Support NeoGAF

[Syriel]

Actually, she cited Austin law as forbidding discrimination and he only had allegations. No one bothered "refuting" the claim because a ladies' night generally doesn't constitute discrimination.

The law in question, as linked by Trident earlier in the thread, seems pretty cut-and-dry as far as Austin is concerned.

§ 5-2-4 - PROHIBITED PRACTICES.

(A) A person is entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability.

(B) A person, including the owner, operator, or lessee of a public accommodation may not directly or indirectly exclude, segregate, limit, refuse or deny a person the accommodations, advantages, facilities, benefits, privileges, services, or goods of the public accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, national origin, age, or disability.

(C) A person, including the owner, operator, or lessee of a public accommodation, may not circulate, issue, display, post, mail, or publish a statement, advertisement, or sign that indicates that the accommodations, advantages, facilities, benefits, privileges, services, or goods of the public accommodation will be denied to an individual based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, national origin, age, or disability, or that the patronage or presence of an individual is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, undesirable, or unsolicited based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, national origin, age or disability.

While there is no showing either way of a violation of (B), as the screening has not yet happened, Alamo's marketing of the event appears to be a pretty clear violation of (C).

There is no de minimis exception in the city code. The only exceptions are for facilities owned by government entities and for private clubs that are not open to the public.

As for your latter point, that is dependent on jurisdiction. You cannot make that claim for the US as a whole.

He's challenging it on an employment law basis as per the OP. But given that it's merely about staffing for that night it's meaningless.

This is what's hilarious. Nobody's being prevented from seeing wonder woman at the same establishment at the same time as the women's viewing. Trying to cite the law as though men are prevented from accessing goods and services from the Drafthouse is idiotic.

It's awesome that you're passionate about the screening, but to put your fingers in your ears and dismiss any potential legal issues is no different than Trump screaming "Fake News" at anything he doesn't like.

It only takes one person to file a lawsuit, and courts are generally obligated to follow the law as written, conflict of law and unconstitutionality arguments excepted.

Thinking "It's no big deal" is what leads to situations like restaurants getting sued (and losing) for thousands of dollars because they were one inch out of compliance with ADA law. For better or worse, the details matter when it comes to legal questions.

It's 100% on The Alamo Draft House imo.

Instead of presenting it in a positive way, describing it as events "For Women", they had to go the extra mile (probably to be controversial) and specifically include text to exclude based on gender.

Embarrassing indeed that something that should have been an empowerment event became a controversy about exclusion.

To be fair, I think the way the initial publicity and Facebook responses were terribly handled and left the Alamo Drafthouse extremely vulnerable to people like him, who have the legal knowledge to screw them over for the heck of it.

A better language would've not only protected them from this, but I'm pretty sure it would've also conveyed the message (and enraged the people it originally enraged).

These two posts nail the underlying issue as far as the legal perspective is concerned. A simple change in how the screening was advertised and promoted would have prevented any possible legal exposure and had the same net effect.

This isn't a position that is any way critical of the idea of the event itself, yet from reading this thread, it seems like the vast majority of posters want to crucify anyone who points it out.

Nobody needs to see a specific screening at all. A company saw a chance to do a fun gimmick and make some money. It's in a tiny theater. People who don't actually care pretended to care and THAT is what pissed me off. The disingenuous whining for the sake of it.

They do "tough guy cinema" once a month. They do gay events. People got mad over the wording of a silly thing that will literally not negatively effect anyone.

Unfortunately, the wording is what opened the door for their attackers.

Noting that this event was only scheduled for Austin, my guess is that Alamo only reviewed restrictions on a state level and not the city level. State law would explain why Alamo didn't advertise the same event at the SF location. And if you go just by Texas state law, there doesn't seem to be an issue. It's just the Austin law that popped up in this case.

Even if the theather didn't let them in to the screening, it would still be legal too.

That's not the way it works.

Guess we'll have to see what ends up happening when the equality justice warrior walks in demanding they be let in.

I'm hoping they have another theater availlable at the moment and guide them to that screening, leaving one theater for women only and another one for those that decided to come to make a statement.

You can assume that anyone showing up with a ticket would be ready to file a complaint should they be turned away, so the smart thing to do would be to admit them and then kick them out for disruption if they get an inch out of line.

It sucks for those that just want to have a fun time, but it's the only real way to deny those that want to make a statement, as you say. Denying them admission or pushing them to another theater, will only give them a platform.

Hey guys how do we feel about women segregating themselves in their own bathrooms when are we underground railroading into their toilets?

Different topic, but I've long said there's no real reason to have separate bathrooms. Stalls for individual privacy, sure, but separate bathrooms, nah. Everybody poops.

Westfield Mall in downtown SF did this a few months back. The world didn't end.

This is a fair point (although the link you just gave suggests no such holding has occurred in Texas), but my question would be this -- do you get the impression that any of the debate here, across the thousands of posts on the subject on GAF or the bazillions of tweets or comments section comments, is actually about the narrow technical details of the legality, or do you think it's stemming from a broader moral anger?

One presumes that there is not, even in places where such things are technically illegal, there is no great protest and social disruption surrounding "Ladies Night" (or "Singles Night", or "Couples Night", or "Kids Night" or...)? As a posted above noted, this seems like a clear cut de minimis harm.

I'm totally on board with the idea that if this is illegal, Alamo should receive an injunction and be asked to pay a fine commensurate with the harm (I'm thinking a 10% off popcorn coupon to be split between the plaintiffs would deal with this grievous injustice). But that seems totally secondary to the "is this something that boils my blood?" question.

I am generally interested in narrow legalistic debates. But we don't have a thread about how the Supreme Court narrowly ruled that fish don't count as documents under Sarbanes-Oxley or whatever, so I suspect that's not the draw here.

A thread in which the OP focuses on the legal arguments seems like the ideal place to discuss the finer points of the law in question. If it was just about the broader moral anger, then why have a separate thread?

Of course now you've got me reading about fish in the middle of the night.

Texas still has at least one men-only golf club. I'm guessing whatever court this hits wouldn't wanna rock that boat.

The Austin code exempts private clubs.

Did you people miss the absolutely incredible email response Austin mayor Steve Adler sent to some asshole complaining about the whole thing? It's buried in the OP and WaPo story but I searched the thread for Adler and hacked and didn't see it: It's this century's Cleveland Browns response.

This mayor is gold.

That was an amazing response and the mayor deserves massive kudos for it.

 

[spekkeh]

If this is discriminatory, using the same logic, any venue that provides private parties or events is being discriminatory.

No that's not what discrimination in the legal sense means. If it was a private party based on race, gender, sexual orientation, then yes it would also be discriminatory.
Edit: apparently unless you mean a private club.

I'll need to see the receipts on this, Professor.

For God's sake man look at what you write, what is this I know better than a professor culture.

 

[SpaceWolf]

Whoa there...wonder woman the world's most iconic superhero??

Extremely late on this obviously, but I meant the world's most iconic female superhero. Apologies.

 

[Desperado]

Different topic, but I've long said there's no real reason to have separate bathrooms. Stalls for individual privacy, sure, but separate bathrooms, nah. Everybody poops.

Westfield Mall in downtown SF did this a few months back. The world didn't end.

Coincidentally, Alamo just recently opened a new location in Austin which has gender neutral restrooms. They solicited public feedback on Facebook (1,
2) as part of the design process.

 

[Transhuman]

It's awesome that you're passionate about the screening, but to put your fingers in your ears and dismiss any potential legal issues is no different than Trump screaming "Fake News" at anything he doesn't like.

It only takes one person to file a lawsuit, and courts are generally obligated to follow the law as written, conflict of law and unconstitutionality arguments excepted.

Thinking "It's no big deal" is what leads to situations like restaurants getting sued (and losing) for thousands of dollars because they were one inch out of compliance with ADA law. For better or worse, the details matter when it comes to legal questions.

It's worth mentioning too that even if this professor was a "no-fun-allowed sea lawyer" trying to ruin a business's day because he took issue with the fact they were snarky on Facebook... the reason why this ordinance exists is to protect against discrimination, the fact that so many people are willing to look past that because it's vogue to do so is what makes me care about this issue.

Even without the city ordinance I should hope that people would see what's wrong with discrimination based on protected classes, and have the good taste not to pick-and-choose what protected classes they care about.

 

[John Kowalski]

Did you people miss the absolutely incredible email response Austin mayor Steve Adler sent to some asshole complaining about the whole thing? It's buried in the OP and WaPo story but I searched the thread for Adler and hacked and didn't see it: It's this century's Cleveland Browns response.



This mayor is gold.

Lol at "don't @ me"

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Women-only events are illegal now? Better start cracking down on sauna's.

Bathhouses only get away with it because of the polite fiction that they're actually "private clubs"rather than public accommodations (that's why you have to fill out a membership form and pay a membership fee before you can even access the premises). Anyway, I never really understood the reason for it, and if all the bathhouses had to let women in, I can't really see a huge issue with it.

 

[Rookhelm]

From a legal sense, does it make a difference if the business is selling tickets to men (and whomever else) for other showings they have (including showings for the same movie at the same time in other auditoriums)?

 

[Zoe]

From a legal sense, does it make a difference if the business is selling tickets to men (and whomever else) for other showings they have (including showings for the same movie at the same time in other auditoriums)?

This isn't happening, BTW

 

[Wowfunhappy]

How far do these discrimination laws go?

There are spa's with separate areas for men and woman (because you're supposed to go naked in them). Is that discrimination too?

Edit: nvm, answered a few posts above.

 

[Colocho]

They just couldn't let women have this one little thing, could they?

Insecure men are ruining the fucking world.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Both sides?

They are firmly on the side of the women... ya know hence the donation to PP.

Please

PP isn't just for women just so ya know.

I didn't say they weren't on the side of women just that they played both sides and stirred controversy when there really wasn't anything there just so they could look like heroes and gain cred and mind share. That's just business.

Also for anyone curious this event also took place i other markets outside of Texas.

 

[Transhuman]

Remember this from page 3 of the thread?

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/my-adventures-at-the-segregated-wonder-woman-screening/

 

[excelsiorlef]

Remember this from page 3 of the thread?

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/my-adventures-at-the-segregated-wonder-woman-screening/

We linking to Heat Street now?

So what everyone rational said would happen happened.

He went. No one cared and the big anti-feminist activist himself sat quietly and watched the movie and then took his shots at women from the safety of his media platform.

Also coward snuck in too. Didn't even have the guts to take a stand by buying a ticket for that actual screening to try and make his point. He wanted to avoid media and conflict. What a fucking rebel.

 

[Transhuman]

We linking to Heat Street now?

So what everyone rational said would happen happened.

He went. No one cared and the big anti-feminist activist himself sat quietly and watched the movie and then took his shots at women from the safety of his media platform.

Also coward snuck in too. Didn't even have the guts to take a stand by buying a ticket for that actual screening to try and make his point.

Oh so you didn't read the article.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Oh so you didn't read the article.

He took shots at women for objectifying Aquaman and Pine... a classic defense for the overt sexualization of women.

He still went on about this being discrimination... even after he was never kicked out.

That he was so mild about it shows that this entire situation was much ado about nothing.

That even the clickbait right wing dude has no ammo afterwards.


He asked why the controversy? When there wasn't one until folks like him made it one.

He also took a pot shot at trans women by implying that saying the event is women only and saying the event is for folks who identify as women isn't the same thing.

And then he all lives matters the whole Women's Empowerment that's been so meaningful to women seeing this movie.

 

[Zoe]

Also coward snuck in too. Didn't even have the guts to take a stand by buying a ticket for that actual screening to try and make his point. He wanted to avoid media and conflict. What a fucking rebel.

He did buy a ticket, and the server validated it.

 

[MUnited83]

Remember this from page 3 of the thread?

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/my-adventures-at-the-segregated-wonder-woman-screening/

A dude ilegally entering in a showing for a movie he didn't pay for? That complains about being discriminated despite not getting kicked out? LMAO

 

[Zoe]

A dude ilegally entering in a showing for a movie he didn't pay for?

He had already purchased the ticket online as the tweet shows.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He did buy a ticket, and the server validated it.

That's not what he claims.

He had already purchased the ticket online as the tweet shows.

It was for a different screening.

Dude faked controversy from minute 1.

He literally says he bought for a different time and a different movie and just snuck across

To avoid any possible conflicts in the lobby or media (The Daily Show had offered to tag along to “document” the adventure, as did provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. I declined both.) I purchased tickets to an earlier showing of another film, then simply walked past security into the theater showing Wonder Woman directly across.

 

[Zoe]

That's not what he claims.




It was for a different screening.

Dude faked controversy from minute 1.

He literally says he bought for a different time and just snuck across

The tweet shows his receipt for the special screening. He purchased an additional ticket to avoid any attention at the box office.

Drafthouse has assigned seating, and all tickets are validated by your server.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The tweet shows his receipt for the special screening. He purchased an additional ticket to avoid any attention at the box office.

Drafthouse has assigned seating, and all tickets are validated by your server.

So then he's a double coward then.

 

[remist]

That's not what he claims.




It was for a different screening.

Dude faked controversy from minute 1.

He literally says he bought for a different time and just snuck across

He bought a women's only ticket online and a regular ticket at the theater booth. He used the latter to get into the theater and avoid attention and the former to show the attendant after he sat down.

 

[Rayis]

At the end of the day, he still gave money to Alamo Drafthouse twice so joke's on him.

 

[Zoe]

Ok so then if he's lying for some strange reason because he claims to have not bought a ticket for that show at all.

Read the quote I added

Nowhere in that quote does he say he didn't buy a ticket for the showing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

He bought a women's only ticket online and a regular ticket at the theater booth. He used the latter to get into the theater and avoid attention and the former to show the attendant after he sat down.

Yeah ok that makes more sense.

So he's a double coward and an idiot who gave the place he was protesting against extra money... all so he could have the experience of watching the movie with nothing else happening.

Nowhere in that quote does he say he didn't buy a ticket for the showing.

Yeah I edited.

It just makes him even more of a coward.

 

[Slayven]

Whole lot of work to prove what an asshat you are, and gave his money twice once to planned parenthood and then to Alamo drafthouse.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Whole lot of work to prove what an asshat you are, and gave his money twice once to planned parenthood and then to Alamo drafthouse.

And what he ended up with was an experience of enjoying a movie and so little controversy that he had to basically go the All Lives Matter route.

 

[commedieu]

Yeah ok that makes more sense.

So he's a double coward and an idiot who gave the place he was protesting against extra money... all so he could have the experience of watching the movie with nothing else happening.

Pretty much. And it's not like he could even eavesdrop on them plotting against men.

Everyone knows they communicate via high frequency vibrations from their ovaries and uteruses.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I shake my head every time this thread is bumped.

 

[Slayven]

And what he ended up with was an experience of enjoying a movie and so little controversy that he had to basically go the All Lives Matter route.

Privilege is a hell of a drug

 

[MUnited83]

The tweet shows his receipt for the special screening. He purchased an additional ticket to avoid any attention at the box office.

Drafthouse has assigned seating, and all tickets are validated by your server.

So he's a coward, didn't get kicked out (like me or excelsorief already said he wouldn't be), and he still continues to feel "segregated" and complains about women being sexist, and then he went all "ALL LIVES MATTER" at the end.

What a special fuckin snowflake.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I wonder, if this goes to court, if the Alamo Drafthouse will just cite this idiot as proof of no "discrimination"

 

[MsKrisp]

At the end of the day, he still gave money to Alamo Drafthouse twice so joke's on him.

lol, people are ridiculous. I guess their money is better off in the hands of others anyway.

Does anyone know how the screenings went otherwise?

 

[Transhuman]

I wonder, if this goes to court, if the Alamo Drafthouse will just cite this idiot as proof of no "discrimination"

Probably, but they would still be in violation.

(C) A person, including the owner, operator, or lessee of a public accommodation, may not circulate, issue, display, post, mail, or publish a statement, advertisement, or sign that indicates that the accommodations, advantages, facilities, benefits, privileges, services, or goods of the public accommodation will be denied to an individual based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, national origin, age, or disability, or that the patronage or presence of an individual is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, undesirable, or unsolicited based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, national origin, age or disability.

As was mentioned earlier by Syriel, the language they used to market the event was discriminatory under Austin's city ordinance.

 

[HStallion]

lol, people are ridiculous. I guess their money is better off in the hands of others anyway.

Does anyone know how the screenings went otherwise?

You didn't hear anything about them except from this tool so I'm guessing they went off without a hitch.

 

[Slayven]

lol, people are ridiculous. I guess their money is better off in the hands of others anyway.

Does anyone know how the screenings went otherwise?

Except for fuckwad's article, Only thing i found is they soldout

 

[benicillin]

Probably, but they would still be in violation.



As was mentioned earlier by Syriel, the language they used to market the event was discriminatory under Austin's city ordinance.

I mean, these things are decided in a court, not cause you just say so on NeoGAF lol. And it probably won't even make it that far.

Happy that all the women who went seemed to have a great time, have heard nothing but good things from people I know personally who attended.

 

[Transhuman]

I mean, these things are decided in a court, not cause you just say so on NeoGAF lol. And it probably won't even make it that far

Probably not, even if it did go to court Drafthouse could say their marketing it as "No Men Allowed" was tongue in cheek and since they (to my knowledge) never explicitly stated that men would be refused service, I can't see it going further than that.

At the end of the day, the only way to find out if men would be turned away would be to go to a screening, this guy chose to do that. The fact that there was a confusion in regards to this in the first place matters. No-one should be unsured as to whether a business will refuse them service based on protected class.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Since I've never been to one everytime I read "Alamo Drafthouse" I think it's a brewery or a bar. I fail to see what does the word Drafthouse have to do with movies or cinema.

Anyone?

 

[Slayven]

Since I've never been to one everytime I read "Alamo Drafthouse" I think it's a brewery or a bar. I fail to see what does the word Drafthouse have to do with movies or cinema.

Anyone?

Cause they sell beer, craft beet

So they are a movie house that have beer on draft

 

[MsKrisp]

You didn't hear anything about them except from this tool so I'm guessing they went off without a hitch.

Except for fuckwad's article, Only thing i found is they soldout

Well that's great. Hopefully this doesn't get mired in pointless court cases for years to come.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

Cause they sell beer, craft beet

So they are a movie house that have beer on draft

Ok that's good to know. I still think of beer before movies when I read that name but whatever.