So pissing off 1/2 of the potential customer base is good capitalism? Just thinking so is just so liberal.

Whatever, it was a call by the owner or manager...He can live with it....It's not like a business owner or manager that has never pulled a boner in life before this happened...

 

[Conservative65]

I can't help but wonder if the people that supported it and will buy the "we really didn't mean it" excuse would have been as forgiving had the theatre posted a "White Only" sign?

Probably not. Mostly because we have a 400 year history of that sort of thing that had really bad results, so you can see where most sensible people would be a tad worried about it.

The double standard answer from you, huh. Not surprised. In other words, you're OK with discrimination as long as those being discriminated against are the ones you think deserve it?

JoeB is all about getting government to do his dirty work against people he doesn't like.

Using the very tactics he complained were wrong when used against those he supports.

 

[JoeB131]

The double standard answer from you, huh. Not surprised. In other words, you're OK with discrimination as long as those being discriminated against are the ones you think deserve it?

Well, no. I said that I thought the "women only" was a bad idea.

It just wasn't malicious like 400 years of slavery and Jim Crow. It was just some theater owner thinking, "Maybe the ladies would enjoy it more without nerdy fan boys making sexist comments."

I'm not sure why Wonder Woman was ever a feminist Icon. She was created by a bondage fetishist who lived in a polyamorous relationship.

JoeB is all about getting government to do his dirty work against people he doesn't like.

Here's the thing. When someone complained, the theater owner "manned up" and said, "Yes, we did make a mistake, we apologize to anyone who was offended, and we won't do it again."

Unlike the Homophobic Baker, who decided the appropriate response to a legitimate complaint against his establishment was to publish the names and addresses of the people who complained about him on social media.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe's Ok with the women only discrimination but has a problem if it was white only. He justifies it by saying it's OK "punish" certain groups he perceives as offenders by using the very thing he says the perceived were wrong for using. That's my entire complaint against affirmative action. The supporters use the very characteristics to benefit groups they say were wrong when it harmed those groups.

Then you don't understand why affirmative action is needed.

They did a study of resumes a few years back, where they sent out resumes that were identical in all aspects except for the names on the resumes. Half of them had "white" names like John and Mary, and half of them had black names like Jamal and Lakeisha

The resumes with the white names got 50% more callbacks.

This isn't just about the horrible history we have in this country, it's about what still goes on today.