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

[JoeB131]

The gays bought things from the bakery and the baker sold it to them. He just didn't want to cater their wedding.

Then he shouldn't cater any weddings. But that's where your money is made as baker.

 

[Conservative65]

Black names and white names?

There are no two people that exactly alike in all ways. Sorry, your automatic assumption doesn't fly, racist.

Okay.. listen to me slowly. These were not REAL resumes.

These were made up resumes with identical education, job experience and text.

The ONLY difference was some had names like "Emily" and "Greg" and others had names like "Jamal" and "Lakeisha"

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

No interviews. No applications... Just the very first step in the process, receiving a resume and reviewing it...

And when the resumes were sent out, Greg got callbacks. Jamal didn't.

It doesn't matter that they weren't real people. What matters is that the hiring managers were more likely to call someone with a white name than a black name.

Listen to me. All you have is they had different names and an ASSumption it couldn't have been anything but race.

It does matter than YOU use "white names" and "black names". Are you saying that no black people are named (fill in the blank) what you call white names?

It does matter they weren't real people. The results aren't valid unless you can prove the sole reason they didn't get called back was race. All you have is speculation of what you want it to be.

 

[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?

So you think our Constitution should be amended to allow 'all white people night', every night, at a theater?

The theatre can have a black only night if they want. I hope they sell it out. However, when, after that, they have a white only night, you, the rest of the whiners, and the ******* need to STFU about it being racist.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Black names and white names?

There are no two people that exactly alike in all ways. Sorry, your automatic assumption doesn't fly, racist.

Okay.. listen to me slowly. These were not REAL resumes.

These were made up resumes with identical education, job experience and text.

The ONLY difference was some had names like "Emily" and "Greg" and others had names like "Jamal" and "Lakeisha"

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf

No interviews. No applications... Just the very first step in the process, receiving a resume and reviewing it...

And when the resumes were sent out, Greg got callbacks. Jamal didn't.

It doesn't matter that they weren't real people. What matters is that the hiring managers were more likely to call someone with a white name than a black name.

So two wrongs make a right?...or your answer to one thing being wrong is to point to something else that is also wrong?
Either way - some say that is hypocrisy.

 

[JoeB131]

Listen to me. All you have is they had different names and an ASSumption it couldn't have been anything but race.

It does matter than YOU use "white names" and "black names". Are you saying that no black people are named (fill in the blank) what you call white names?

It does matter they weren't real people. The results aren't valid unless you can prove the sole reason they didn't get called back was race. All you have is speculation of what you want it to be.

Again- All they had to go on was a name at that point.

Yeah, the kind of bigot who calls Greg but throws Jamal's resume into the circular file is probably going to throw Greg's resume in the circular file when he finds out he's black, too.

But the fact that Greg got a call back with his white name and Jamal didn't get a call back with his black name when they had the EXACT same experience and education, tells a lot about why we need affirmative action.

Because the HR Director might not think he's a bigot. He just might relate more to Greg than Jamal.

 

[JoeB131]

So two wrongs make a right?...or your answer to one thing being wrong is to point to something else that is also wrong?
Either way - some say that is hypocrisy.

I don't see anything wrong with affirmative action, that's the thing.

Affirmative Action, when done right, simply gives opportunity. So yes, the companies have to keep EEO information. And they have to show they fairly considered minority and women candidates.

And this is unreasonable, why?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

So you think our Constitution should be amended to allow 'all white people night', every night, at a theater?

The theatre can have a black only night if they want. I hope they sell it out. However, when, after that, they have a white only night, you, the rest of the whiners, and the ******* need to STFU about it being racist.

That didn't come within 100 miles of answering my question.

 

[jknowgood]

The gays bought things from the bakery and the baker sold it to them. He just didn't want to cater their wedding.

Then he shouldn't cater any weddings. But that's where your money is made as baker.

No, he should be able to choose what type of an event he caters to. He sold them merchandise from the store.

 

[Conservative65]

Listen to me. All you have is they had different names and an ASSumption it couldn't have been anything but race.

It does matter than YOU use "white names" and "black names". Are you saying that no black people are named (fill in the blank) what you call white names?

It does matter they weren't real people. The results aren't valid unless you can prove the sole reason they didn't get called back was race. All you have is speculation of what you want it to be.

Again- All they had to go on was a name at that point.

Yeah, the kind of bigot who calls Greg but throws Jamal's resume into the circular file is probably going to throw Greg's resume in the circular file when he finds out he's black, too.

But the fact that Greg got a call back with his white name and Jamal didn't get a call back with his black name when they had the EXACT same experience and education, tells a lot about why we need affirmative action.

Because the HR Director might not think he's a bigot. He just might relate more to Greg than Jamal.

You can find some sort of excuse for everything. Proves you have nothing.

 

[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?

So you think our Constitution should be amended to allow 'all white people night', every night, at a theater?

The theatre can have a black only night if they want. I hope they sell it out. However, when, after that, they have a white only night, you, the rest of the whiners, and the ******* need to STFU about it being racist.

That didn't come within 100 miles of answering my question.

No, you're question was so irrelevant to the discussion, it was a 1000 miles away from it.

 

[my2¢]

I imagine there are a number of ways the theatre could have gotten around the law. I'm no lawyer but if I knew it was straight-out illegal and I was dead set in holding the women-only event then I'd check into finding an outside club to serve as a sponsor. For example, rent out the movie house to Curves gym club for 100% of the take and with each ticket give the women a free pass to the gym to entice membership. Sort of a win-win. I'm guessing this would classify the showing as some sort of private showing under freedom of association rights and not a public event. But I would check with a lawyer as states' laws vary.

 

[JoeB131]

No, he should be able to choose what type of an event he caters to. He sold them merchandise from the store.

No, when he starts saying "I'm not going to do events for blacks or gays", that's a violation of the public accommodation laws.

You can find some sort of excuse for everything. Proves you have nothing.

Dude, I posted a complete link to a peer-reviewed study. You clearly didn't even understand what the study was about.

 

[JoeB131]

I imagine there are a number of ways the theatre could have gotten around the law. I'm no lawyer but if I knew it was straight-out illegal and I was dead set in holding the women-only event then I'd check into finding an outside club to serve as a sponsor. For example, rent out the movie house to Curves gym club for 100% of the take and with each ticket give the women a free pass to the gym to entice membership. Sort of a win-win. I'm guessing this would classify the showing as some sort of private showing under freedom of association rights and not a public event. But I would check with a lawyer as states' laws vary.

Yeah, you see, but when you realized it was a dumb idea to start with, you don't keep finding ways to make the dumb idea work.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I don't really see anything wrong with what this theater did. I mean, it's not their standard policy, it was only done for one screening, and someone thought that it might have made a good promotion.

Guess what? In the mid 80's, I was stationed in Norfolk VA, and there was a bar called The Firehouse, that would have Chippendale dancers one night out of the month, and no guys were allowed into the bar until a half hour after the show had stopped. If bars can run promotions like this, then why can't the Alamo Drafthouse (a movie theater bar), run something as well?

By the way...................showing up at the Firehouse after the Chippendale show was a guaranteed way to get laid. I remember the first time I showed up there, some girl came up and grabbed my hand as soon as I sat down, dragged me out on the dancefloor and then bought me a beer. We made out in the parking lot an hour later.

 

[Conservative65]

No, he should be able to choose what type of an event he caters to. He sold them merchandise from the store.

No, when he starts saying "I'm not going to do events for blacks or gays", that's a violation of the public accommodation laws.

You can find some sort of excuse for everything. Proves you have nothing.

Dude, I posted a complete link to a peer-reviewed study. You clearly didn't even understand what the study was about.

When those doing and reviewing the study already have their conclusion written before the study is done, it invalidates it. Just like you, if you want to reach a conclusion you'll find a way to get there even if you have no proof. When you say something is a "white name" or a "black name" it proves what I just said.

 

[JoeB131]

When those doing and reviewing the study already have their conclusion written before the study is done, it invalidates it. Just like you, if you want to reach a conclusion you'll find a way to get there even if you have no proof. When you say something is a "white name" or a "black name" it proves what I just said.

So, "Peer Reviewed" study is one of those concept you don't understand. Can we establish everything else you are ignorant of in advance, because it would save a lot of time.

 

[martybegan]

So the movie theater is a gutless SJW twat... who knew?

Or they didn't realize that something they thought was harmless might have been in violation of the law. When pointed out, they corrected.

now, given the wifebeater the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know he was in violation of the PA laws, once it was pointed out to him, he should have corrected and apologized. Instead, they escalated, and they lost. Don't go to a pissing contest and then complain about getting wet.

No, they weaseled out like the gutless twats they are.

And again you have no proof of that, stop making that claim.

 

[martybegan]

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?

So you think our Constitution should be amended to allow 'all white people night', every night, at a theater?

Where does the constitution prevent "white people night, or Masons night, or Our lady of perpetual pain and suffering night"?

 

[JoeB131]

No, they weaseled out like the gutless twats they are.

Or they realized this wasn't a fight worth having. Everyone kind of agreed, a "women only" showing was kind of dumb, even women. It also happened to be against public accommedation laws, if they actually threw men out of the showing, which they didn't.

"We're not going to fight over a badly thought out promotion that we weren't really serious about, and just admit we made a mistake."

Wow. Admitting you made a mistaking. What a concept.

And again you have no proof of that, stop making that claim.

Like I said, just my observation, that a woman who let's herhusband ruin the business she spent her life building, and doesn't kick his sorry ass to the curb, has already been beaten into submission. "Yes, Dear, I'll make cupcakes for your Religious Nut Buddies while you tell them how awesome you are."

 

[JoeB131]

Where does the constitution prevent "white people night, or Masons night, or Our lady of perpetual pain and suffering night"?

14th Amendment, which is what most PA Laws are based on.