Wonder Women "Ladies Only" Screening Brouhaha...

[Joe Random]

<...>

Hollywood is like the _______ of movies. Fill in the blank - I was gonna say 'Walmart' but it seems wrong.

'Microwave lasagne'. A mass-produced version of something focusing heavily on uniformity and mass-appeal which renders it broadly inoffensive but otherwise bland. Far better takes on same are to be found from smaller scale producers who focus on the quality of the experience and where the recipes are driven by the chefs and not the accountants or bankers.

 

[johnny karate]

So, Alamo Drafthouse has basically undercut most of its own defenders in this thread regarding legality.
https://lintvkxan.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/settlement-offer.pdf

They admit they screwed up and that their advertising (which they claim was "tongue-in-cheek") was illegally discriminatory. Oops! They argue that the screenings themselves were not illegal since nobody was actually prevented from buying tickets or attending, and as far as I know that part is true.

Thank god. Now all the rabble-rousers and whiners can stop pretending this was a gender equality issue for them and go back to safely ignoring all the other gender-specific events that take place all the time all over the place.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thank god. Now all the rabble-rousers and whiners can stop pretending this was a gender equality issue for them and go back to safely ignoring all the other gender-specific events that take place all the time all over the place.

It's hard to admit you were wrong, isn't it?

 

[johnny karate]

It's hard to admit you were wrong, isn't it?

About what?

 

[Ziggurat]

About what?

About the legal issue.

 

[dudalb]

"Wonder Women" just passed 400 Million in the US domestic market,and extensive reshoots are underway to give her a even bigger role in "Justice League". Whatver the hell Warners did in marketing is sure as hell working.

 

[Tony]

"Wonder Women" just passed 400 Million in the US domestic market,and extensive reshoots are underway to give her a even bigger role in "Justice League". Whatver the hell Warners did in marketing is sure as hell working.

Yeah. It's that old skewl marketing trick we call "making a good movie".

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah. It's that old skewl marketing trick we call "making a good movie".

The sneaky bastards!

 

[johnny karate]

About the legal issue.

What specific claim did I make about the legal issue that you now insist I must admit was wrong?

 

[Ziggurat]

What specific claim did I make about the legal issue that you now insist I must admit was wrong?

Basically, that there wasn't any legal problem with what they did. Have you forgotten? Let me remind you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11859769#post11859769

And that's not the only post.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Basically, that there wasn't any legal problem with what they did. Have you forgotten? Let me remind you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11859769#post11859769

And that's not the only post.

If I get it right, the screening wasn't illegal as while it stated woman only, there was no actual discrimination and at least one man purchased tickets and went. It was the advertising that was illegal. Totally different things, and johnny karate clearly states "screening" not "advertising" in his post.

So wait, your claim is that this private screening is somehow illegal?

 

[Ziggurat]

If I get it right, the screening wasn't illegal as while it stated woman only, there was no actual discrimination and at least one man purchased tickets and went. It was the advertising that was illegal. Totally different things, and johnny karate clearly states "screening" not "advertising" in his post.

Johnny thought it would have been fine even if it had excluded men. He also thought it could qualify as "private" and therefore not be subject to antidiscriminqtion statutes. Neither of these things were true.

 

[johnny karate]

Basically, that there wasn't any legal problem with what they did. Have you forgotten? Let me remind you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11859769#post11859769

So no specific claim then. Just you "basically" summing up what you think my position is. Because I know how much you enjoy it when people do that to you.

Also, we were discussing the New York statute in the post you quoted. The document you linked is specific to Austin, Texas. Which, as you may be aware, is not New York.

Also, as you conceded, the event itself wasn't in violation of any discrimination law, only the advertising. Something that you argued against in defense of the advertisements for men-only events I linked:

Actually excluding someone based on gender is illegal. But if nobody has actually been excluded, then how can it be illegal

So now that it turns out that advertising gender-specific events is illegal, will you be admitting that you were wrong?

And that's not the only post.

Looking forward to you posting the one where I claimed advertising a women-only event in Austin, Texas is legal.

 

[johnny karate]

Johnny thought it would have been fine even if it had excluded men. He also thought it could qualify as "private" and therefore not be subject to antidiscriminqtion statutes. Neither of these things were true.

We were discussing the New York statute, not the Austin, Texas one.

If pending legal action in New York yields similar results, I will gladly admit I was wrong.

But since you have already been proven wrong in your belief that there has to be actual discrimination for an event like this to be illegal, will you now be admitting you were wrong?

And will you further acknowledge that the men-only events I linked taking place in Austin, Texas that no one cares about are in fact also illegal?

 

[johnny karate]

Ah, but did you understand the social issues and progressive agenda correctly?

What progressive agenda would that be?

Is it the one in which progressives don't throw fits and file lawsuits over the men-only events that take place all the time all over the place?

 

[johnny karate]

This is priceless:

The complaints were filed by Albany law professor Stephen Clark and an anonymous man. Clark, a gay lawyer specializing in sexual orientation and employment law, explained that the promotion of the screenings didn’t sit well with him. “I’m a specialist in anti-discrimination law, so I was fairly certain that this was not lawful,” he told MyStatesman. “If they were trying to do a gay-only ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ I would feel the same way.”

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/08/woman-woman-women-only-screenings-lawsuit/

This guy doesn't know the state he lives in very well, does he?