Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You think there would be insurance for just those kinds of things.Oh wait. There is
The fact is they broke the contract and should suffer legal consequences for doing so.
I'm sure the theater is insured too, doesn't make it okay for me to burn it down in the middle of the night because I don't like the fact they bent the knee. Doesn't mean I shouldn't suffer consequences if I decided to do that.
Okay so the group that is suing is called "Mythinformed"(some non-profit atheist group). Anyone interested in donating any money to their legal fund can do so here:
https://mythinformed.org/support
The goal is 250k and they have raised 23k in the 2 days it has been up. They claim 20k is the minimum retainer cost needed to get the legal process started, so it looks like this will definitely be happening.
Businesses need to learn that caving to the alt left will hurt their wallets.
So if the event was insured they wouldn't have lost money so it's not about recovering costs.
Thus taking legal action against the theatre instead of against antifa is like Peter Griffin wanting to punch Macho Man Randy Savage.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So between those two takes, a theatre is being sued for cancelling an event because it didn't want people to be burned to death in a threatened attack that could take place if the event went ahead.Sued for putting public safety first.
Fantastic
Wow, talk about being intellectually dishonest.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So between those two takes, a theatre is being sued for cancelling an event because it didn't want people to be burned to death in a threatened attack that could take place if the event went ahead.Sued for putting public safety first.
Fantastic
A lot of insurances demand making every available effort to recoup losses. Even if insured, lawsuits still happen, because insurers don't want to pay unless absolutely forced to.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Wow, talk about being intellectually dishonest.
No, he's right. The theater made the objectively correct choice.
Antifa can continue to anonymously make fire and bomb threats and shut down the opposition form speaking.
And businesses will continue to correctly and safely cancel events to prevent the loss of life and property. As they should.
It's part of the propaganda warfare they are waging. We are currently going through a civil war.
The terrorists are winning. Nothing you can do about it other than fight back with literal homicide against antifa. That's going to just escalate things and make things worse. There's no way to win this other than through bloodshed and I think that's what they want. They want more martyrs.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You think there would be insurance for just those kinds of things.Oh wait. There is
As I’m sure there is the theatre has insurance for these kinds of lawsuits as well.
Being as that the theatre was the one who made the decision to cancel, don’t you thin it is also right for their insurance to take the brunt of the cost here?
I don’t see what your problem with this is.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
So if the event was insured they wouldn't have lost money so it's not about recovering costs.Thus taking legal action against the theatre instead of against antifa is like Peter Griffin wanting to punch Macho Man Randy Savage.
Insurance isn’t free.
Your time/money/reputation/etc isn’t free either and I’m guessing this isn’t adequately covered by insurance.
The theatre (who made the decision) should be the one suing antifa as they are the ones who the threat was made against and w/c (rightly) forced them to close the event.
However, the theatre was directly accountable to the event organizers for cancelling the event thus a lawsuit (w/c would be covered by their insurance) is only fair. At least in my opinion.
When a commitment is broken by party A to party B due to efforts of party C, it is not Party C who is directly accountable to party B. It is party A.
The entire point of the lawsuit is supposedly to recover costs lost when the event was cancelled. If they were adequately insured then they won't have lost anything. If they weren't adequately insured then it'll get thrown out of court anyway. This mythinformed organisation have run events in the past. It's not like they are naïve enough to not know they'd need event cancellation insurance. Particularly for this as it's well documented that several of the speakers they'd booked have had their speaking engagements protested or been targeted by antifa in the past.
So them begging for money via crowdfunding seems like they are simply trying to fleece gullible people out on money.
Again, time is a cost. Reputation is a cost. Loss of income, personal man hours put in, etc. These are all costs I’m thinking would not be covered by insurance. Or would it? Never had to cover events with insurance due to cancellation from terrorist threats. Looking simply from the accountability standpoint, they have every right to sue the theatre. As the theatre made the decision, they should be held to it.
Well, and if, in the end, they decide to keep the money and not sue then yes, they would be fleecing ppl for money. But til then it’s wait and see, don’t you think?
The point of my logic is that you seem to be saying (via your Peter Griffin comment above) that the event organizers are suing the wrong ppl here. They are not. At least from my point of view.
Again, I don’t see what your problem here is?
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Well you can't recover time or reputation from a lawsuit so it's clearly not about either of those. It's obviously about monetary losses.
Time is money. So is reputation. And those have value higher than a simple money transaction. Lawsuits are not always about pure DIRECT monetary loss. The indirects often are far greater than the direct.
Bottom line, the event organizers are suing the right people. Theatre management did the right thing to cancel due to the threat to life.
At least we can all agree that this is what terrorism is, and if Antifa was the one who made the threat, then they have shown themselves to be bonafide terrorists.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Ah the old SM strawman special.
Then I'm curious as to what you feel should happen here? You sure seem to have taken issue with this lawsuit. Is the logic that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions if the damages that result from those actions are covered by insurance?
If, as claimed, they unlawfully broke a contract there should be consequences right? I'm told nobody is above the law...