The bastard pursuing a discriminatory lawsuit against NY night clubs because of “Ladies Night” is seeking to violate our constitutional right to abundant numbers of pussy to bang…Read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_fe_st/odd_ladies_nights
All that just to drink a beer at a reduced price.
Want to bet he couldn’t get laid in a women’s prison. Even if he had fist full of pardons.
I saw this earlier in the morning.
I think that, by the letter of the law, it is obviously discrimination based on sex. If this was done to get more people of a certain race or religion in the door, it would never be tolerated. The same can be said for senior citizen discounts and children discounts.
Having said that, I think it is stupid. The free market is more than capable of taking care of these things. Let him win and watch the sausage fests begin.
The reason for qa ladies night is to not make the clubs sausage fests jeez louise people suck
…Is this man gay or just an idiot?
Er, I’m no lawyer, but aren’t privately owned bars allowed to serve who they want and how they want?
I could understand his beef if he was talking about a state-run service that was giving special considerations to women, but does he actually have a case here?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Er, I’m no lawyer, but aren’t privately owned bars allowed to serve who they want and how they want?
I could understand his beef if he was talking about a state-run service that was giving special considerations to women, but does he actually have a case here?
[/quote]
He has a case. Just like a private employer can’t fire a gay dude for being gay, or a landlord can’t refuse to rent to minorities, anything attached to ‘victimhood’ is fair game.
The erosion of our freedoms is proceeding at a brisk pace.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Er, I’m no lawyer, but aren’t privately owned bars allowed to serve who they want and how they want?
I could understand his beef if he was talking about a state-run service that was giving special considerations to women, but does he actually have a case here?
[/quote]
Certain states have statutes that extend civil rights protections to include all places of public accommodation. For example, in California it’s called the Unruh Act:
CIVIL CODE SECTION 51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
[quote]tedro wrote:
I think that, by the letter of the law, it is obviously discrimination based on sex. If this was done to get more people of a certain race or religion in the door, it would never be tolerated. The same can be said for senior citizen discounts and children discounts.
[/quote]
Age is generally not a “protected category” under these kinds of laws.
And I have mixed feelings about this. I’d like to see it found discriminatory, on the one hand, because of similar cases where “men only” organizations have been forced to admit women. So turnabout is fair play. Perhaps enforcing the law as its written (so that the pain is spread around) will wake people up.
On the other hand, this particular instance seems to mainly harm men, rather than women. Which is annoying.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
He has a case. Just like a private employer can’t fire a gay dude for being gay, or a landlord can’t refuse to rent to minorities, anything attached to ‘victimhood’ is fair game.
The erosion of our freedoms is proceeding at a brisk pace.[/quote]
It’s not like he’s refused access to the place; he simply has to pay for his drinks while the women don’t.
If you have a store, you’re allowed to sell your goods for the price you want, right? You can have customers who bargain the price and get better deals than others.
So all the bar owner is actually doing is “pre-bargaining” the drinks for the women. If he can convince the bartender to sell him the drinks at a reduced price, he’ll pay less than other customers.
There’s no direct discrimination. He’s allowed access and he can purchase anything he wants. Only the conditions differ. He’s also free to go to another bar, if he doesn’t like this one.
Hopefully, this case gets thrown out and the guy gets fined for wasting the court’s time.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
He has a case. Just like a private employer can’t fire a gay dude for being gay, or a landlord can’t refuse to rent to minorities, anything attached to ‘victimhood’ is fair game.
The erosion of our freedoms is proceeding at a brisk pace.
It’s not like he’s refused access to the place; he simply has to pay for his drinks while the women don’t.
If you have a store, you’re allowed to sell your goods for the price you want, right? You can have customers who bargain the price and get better deals than others.
So all the bar owner is actually doing is “pre-bargaining” the drinks for the women. If he can convince the bartender to sell him the drinks at a reduced price, he’ll pay less than other customers.
There’s no direct discrimination. He’s allowed access and he can purchase anything he wants. Only the conditions differ. He’s also free to go to another bar, if he doesn’t like this one.
Hopefully, this case gets thrown out and the guy gets fined for wasting the court’s time.
[/quote]
Bad analogy.
If I owned a bar and gave white folk free drinks but charged minorities 5 bucks a shot, I would not be open long.
I think the guy is stupid for suing over this, but I am afraid that he does have a point, if following the letter of the law.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
tedro wrote:
I think that, by the letter of the law, it is obviously discrimination based on sex. If this was done to get more people of a certain race or religion in the door, it would never be tolerated. The same can be said for senior citizen discounts and children discounts.
Age is generally not a “protected category” under these kinds of laws.
And I have mixed feelings about this. I’d like to see it found discriminatory, on the one hand, because of similar cases where “men only” organizations have been forced to admit women. So turnabout is fair play. Perhaps enforcing the law as its written (so that the pain is spread around) will wake people up.
On the other hand, this particular instance seems to mainly harm men, rather than women. Which is annoying.[/quote]
I’m glad to hear that age is not a “protected category”, as senior citizen discounts are good for the entire community. What is the reasoning behind this though? If we follow the liberal trend that we are all equal and must be treated the exact same, it does seem like it would be illegal.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bad analogy.
If I owned a bar and gave white folk free drinks but charged minorities 5 bucks a shot, I would not be open long.
I think the guy is stupid for suing over this, but I am afraid that he does have a point, if following the letter of the law. [/quote]
I see you point.
Sexual discrimination is hard to completely eliminate, as the sexes are not “naturally” equal.
Pushing the laws to their “logical” conclusions would require installing as many urinals in the women’s room as there are in the men’s room and putting breastfeeding stations in other men-only areas.
That every person is equal in every way is a great principle, but to fail to recognize that in some cases, the principle leads to dumb conclusions becomes a problem in itself.
I could care less about ladies night per say but at bars in SC it was 21 and up for guys and 18 and up for girls. That to me is pretty F’ed up being a 18 year old guy at the time I was pissed.
Still even now at 23 I’m pissed because their are a bunch of drunk high school girls acting stupid as hell at the bar.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Sexual discrimination is hard to completely eliminate, as the sexes are not “naturally” equal.
Pushing the laws to their “logical” conclusions would require installing as many urinals in the women’s room as there are in the men’s room and putting breastfeeding stations in other men-only areas. [/quote]
Argumentum ad absurdum.
Ladies’ Night is textbook discrimination, and had it been Gents’ Night, you could bet that you’d have lawsuits by the shovel. Thing is, feminists needed to organize for obvious reason. But a single person hardly constitutes a masculinist movement. I know that it’s not at all the same level of discrimination both are fighting against, but I believe that it’s a stand on principle.
How is it in Canada? Can you ask your boss for a “paternity leave”?
I can live with women getting cheap or free drinks, but I hate when PT test in certain fields (law enforcement, military, firefighter) have softer standards for women. This seems dangerous to me since in many cases you are responsible for other peoples lives.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Er, I’m no lawyer, but aren’t privately owned bars allowed to serve who they want and how they want?
I could understand his beef if he was talking about a state-run service that was giving special considerations to women, but does he actually have a case here?
[/quote]
Nope. Where I live a business owner isn’t even allowed to let his patrons smoke on his property. So no, privately owned means less and less these days.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Ladies’ Night is textbook discrimination, and had it been Gents’ Night, you could bet that you’d have lawsuits by the shovel. Thing is, feminists needed to organize for obvious reason. But a single person hardly constitutes a masculinist movement. I know that it’s not at all the same level of discrimination both are fighting against, but I believe that it’s a stand on principle.[/quote]
I would argue to the judge that unless such a law can be enforced nearly perfectly, it becomes a business requirement to be able to do a “ladies night” because the competition does it.
We had a similar situation not so long ago when smoking was banned in bars; some owners tried to circumvent the law by creating various types of smoking rooms… until the authorities cracked down, they enjoyed fantastic business compared to some of their nearly deserted competitors.
If such a law cannot be enforced, then it will only be detrimental to a small number of “targeted” bars and the “no discriminatory pricing law” will be discriminatory to them.
Yes. The parental leave can be split any which way you want between the spouses.