Alabama drive-in won't show Disney movie because of gay character

This is where I think many on the right have a misunderstanding.

There is a reason laws are in place to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. They exist so all people have access to goods, services and the jobs that allow people to pay for them.

In this case there is no one preventing a certain group from watching a movie. It is a theater choosing not to play the movie.

Will some people protest? Sure, likely on both sides if this gains traction.

Will some people boycott this based on one belief or another. Sure it may happen.

In the end there is no basis for a law suit unless Disney or the movie theater has a contract obligating the theater to show their movies.

 

Sometimes.

 

The guy knows his local market - I don't have a huge issue.

 

Religious idiocy rears its ugly head once again. No surprise it's in the bible thumping cesspool known as Alabama.

 

I would like to marry Ariana Grande!

 

The character was always gay. Did you see the man crush? The remake just makes it pathetically apparent to appease the PC crowd. Nothing wrong with that, except in the delivery. When you make it so obvious that's the problem. The original cartoon implied it. Why not leave it at that instead of smearing it all over the screen? It's the difference between gay characters on British TV vs American TV. The Brits do it right. Gay people are simply gay. No special attention. Just gay. And that's how itt should be.

 

Still struggling with the 1st amendment's right to religious freedom I see.

When you and the rest of your brown shirt buddies start going after Muslim businesses some might take your new religion seriously.

 

Perhaps the tolerant Left would like to jail whoever makes viewing decisions for the drive-in? Or force him to engage in penance by ordering and consuming a $25,000 taco? Washed down with a $150,000 bottle of tequila, say, Ley.925 Pasión Azteca Ultra Premium Añejo?

http://www.odditycentral.com/foods/would-you-spend-25000-on-the-worlds-most-expensive-taco.html

 

So is your solution to force the drive-in to show the movie?

 

SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue. Your ilk tried the same thing with African Americans.
It didn't work out to your favor.

That said, this isn't an issue of public accommodation or "religious freedom" to discriminate it is a private company refusing to play a specific movie to anyone which they are free to do without running afoul of any laws as it does not target any group. Keep up

 

I don't see am issue.

 

Perhaps you have evidence of an anti gay person being called racist. Until you do, we'll assume you just made it up.

 

Is the drive in theater breaking a law like the bakers did?
No? Then no, they won't be sued.

Come on, really?

 

I think the RW should be pushing for more education instead of trying to gut it.
We don't need a whole country of RWers and their level of intelligence.

 

Case in point. #2

 

Jeez. You back on this shtick again? It was an honest question. If a baker can be sued, why not a drive-in owner? Yes I get it. No one gets to watch the movie. Does that also mean someone can't sue them? Everyone knows why they aren't showing the movie. Is it really that far fetched that they will be sued over their decision?

 

Yeah we need more people like the far left who believe sex is simply something to be announced or sexual preferences like homosexuality which has no basis in genetics should be believed to be genetic because liberals say so.

Sorry sport. Its your party and their lack of intelligence that is on display here. Liberals and their anti science beliefs.

 

Another duck. What a shocker.

 

Sorry, I didn't view it as an honest question. My bad.

One business broke a law. Decided they didn't have to follow the law and not serve someone based on a personal motive of the individuals involved.
The theater is not breaking any law, AFAIK, and as others said, is not discriminating against anyone.

It was never about the bakers personal belief, it was about their choosing to not serve someone who is in a protected class. Which is against the law in that state. Had they done this in another state, without the protected class law, they would not have been sued.

 

Thanks for proving yet again, why we need more education, not less.

Did I miss WW3?

 

I gave up on Disney when they offed Old Yeller and Bambi!

 

Of course it was about their personal belief. They were targeted by the hate mongers on your side. As I said, if you really cared about these fantasy rights for a group of people whose only claim to a right is to declare it they would have targeted Muslim bakeries not just Christians.

 

You want to put your lack of education on display? Go right ahead. List the scientific data that proves homosexuality is genetic. Not a theory but actual evidence that cannot be attributed to environmental factors.

Your move.

 

Well that's probably the case. Though I'm no legal scholar. So that's why I asked. Thank you.

 

Keep posting, you only make my point about RWers not gutting education look better and better.