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

The problem is that most of the people calling for allowing open discrimination are advocating it only against gay people. I agree that public accommodation laws are unjust and a form of involuntary servitude but as long as any group is forced to serve another then that group should similarly be forced to serve the original group.

Christians wanting to deny service, housing and employment to gays (and previously blacks) while enjoying protections themselves is the worst kind of hypocrisy - one that is even condemned in their holy books.

 

Bigots have WAY TOO MUCH influence in American society. (They essentially make mountains out of molehills.)

 

The drive-in has every right not to show the movie; they aren't violating any laws as far as I know.
Consumers who disagree with their choice have every right to boycott said drive-in.

I hate homophobia and transphobia but there are larger issues facing our community than whether a drive-in shows a movie with a gay moment in it.

 

Incorrect, I haven't once.

Incorrect, I only stated that Freud's theories were opinions. They have been proven wrong.

You mean you aren't going to talk to people who share your bias because they don't echo back what you want to hear? Good thing The APA doesn't feel that way.

 

You shouldn't call people liars. Its against the rules.

And yes you absoltuely ran from it and its quite easily proven

Compared to the general population, non-heterosexual and transgender subpopulations have higher rates of mental health problems such as anxiety, depression, and suicide, as well as behavioral and social problems such as substance abuse and intimate partner violence. The prevailing explanation in the scientific literature is the social stress model, which posits that social stressors — such as stigmatization and discrimination — faced by members of these subpopulations account for the disparity in mental health outcomes. Studies show that while social stressors do contribute to the increased risk of poor mental health outcomes for these populations, they likely do not account for the entire disparity.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...tcomes-and-social-stress-sexuality-and-gender

That is absolutely false and I can easily prove it.

Freud was only one example and you didn't specifically reference Freud. You said and I quote:

You never once mentioned Freud and you never proved he did no interviews of homosexuals to back up his theories.


BTW, if you knew anything about Freud you would have known he actually was in favor of decriminalizing of homosexual acts in Germany and Austria so while you've been trashing him you had no idea his history.

Not that its a surprise of course.
https://psychotherapypapers.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/kirby1/

And here are the rest of the studies you ran from and never ever addressed making your claim you never ran laughably false.

In a 2008 meta-analysis of research on mental health outcomes for non-heterosexuals, University College London professor of psychiatry Michael King and colleagues concluded that gays, lesbians, and bisexuals face “higher risk of suicidal behaviour, mental disorder and substance misuse and dependence than heterosexual people.”[1] This survey of the literature examined papers published between January 1966 and April 2005 with data from 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 non-heterosexual individuals. The large sample size allowed the authors to generate estimates that are highly reliable, as indicated by the relatively small confidence intervals.[2]

Compiling the risk ratios found in these papers, the authors estimated that lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals had a 2.47 times higher lifetime risk than heterosexuals for suicide attempts,[3] that they were about twice as likely to experience depression over a twelve-month period,[4] and approximately 1.5 times as likely to experience anxiety disorders.[5] Both non-heterosexual men and women were found to be at an elevated risk for substance abuse problems (1.51 times as likely),[6] with the risk for non-heterosexual women especially high — 3.42 times higher than for heterosexual women.[7] Non-heterosexual men, on the other hand, were at a particularly high risk for suicide attempts: while non-heterosexual men and women together were at a 2.47 times greater risk of suicide attempts over their lifetimes, non-heterosexual men were found to be at a 4.28 times greater risk.[8]

These findings have been replicated in other studies, both in the United States and internationally, confirming a consistent and alarming pattern.

Women who identified as lesbian, bisexual, or “not sure” reported higher rates of lifetime mood disorders than women who identified as heterosexual: the prevalence was 44.4% in lesbians, 58.7% in bisexuals, and 36.5% in women unsure of their sexual identity, as compared to 30.5% in heterosexuals. A similar pattern was found for anxiety disorders, with bisexual women experiencing the highest prevalence, followed by lesbians and those unsure, and heterosexual women experiencing the lowest prevalence. Examining the data for women with different sexual behavior or sexual attraction (rather than identity), those reporting sexual behavior with or attractions to both men and women had a higher rate of lifetime disorders than women who reported exclusively heterosexual or homosexual behaviors or attractions, and women reporting exclusive same-sex sexual behavior or exclusive same-sex attraction in fact had the lowest rates of lifetime mood and anxiety disorders.[11]

Men who identified as gay had more than double the prevalence of lifetime mood disorders compared to men who identified as heterosexual (42.3% vs. 19.8%), and more than double the rate of any lifetime anxiety disorder (41.2% vs. 18.6%), while those who identified as bisexual had a slightly lower prevalence of mood disorders (36.9%) and anxiety disorders (38.7%) than gay men. When looking at sexual attraction or behavior for men, those who reported sexual attraction to “mostly males” or sexual behavior with “both females and males” had the highest prevalence of lifetime mood disorders and anxiety disorders compared to other groups, while those reporting exclusively heterosexual attraction or behavior had the lowest prevalence of any group.

While the authors of this study found a number of health conditions that appeared to have elevated prevalence among non-heterosexuals, after adjusting for demographic factors that are potential confounders the only group with significantly greater prevalence of non-HIV physical health conditions was bisexual women, who were more likely to have health problems than heterosexual women. Consistent with the 2010 study by Bostwick and colleagues, higher rates of psychological stress were reported by lesbians, bisexual women, gay men, and homosexually experienced heterosexual men, both before and after adjusting for demographic confounding. Among men, self-identified gay and homosexually experienced heterosexual respondents reported the highest rates of several health problems.

Using the same California Quality of Life Survey, a 2009 study by UCLA professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences Christine Grella and colleagues (including Cochran) examined the relationship between sexual orientation and receiving treatment for substance use or mental disorders.[13] They used a population-based sample, with sexual minorities oversampled to provide more statistical power to detect group differences. The usage of treatment was classified according to whether or not respondents reported receiving treatment in the preceding twelve months for “emotional, mental health, alcohol or other drug problems.” Sexual orientation was operationalized by a combination of behavioral history and self-identification. For example, they grouped together as “gay/bisexual” or “lesbian/bisexual” both those who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and those who had reported same-sex sexual behaviors. They found that women who were lesbian or bisexual were most likely to have received treatment, followed by men who were gay or bisexual, then heterosexual women, with heterosexual men being the least likely group to have reported receiving treatment. Overall, more than twice as many LGB individuals, compared to heterosexuals, had reported receiving treatment in the past twelve months (48.5% compared to 22.5%). The pattern was similar for men and women; 42.5% of homosexual men, compared to 17.1% of heterosexual men, had reported receiving treatment, while 55.3% of lesbian and bisexual women and 27.1% of heterosexual women reported receiving treatment. (Bostwick and colleagues had found that women with exclusively same-sex attractions and behaviors had a lower prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders compared to heterosexual women. The difference in results could be due to the fact that Grella and colleagues grouped those who identified as lesbians together with those who identified as bisexuals or who reported same-sex sexual behavior.)

A 2006 study by Columbia University psychiatry professor Theodorus Sandfort and colleagues examined a representative, population-based sample from the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, carried out in 2001, to assess links between self-reported sexual orientation and health status among 9,511 participants, of whom 0.9% were classified as bisexual and 1.5% as gay or lesbian.[14] To operationalize sexual orientation, the researchers asked respondents about their sexual preference on a 5-point scale: exclusively women, predominantly women, equally men and women, predominantly men, and exclusively men. Only those who reported an equal preference for men and women were classified as bisexual, while men reporting predominant preferences for women, or women reporting a predominant preference for men were classified as heterosexual. They found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents reported experiencing higher numbers of acute mental health problems and reported worse general mental health than heterosexuals. The results for physical health were mixed, however: lesbian and gay respondents reported experiencing more acute physical symptoms (such as headaches, back pain, or sore throats) over the past fourteen days, though they did not report experiencing two or more such symptoms any more than heterosexuals.

Lesbian and gay respondents were more likely to report chronic health problems, though bisexual men (that is, men who reported an equal sexual preference for men and women) were less likely to report chronic health problems and bisexual women were no more likely than heterosexual women to do so. The researchers did not find a statistically significant relationship between sexual orientation and overall physical health. After controlling for the possible confounding effects of mental health problems on the reporting of physical health problems, the researchers also found that the statistical effect of reporting a gay or lesbian sexual preference on chronic and acute physical conditions disappeared, though the effect of bisexual preference remained.

The Sandfort study defined sexual orientation in terms of preference or attraction without reference to behavior or self-identification, which makes it a challenge to compare its results to the results of studies that operationalize sexual orientation differently. For example, it is difficult to compare the findings of this study regarding bisexuals (defined as men or women who report an equal sexual preference for men and women) with the findings of other studies regarding “homosexually experienced heterosexual individuals” or those who are “unsure” of their sexual identity. As in most of these types of studies, the health assessments were self-reported, which may make the results somewhat unreliable. But this study also has several strengths: it used a large and representative sample of a country’s population, as opposed to the convenience samples that are sometimes used for these kinds of studies, and this sample included a sufficient number of gays and lesbians for their data to be treated in separate groups in the study’s statistical analyses. Only three people in the sample reported HIV infection, so this did not appear to be a potential confounding factor, though HIV could have been underreported.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...tcomes-and-social-stress-sexuality-and-gender

Now, this time don't make up false statements on how you address the studies provided for you if you want to be taken seriously on this issue.

Last chance now. Make it a good one.

 

Truth hurts huh?

Your own quote seems to destroy your premise

Each of your examples are working scientific theory. Each state that stigma largely fuels this and zero call it a mental illness or disorder.

You can't even back up your own accusations

Yet again, it's seems bigots are the problem, not homosexuals. Thankfully they are dying off at an unprecedented rate. You stated that homosexuality is a mental illness. Feel free to post a single accredited and peer reviewed medical study that confirms this. Or just rant and dodge and ignore as per your reputation.

Last chance to do what? Prove you are poorly attempting to manufacture truth to fit your agenda while ignoring any counter evidence - like that of every psychological or medical association? That has been readily established.

You've been promising to ignore several of us for months, seems to be another lie... in the long line.

Notice you bypassed another entire post you couldn't handle

 

I didn't, in fact I never even contested it. I don't doubt that homosexuals exhibit higher levels of depression. I didn't call you any names. You're statements were untrue i believe you purpusefully made untrue statements. If that isn't a lie what is it?

Stessors Are placed on them by society. So what percentage of the disparity do they accont for? Some of it? Most of it? And what accounts for the part of the disparity not accounted for by social stressors? Do you have any sorces that give that info? Am I to jump to the conclusion that it's homosexuality because this study doesn't account for it?

The other reference didn't cite any science.

I responded to your statement about Freud. I didn't have to specify him. I don't care who he interview. His theories regarding this were still proven false.

Dial back the SJW Nonsense. I didn't trash Freud, I simply stated his theories were dispoven. That's a fact, if facts trash someone than perhaps you should join your contemporaries in the BLM movement and 3rd wave feminism.

I didn't. I'll address them individually and explain why the don't equate to homosexuality being a mental disorder.

I could care less if you take me seriously.

Lol, I stomped a proverbial mudhole in you and walked it dry. You have taken leave of reason because you have a bias to affirm.

You just keep doubling down on the same mistake you made and falsely claim any one that argues against it is evading science. You haven't once addressed or even acknowledged my argument.

Repeating the same misinformation to me, may convince you that is right, but it doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]

 

Truth is, I didn't call him a liar, I called his statements lies.

He clearly doesn't realize what he cited destroyed his argument. He ignored and edited out of my posts where I pointed that out. Dishonesty seems to be the rule of the day regarding his claim.

He pretended there was a political conspiracy to have homosexuality removed from the DSM. Must be the illuminati.

Well some folks can't take the heat.

 

Yes, and I drove by that piece of crap theatre a couple weeks ago. They have more publicity than they could ever afford to buy. It most likely filled the place to overflowing.

 

Yeah, it won't last. Once everybody forgets about it they'll be back to normal.

 

Exactly! Why not throw in those who are divorced (immorally) or are racists? If there's is a Confederate Flag on you or your vehicle... you don't get service etc. The list could go on and on.

 

I agree with this man.

 

It always amuses me that bible thumpers get all upset about sex but have no problem with people's heads blowing up, being cut up with chain saws, being eaten alive, or dozens of violent deaths per minutes as entertainment. That's fine for the kiddies, but not sex or even a remote allusion to sex.

It is really sick when you think about it. At least sex is a natural act.

 

Got it. You're okay with a moderate level of racial discrimination as long as it doesn't get to a level you consider rampant. You believe that business entities should get the same rights as individuals when it comes to discriminating against race, but they lose that status when it is against religion.

So in addition to legal protection from discrimination, they should also enjoy legal protection to engage in discrimination, giving them priority over other citizens. Not a bad deal.

So you support Facism? My whole point is not punishing people who don't agree with you. An individual is free to dislike cops, black people, Jews, etc. A business is not an person.

Someone I consider family, served her country and married a woman. She runs a business that deals with the public and is prohibited by law from discriminating due to someones religion. (Not that she would) In most states, that same protected class can tell her and her wife "We don't serve your kind here!" You may be okay with this double standard, but I am not.

 

Not even close. Stop with the strawman argument.

Again, not even close.

Strike 3.

Who's ass did you pull this nonsense from?

 

So has it occurred to anyone that the discussion is about one drive in theater in Alabama? Who even goes? I'd say let the market drive them under as if there's any real market to cull from today in any case. B&B did like $350M worldwide. If some business owner in AL doesn't want to cash in, that's economic Darwinism. Should they be forced to show the film? Is that really what liberals want? Legislatively enforced economic outcomes for their artistic creations?

From a legal perspective, who are they discriminating against? Clearly, they aren't discriminating against their clientele. Clearly, they aren't discriminating against Disney. Clearly, they aren't discriminating where their economic interests are concerned. So, other than the stupidity of their decision not to cash in on B&B, what is the issue?

 

You.

I asked:

So you believe a business should be able to deny service to black people?

You replied:

Somewhere between 1868 and now, there is a level of racial discrimination you find acceptable.

In addition to that, you support the double standard that protects religion while giving the religious a legal advantage over other citizens. I am not arguing with you; just making it clear where you stand. You have that right as an individual.

 

No you didn't.

You asked a loaded question. I shouldn't have answered it, I should have told you why it was loaded. I am not sure if you did it on purpose or not.

But let me clear this up. I think any business should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason.

I find no amount of racial discrimination or for that matter sex discrimination, religious discrimination, or discrimination against sexual orientation acceptable.

I'm afraid you're mistaken there as well. I don't support any accommodation laws. Including laws protecting religious people from discrimination.

That's incorrect you are misrepresinting my statements. Again, I'm not sure you did it on purpose, I have quite a bit of respect for you, so I hope it wasn't.

But I have to say this, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I do know my thoughts better than you.

 

Beats me, Me thinks the OP has an interest beyond the movie. I did just have a lengthy discussion with him in regards to the APA's actions in 1974.

 

More than likely. It just baffles me. There are just too many issues that have real value for the LGBT community, this is merely struggling to stifle them by folks ostensibly on the left who aren't really that interested in maintaining good relations within their plantation society.

 

People just need to GET OVER human sexuality. If there is no oppression/crime going on... just let people be HUMAN.

 

Fair enough. The respect is mutual. The part I am having a hard time with is where businesses should be allowed to deny services to anyone for any reason when the reason could be "You're black, handicapped, gay, Christian, etc."

I don't want to see business owners getting sued any more than I want to see citizens publicly disrespected for their beliefs.

 

Well it is the only way to eliminate double standards while allowing business owners their property rights.

Now if a segment of the population is denied their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness due to systematic discrimination than it is the government's obligation to intercede.

Well, the seventh amendment pretty much gives anybody the right to sue anybody else. So nothing will stop lawsuits. I wouldn't want to suee anybody get sued that didn't cause damages. I certainly wouldn't want to see anybody get disrespected due to their beliefs.

But there has to be compromise. When you do commerce with someone you are agreeing to trade goods or services for money. When you say that a business must sell to this type of person than how sites the business man have the right to his property or time?

 

Well, I don't think this is going to be as big of a story as some were hoping

 

While I support their right to not show film (to anyone, not just refusing it to a select few) I wonder how many of these events are just publicity stunts and not actual "moral" conviction. They have been shown to be very successful with fellow bigots, sometimes netting them hundreds of thousands in donations. A windfall for a struggling business.