Yes, it’s a private business, they can make political statements if they want, it’s their right, blah blah blah
I had another point to concede, but I forgot what it is.
Ok:
Even though you have a right to do so, sometimes making a political statement is just plain stupid and shows you to be the ass you are.
Or maybe it shows what’s wrong with stupid, homophobic idiots like yourself?
What, are you afraid the children might find out there are gasp gay people in the world, and sometimes cowboys can be gay, and maybe, just maybe, being gay does not necessarily mean that you are going to burn in the flames of hell and maybe just maybe there’s nothing fucking wrong with being gay???/11!!? *Note: the quote above is not by the theatre owner, who declined to comment. I am making the assumption that the film was not shown out of similar motives. If anyone can show otherwise, I will renounce this pitting and direct it as Ms. Gayle Ruzika instead.
I undertstand the film may offend your delicate religious traditions, such as hating gay people, but grow the fuck up! I doubt everyone in your area shares the same phobia of all things homosexual. Of course, even if you decided to show the film anyway, you might get boycotted by other idiots who share your same worldview.
Yes. How joyful it will be when a new crop of young gullibles come to understand that their concerned families are PTS/SP’s who must be utterly shunned.
What’s wrong with not showing a movie that goes against your moral or religous convictions?
On the other hand if your not going to show a gay cowboy movie based on convictions then there are probably other movies that shouldn’t be shown.
But still if a person honestly has a moral problem with the movie I wouldn’t be to mad about them not showing it. Doesn’t mean they hate gay people just means they don’t “agree” with the lifestyle so why would they “promote” something they find offensive?
Maybe they have no political agenda whatsoever. Maybe, like WalMart who chooses not to sell X rated videos or CDs with explicit lyrics, they simply have a different set of values when operting their business.
Why isn’t that End Of Story?
(I didn’t read the cite) Did they make a political statement? Or, is the movie simply not in harmony with their values, policies as if it were an X rated movie?
If so, why isn’t that End Of Story?
Ahhhhh…the heart of the matter. Are the predicate words here, “the quote above is not by the theatre owner, who declined to comment.” an indication that it is you have the political aganda here, perhaps? Can you tell me what the owner actually said, or are you comfortable chocking his virtual mouth full of words?
If he/she really said nothing, why isn’t that End Of Story?
Did they say they 'hate" gay people, or are you now their spokesmen? Did they tell anyone that they have “religious traditions” of any construction that motivates them, or share their phobias? Or…are you taking some pretty reckless and irresponsible liberties?
If they said none of those things you implied they either said or feel, why isn’t that End Of Story?
Even if they did, why isn’t that End Of Story? I mean, if there is a wellspring of adverse sentiment in their community, won’t that be reflected at the box office in the future? OTOH, if the owner’s policies are in agreement with the bulk of the community, why isn’t that the End Of Story?
Dude, it’s look like you’re the one whos all worked up…
This is usually the argument also for TV channels dropping or choosing not to show programs they (those in charge) believe are morally wrong. Agreed, it is something that makes sense - it’s not them just wanting to not show particular things because they hate those people (althought they may do) but that they find such shows to be morally bad, and so by not showing them, they’re doing a good thing - to allow other people to see their point of view, if you had the option of showing a child porn film in a cinema you owned, would you allow it?
To run from that analogy, though, i’d like to put my own position - you may find it moral to do such things, but in a case where you have the potential to impose your morality on others, you should not do so - allow the majority to make the decision on what is and what is not moral. That’s why child porn is illegal, and why Brokeback Mountain is not - tha majority have ruled it so. If, though, it could be proved that the cinema in question’s audience were majorly in favour of not showing the film, i’m afraid it would be acceptable for them to do so - repugnant as I personally find their decision to not show it (I pretty much share CynicalGabe’s thoughts on the matter here), I would be in the minority.
Indeed. This theater is in Utah. It would be more surprising if the cinema did show it, and even more amazing if it drew enough of an audience to earn its keep.
Good point but I’ll have to disagree…why would morality changed based on what the majority rules, especially if it’s out of religous conviction? The major religions of the world don’t update their holy books to go along with the popular opinions of society.
This is not about anybody “imposing” morality because all the people who want to see “Brokeback Mountain” can probably drive to another town and see it. It would be a different story if a group of people were trying to block entry into theatres that chose to show the film.
Wouldn’t it be hypocritical to say “I believe homosexuality is immoral but majority rules so I’m going to show a film that I believe ‘promotes’ it.”
Yes, it would, which is why I can understand (but not agree with) the cinema owner’s decision.
In a world where everyone agrees, of course it would be acceptable to follow one’s religious convictions - the problem is, not everyone does agree, and so we’re forced to comprimise our ideals (religious and non-religious) in quite a lot of cases so that we can get by in society. I imagine that, as the cinema owner has “gone against” the morals of the majority in this case he/she will probably be “punished” by that majority, too - I suspect there will be a good many boycotts by individuals, for example. I understand the position he/she has taken, but, likewise, I understand that from it there will be added difficulties from his departure from the majority morals from others, and that’s just as acceptable.
Unless, of course, people in that area are (as a majority) in agreement with this decision - in which case I can personally find it a morally bad decision but it would be an acceptable one.
I don’t think it is relevant to compare child porn and X-rated movies to a mainstream movie that suggest gay people aren’t evil.
Not wanting your kids to see porn while walking through WalMart is different than having the option to see a film. If you don’t want to see a movie about gay cowboys, don’t watch it. But I still think the theater owner should give people the choice. It’s not like people will be scarred for life by seeing the poster for the film outside the theater.
All the objections hinge on the notion that homosexuality is Such a Bad Thing.
What would people be saying if the theater owner refused to show a film based on some other predjudice, like racism? What if he didn’t want to show Schindler’s List, because he didn’t believe the Holocaust took place? Sure, it’s his right to do so as the owner of the business, but that doesn’t mean he’s not a dumbass.
My point was that most people would be against child porn and X-rated films because they either don’t want their children to be exposed to such things, or because they believe it’s intrinsically morally bad - which is exactly the same stance that (presumeably) the cinema owners have, resulting in this decision - they just think that a film showing gay people aren’t bad people is morally bad.
That’s my opinion too. But surely you can understand why they’ve made this decision? The owners are just wrong (IMHO), not evil for evil’s sake.
Yes, I undestand perfectly well why they made the decision, again assuming it was moral values, since the theater owner has yet to comment AFAIK. Yes, I agree that it is wrong.
I think a theatre owner should be as free as possible to run his business as he chooses. If people choose not to go to his theatre because they don’t like his choice of movies and he goes out of business, so be it.
Now that’s just plain fucking stupid. The theater is a business and should show whatever legal movies will make him the most money. On the other hand, if the movie would make money but the owner doesn’t want to show it for whatever reason at all that is his right too.
I suggest that you open a theater in Utah and show all of your favorite flicks. It will be a good exercise in business for you. It’ll like be your own little charity, dude.
Here’s something worse: a friend of mine saw Brokeback Mountain yesterday in a packed theatre. Two guys apparently bought tickets just to heckle and made very homophobic comments throughout the film. Many people tried to shut these guys up, and eventually they were asked to leave, bit it really fucked up the movie experience for everyone in the theatre. Now THAT is something I don’t get, being that hateful and ruining the enjoyment of a theatre full of people.