i thought this was all about the 18th century.
but its current or just post current times.
.
Disclaimer - I'm only on episode 8 of series 2.
First series was brilliant, as good as the novel with sufficient tweaks to make it contemporary. Second series is still visually arresting and totally bleak but the plot not quite as robust or believable even though Atwood is still involved.
But the acting across both is fantastic, Elizabeth Moss ability to convey such complexity with her face is astounding.
There's no JW hanged in the TV version.
... well, obviously not rey (daisy ridley) from the latest star wars films.
she's a complete mary sue.
but, before hollywood tried to force sjw propaganda down our throats, there were lots of powerful, legit female characters in film.. here are some of my favourites .... ripley (sigourney weaver): i though this character was great.
Particularly impressed that anyone can find anything good in soft focus Sommersby. Should I reawatch it Morpheus? “You are not my husband” is an oft quoted piece of ham in our house.
... well, obviously not rey (daisy ridley) from the latest star wars films.
she's a complete mary sue.
but, before hollywood tried to force sjw propaganda down our throats, there were lots of powerful, legit female characters in film.. here are some of my favourites .... ripley (sigourney weaver): i though this character was great.
Veronica Sawyer (Winona Ryder), Heathers
Suzanne Pujol (Catherine Deneuve) Potiche
Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford), Mildred Pierce
Elizabeth (Kate Blanchett), Elizabeth
Alex Forrest (Glenn Close), Fatal Attraction
Imperator Furiosa, (Charlize Theron), Mad Max : Fury Road
Divine, Pink Flamingos
Qui Jou (Gong Li), The Story of Qui Jou
Varla (Tura Satana), Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
Michelle (Emmanuelle Seigner) Frantic
austria, a member of the eu since 1995, is a country of 8.8 million people with a muslim population of around 600,000 mostly turkish immigrants.
in 2015 it passed an 'islam law' prohibiting foreign funding of religious groups and creating a duty for muslim organisations to have 'a positive fundamental view towards state and society'.. many mosques in austria have continued to receive money from turkish muslim organisations so the new right-wing government have decided to enforce the law.
seven mosques have been identified for closure and 60 imams are to be either deported or refused visas.
I’m in Vienna just now and spent this afternoon in the American Bar (by Adolf Loos, it’s perfection) with an elderly Viennese historian. They see the shift, along with neighbouring countries, as a repeat of the 20th century mistakes. I read some things out from this thread and she laughed at how ignorant it sounded.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Ah, the slippery slope.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Neither NFL players nor Westboro are selling a commercial service.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Custom artwork as personal service hasn’t washed with the Arizona court. It’s not free speech it’s a commercial service.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Some viagra for the thread: The Masterpiece vs Colorado decision has already had consequences.
The Brush & Nib Studio in Phoenix must provide their artistic services to LGBT couples in a preemptive lawsuit brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom (note, not brought by bothersome SJWs). See Phoenix Business Journal. And the decision quotes the Colorado case.
Looks like the gays don't have to ride at the back of the bus in Arizona.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
But would that sign be incorrect if it hung in Masterpiece Bakery? It would be honest. Perhaps he could add "due to sincerely held beliefs" to soften it.
And if it's acceptable to refuse to make a custom made gay wedding cake it should be acceptable for a photographer to say they'll take your portrait but not your gay wedding photos, or MC your birthday party but not your gay wedding.
seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.
it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.
it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.
Apologies, I meant the sign should read "custom made wedding things for heterosexuals only"
