I was watching a guy on colbert or john stewart the other day (don't remember which) and they had a guy on who was arguing that bars and clubs shouldn’t be allowed to have “ladies nights” where women get in free but guys have to pay. Often guys have to pay double to cover for the women (say $10 is the usual rate so maybe guys pay $20 and women get in free). He tried to take these bars to the supreme court and was making this huge fuss about them. He was on this vendetta to rid the world of ladies nights and wanted the government to put a stop to them. Now my first thought was that this guys was crazy The first reason was because I guess I am used to the idea of ladies nights and it’s just something I have come to accept as a guy, and it seems to make sense from a business standpoint. Hell most guys won’t even mind paying the extra money to get in when a bunch of ladies or there or be upset that the women don’t have to pay (they will probably buy the women free drinks anyway). I guess this is so present in our culture that it seemed absurd to get upset about it. The second reason is that a private bar or club should be able to charge whatever they want and let in whoever they want. This reminded me of the whole controversy with rand paul saying businesses should be able to discriminate and that the provision of the civil rights act which forced businesses to allow everyone in was unconstitutional. He was largely denounced and called a racist of course, but if businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate because of the civil rights act, then why are ladies nights alright? What if a bar had a “Caucasian night” where white people got in free but black people had to pay? There would be complete outrage. Though what is really the difference in the two? Is it just that it is more acceptable to discriminate against white men as a sort of payback for all the discrimination they have done in the past? Or is it the motivation that matters – after all, a ladies night ends up benefiting the guys and the motivation for making women get in free is to help the men. The motivation for a Caucasian night would probably not be as benevolent. 1. Should bars be allowed to have a ladies night where women get in free but men pay? 2. Should bars be allowed to have a Caucasian night where whites get in free but blacks pay? 3. If you answered differently to 1 and 2, what is the difference between them, and does this difference justify a different treatment under the law?
Candy and a Currant Bun In 2004, New Jersey Director of Civil Rights Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled against the practice of ladies' night, calling it "an unlawful discrimination". The denial of drink discounts violated one David Gillespie's rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. According to law professor Joanna Grossman: The Coastline's policy of holding a weekly "Ladies' Night" plainly violates this rule. Based solely on his gender, Gillespie was charged more than female customers. And the Coastline does not dispute that. The Coastline did raise two arguments in its defense, however—but the DCR was unpersuaded. First, the Coastline argued that its policy did not reflect any animus against men and was justified by its legitimate, non-discriminatory goal to increase patronage and revenue. The conventional "theory" of a ladies' night discount is that more women will come because of the reduced prices, and more men will come because more women will be there. (Although oddly enough, in this case, the owner admitted that 70% of the patrons on an average Ladies' Night were still male, and that they were the main users of the discount, giving women money to buy their drinks.) It may well be that the Coastline bears no ill will or negative stereotypes toward men—and that, indeed it did want to attract them with "Ladies' Night." But if so, that's irrelevant. Under standard anti-discrimination doctrine, a formal policy like the rule behind "Ladies' Night" need not be borne of animosity against the disadvantaged group to be illegal. When an entity applies different rules to men and women, it discriminates, regardless of its subjective motive or feelings about either group. And again, whatever its feelings about men, the Coastline plainly did discriminate against men. And that is all that is required. It's not a tough issue to figure out. I got one for you: Should gay bars be allowed to have a Subs' Night, in which all subs get in free, but their doms have to pay? ____________________ Notes: Vespa, Papaleo, J. Frank. "Administrative Action Findings, Determination, and Order". Gillespie v. Coastline Restaurant. June 1, 2004. State.NJ.us. April 25, 2011. http://www.state.nj.us/lps/Gillespie.Order.06.01.04.html Grossman, Joanna. "The End of 'Ladies' Night' in New Jersey: A Controversial Ruling Deems the Practice Sex Discrimination Against Men". FindLaw. June 15, 2004. Writ.News.FindLaw.com. April 25, 2011. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040615.html
Erm... Believe it or not, I've been told there's way more subs than doms, so it would actually work the other way 'round... I doubt that would fly at any bondage bar-because of the patrons...the relationships tend to be pretty (ahem!) tight...because having sex with a person is one thing, but when somebody actually ties you up and hurts you...you'd better be able to really trust that person...I know I never found someone whom I trusted enough AND who was willing. (And my wife's not into it. Damn. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) On ladies' night...it is sex discrimination...but it's good for business. Maybe they could find some other way of getting female patrons in the door besides no cover? Or maybe no cover all around?
Lady's are the oil/eye candy that lubes the Alcohol Entertainment Industrial machine. A necessary evil I'm afraid Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's too fill up the room of course. I just don't see how it's relevant. It's obviously discrimination. Whether it's good for business is really not an argument.
I answered yes on 1 and no on 2, because women deserve all the benfits and pampering they can get as compensation for less musclemass and not to mention childbirth. Do you want the spieces to survive?
discrimination means to make a difference between different people, something i often do myself(and so do you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), it's only natural, and practical. the reason it's against the law is that is has gone over the top in the past. i think if a bar wants a certain kind of audience, that s their choice. the main-reason to not agree with a caucasian-night is that it also stereo-types, aka, you have a certain reason to let in whites and not blacks, but maybe(quite surely, actually) this reason doesnt apply to all blacks/whites. though a ladies-night goes the same way, only allows for less stereo-typing, since women and men are a little more different then blacks and whites and women and men will mingle faster due to their hormones. imo, it should be against the law, but the law should only be enforced if discrimination goes a wrong way.
I think single-sex nights out are the way to go for both genders. I'd love to go out at night again, but there's the little issue of drunk men who think 'Get off me or I'll stick this switchblade in your fucking liver' is code for 'Oh yeahh baby, let's get it on!' Seriously even the good places are full of these fuckers...
What, you were expecting some kind of equality? Men don't have the balls to complain because they are so desperate for pussy they let women have the upper hand in the hopes of getting their hands down their pants.
It's up to the businesses to provide whatever they think will attract people into their places. That's the freedom they have just as everyone has the freedom not to go into any one of them if they don't want to. I think that offering whatever is necessary for the businesses to survive is a positive thing as long as they don't go to far. If men think they are being segregated then they do not have to go to any business that they feel that way about.
Men go out to find women. Bars want to make sure they have women so guys will come and spend money in their bar. Seems like a win win situation. If your reason for going to a bar is different, then you'll probably go to a different bar.
Jeff - you with the wrong name spelling - make a public poll on this. I'd like to see which way people vote, gonads on the line. What's the answer to this tempest?
Tiassa, actually dom\sub nights WOULD be legal under Australian law at least because dom\subs are not subject to antidiscrimination laws. The laws state it is illegal to discriminate on the bases of gender, sexual orientation, religion, race, creed, political view, disability, breast feeding, marital statice or age. You can have student nights because non students arnt a protected group, you can have sub nights because again they arnt protected. You cant have mens nights because thats sexual discrimination, you cant have straight nights because that discrimination on the bases of sexual preference. In order to get an exemption from these laws (for instance female only gyms and the defense forces) an aplication must be made showing WHY its nessary unless the act gives you a specific exemption (such as single sex schools or religious schools, actually come to think of it schools in general have an exemption from age discrimination laws)
I think 'Ladies Night' is sexist and anachronistic, but then I don't frequent such meat markets that thrive on such.
What??? Are you some sort of feminazi? Compensation for being female. That's ridiculous. Equality I say.
Listen it's not like I really care at all about ladies night. But inequality is inequality. I'm not concerned which way it goes.
I just think it's a really dumb topic Oh, I know. Mostly I'm just making a joke because of the painstaking construction of the topic post intended to depict the racial/ethnic question as an innocent result of the natural wandering of a pure and righteous mind. And then there is also the fact that Mr. Gillespie, while he does, indeed, have a point under the law, is just a sniveling twat. Oh, the fucking oppression of a ladies' night. I mean, really, what kind of social dysfunction is this guy suffering that he can't take part in a silly, ritualistic nod and wink with everyone else? No, really, is he a homosupremacist making a public fool of himself in an act of revenge against heterosexuals? So there's also the question of whether Mr. Gillespie would allow himself to be dressed up in a diaper and leather chaps to be led into the club on a leash. I wonder what's next. See, in Oregon I once knew of a swingers' club that had certain rules about who could attend. Functionally, it was a pretty reasonable standard that a single woman could walk in without escort, but not a single male. It is, however, blatant sex discrimination. And compared to wage inequality, sexual harassment, and any number of sex- and gender-related issues taxing our society, I really do think ladies' night falls low on the list of priorities, and Mr. Gillespie, while he might have his personal satisfaction, is hardly an admirable pioneer. So, yeah, I really wonder how important a drink is to him. Leash and a hood? Collar and an anal plug? A slave tattoo? He's already on record suing a bar over ladies' night. I don't see how dressing and acting the submissive part in a gay relationship could possibly be any more embarrassing. One of the tolls of equal protection under the law is that inane social rituals like ladies' night are, in fact, illegal. In the grand scheme of things, though, when volcano erupts and everyone is fleeing for higher ground as the flood bears down on them, one can always stop the guy who dropped his Taco Bell sack in astonishment, and demand that he clean up his litter before leaving town. And that would be Mr. Gillespie.
