pageok
pageok
pageok
Are "Ladies' Nights" Discriminatory?

A New York attorney has filed a class action lawsuit against several Manhattan nightclubs, alleging that by hosting "ladies nights" they are engaged in unlawful gender discrimination. He is seeking a declaratory judgment that the nightclub policies in question constituted "state action" due to their regulation by the state Alcoholic Beverage Division. Such a finding would be necessary for the nightclubs to be liable under Section 1983.

He is looking to the case of Seidenberg and DeCrow v. McSorleys' Old Ale House, Inc., 317 F.Supp 593, as precedent for finding the existence of "state action" by bars and nightclubs. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Hollander has filed his complaint, ruled in 1970 that state action existed when McSorleys' Old Ale House refused to serve two women.

Hollander also foresees an "uphill battle" in classifying the action as invidious discrimination, since he is arguing on behalf of men and not women, whom he says the U.S. Supreme Court has given "preferential treatment for past invidious, economic discrimination."

"Whether this case succeeds or fails," says Hollander, "it will result in a much needed victory for men." . . .

Hollander is seeking to be named class representative for all men charged more money or burdened by stricter time restraints than women at these clubs over the last three years. He has as evidence e-mail advertisements for promotions held on the nights he attended these clubs and according to Hollander, these e-mails advertise discriminatory admittance policies for men versus women. The case seeks an injunction to end these policies.

The general manager for one of the nightclubs being sued labeled the suit "ridiculous."

Steve:
It's hard to believe that someone doesn't understand who "ladies' nights" are intended to benefit, but there you go.

Next, this lawyer will sue his local strip club because they never seem to hire any male dancers.
7.12.2007 7:07pm
Shake-N-Bake:
Indeed, Steve. Ladies' nights were great. Not only more women at the bar, but if you had female friends you could just get them to go buy you your beers so you'd get them on the cheap. And if they're giving discounts on cosmos or appletinis (sorry, John Dorian), then as a male I really don't care.
7.12.2007 7:12pm
Steve2:
1) Steve, I've seen it argued that "Ladies Nights" work against men's interests by increasing the probability that get themselves into trouble taking advantage of a drunk woman. Even listened to speakers arguing they should be illegal on that basis (not the discrimination reasoning, though).

2) Hasn't the Supreme Court already ruled that liquor regulation doesn't introduce state action for Sec. 1983 purposes? Moose Lodge #107 v. Irvis? 407 U.S. 163 (1972)? I'm certain I've read that case... Hmm...
7.12.2007 7:14pm
bigchris1313 (mail):

1) Steve, I've seen it argued that "Ladies Nights" work against men's interests by increasing the probability that get themselves into trouble taking advantage of a drunk woman. Even listened to speakers arguing they should be illegal on that basis (not the discrimination reasoning, though).


But, in terms of male interests, how much does that counteract the increased probability of carnal relations?
7.12.2007 7:19pm
Minnesota Reader:
7.12.2007 7:19pm
bigchris1313 (mail):
My kingdom for an edit button:

Would men be willing to trade an increased chance of getting into trouble for a higher concentration of females, thereby increasing the chances of success? I would wager yes. I wonder what the tipping point is.
7.12.2007 7:21pm
theobromophile (www):

1) Steve, I've seen it argued that "Ladies Nights" work against men's interests by increasing the probability that get themselves into trouble taking advantage of a drunk woman. Even listened to speakers arguing they should be illegal on that basis (not the discrimination reasoning, though).


From a libertarian perspective, should you make something illegal on the behalf of would-be criminals? Is this not like saying that we should make bikinis illegal?

This definition of "state action" would render the limitation of 1983 almost irrelevant. By the same rationale, any action involving a car (which is a highly-regulated object) would be a state action.
7.12.2007 7:29pm
Steve2:
Bromophile, I didn't say I agreed with it, just that I'd read articles and seen a speaker (most recently Don McPherson, was QB for the Eagles back in the 80s) presenting the idea.

I'm gonna go with "No" as the answer to should we make bikinis illegal. Not sure I'm saying that because of any libertarian perspective, though... I'm one of those 8% who put "Very Liberal" on the survey, you know? That bikinis thing, though, reminds me of an apocryphal story about Golda Meir: there was an outbreak of sexual assaults against women at night, so one of her cabinet ministers suggested a curfew to keep women in after dark. Story goes, her response was "It’s men who are attacking the women. If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay at home, not the women."

But yeah, this interpretation of state action would render 1983's restriction useless. Of course, that New York District Court ruling they're citing predates the SCOTUS ruling that rejects their interpretation, so... utter non-starter.
7.12.2007 7:41pm
Steve:
Steve, I've seen it argued that "Ladies Nights" work against men's interests by increasing the probability that get themselves into trouble taking advantage of a drunk woman.

Sure, but the men are looking for trouble of their own free will. I mean, if you follow that slippery slope to the bottom, it seems like the owner ought to exclude women altogether just so the guys aren't tempted.

It occurs to me, however, that this could be a much more viable lawsuit if it were brought on behalf of a class of gay men.
7.12.2007 7:42pm
David Chesler (mail) (www):
I don't care who benefits, none of the animals should be more equal than others.

Of course clubs should be able to charge less for women; but they also should be able to exclude women.

I've mailed an ad to my state's discrimination folks, but they didn't care, and neither did the newspaper that ran the ad.

Given that gender isn't hereditary, how long do future generations of men get discriminated against for "past invidious, economic discrimination"?
7.12.2007 7:42pm
theobromophile (www):
I thought of the Golda Meir story myself.


Given that gender isn't hereditary, how long do future generations of men get discriminated against for "past invidious, economic discrimination"?


I didn't think that Ladies Night was intended to remedy past discrimination so much as increase patronage of the bar (both men and women).

A thought: there is a similar, but reversed, situation with liberal arts colleges. They accept a higher percentage of men than women, and accept less qualified men. The theory is that colleges which are "too pink" become less attractive to both men and women. Should that likewise be illegal?
7.12.2007 7:49pm
Steve2:

The theory is that colleges which are "too pink" become less attractive to both men and women. Should that likewise be illegal?


Huh? What are they thinking? I turned down two colleges because they weren't "pink" enough, in favor of a a third that didn't have as strong a program but did have more women then they did. Granted, those were Georgia Tech and WPI I turned down, not lib-arts schools...

On a lighter note, I'm pretty sure my sex was hereditary. I mean, I got my y-chromosome from my dad, didn't I?
7.12.2007 7:55pm
Davd Carpenter:
There is a war against them here in Colorado as well. This Steve Horner character now has a ruling from the state Civil Rights Commission to help in his quixotic quest for "equality." Here's the latest on the case at the following
link:
7.12.2007 7:56pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Hollander is seeking to be named class representative for all men charged more money or burdened by stricter time restraints than women at these clubs over the last three years.

Hah! So if he won, the class representatives would probably each get a coupon for a free drink, and the lawyer would get his att'y fees in cash.

Worth a shot, if you don't have any other way to make a living.
7.12.2007 8:03pm
ReaderY:
I suspect the 1970s case was from an era where the question of what constitutes state action was murkier than it is now; the courts have long since made clear that mere regulation doesn't create state action.

Regarding the strip club hypothetical, Hooters won a sex discrimination case on business necessity grounds; presumably a strip club would be able to make a similar argument. But I'm surprised that people haven't tried again.
7.12.2007 8:07pm
ReaderY:
I've often been skeptical of laws that take abstract principles to extremes in ways that annoy people; they can even bring disrepute on the principles. But nonetheless, people are free and entitled to enact them if they want, as long as they're willing to put up with the consequences.
7.12.2007 8:11pm
theobromophile (www):

Huh? What are they thinking? I turned down two colleges because they weren't "pink" enough, in favor of a a third that didn't have as strong a program but did have more women then they did. Granted, those were Georgia Tech and WPI I turned down, not lib-arts schools...


Who? The guys or the college administrators? ;)

I think it starts to be a problem around 60% female - not sure where the tipping point is, but many liberal arts schools (the small, tiny ones in quaint towns) would have something like 70% women if nature were to take its course.
7.12.2007 8:15pm
jimbino (mail):
Ladies' Nights discriminate against homosexual men, in favor of homosexual women and heterosexual men and women. For that reason they should be condemned.
7.12.2007 8:37pm
scote (mail):
Well, the only legal argument for Ladies nights is that the increased patronage of women ultimately is in the benefit of men as well. This argument fails for a number of reasons but first because it is based on the faulty premiss that all men only go to venues to meet and talk to women.
7.12.2007 8:46pm
theobromophile (www):

Well, the only legal argument for Ladies nights is that the increased patronage of women ultimately is in the benefit of men as well. This argument fails for a number of reasons but first because it is based on the faulty premiss that all men only go to venues to meet and talk to women. [emphasis mine]


No, not really. Ladies Night only need to benefit more men than it harms in order to be considered beneficial to men (assuming benefit and harm are roughly equivalent). Is the argument really predicated on the assumption that men only go to bars to meet women? Could it be that a mixed-gendered atmosphere is more fun, even if the men are not there to pick up women?

From a libertarian perspective, isn't the better solution to boycott rather than sue? If that many men are really offended by this, they could simply not go to bars that sponsor a Ladies Night, or they could go on other evenings.


But nonetheless, people are free and entitled to enact them if they want, as long as they're willing to put up with the consequences.


Such a classy way of putting it....
7.12.2007 8:50pm
scote (mail):
The concluding quote from the Denver Westword opinion piece on Steve Horner.


Forget free drinks: How about free speech


Ah, who doesn't hark back to the old days when people were free to discriminate and not have their "free speech" suppressed. Oh, wait. Discrimination isn't a free speech issue and that entire article concludes on a false premise. Oops.
7.12.2007 8:54pm
Al Maviva (mail) (www):
Good ol' McSorleys... I guess in retaliation to the integration order, they decided that they had to find some other tradition to stick to - so they adopted the tradition of not cleaning the place. Which made sense considering the only reason it was so filthy in the first place is that no woman had been in it during the first 130 years of the bar's existence, thus it had never been cleaned to begin with. Clearly it was a tradition worth fighting for, one that reminded everybody of those wonderful men-only days.
7.12.2007 9:04pm
scote (mail):

No, not really. Ladies Night only need to benefit more men than it harms in order to be considered beneficial to men

And they need only discriminate against one man who didn't go to meet women to be illegally discriminating based on gender. That kind of more harm than good vaguery reminds me of the "oh, the colored people like being separated from the whites" arguments.

How about a movie theater ladies night? Or a grocery store? A car wash? An apartment complex with 50% for women? I don't think so...clearly discriminatory.
7.12.2007 9:07pm
AntonK (mail):
Ridiculous, eh? Try holding regular "Men's Nights" and see how quickly you end up in court.
7.12.2007 9:27pm
Jiffy:
Whether it makes a difference to the legal analysis or not, it's worth noting that the assumption in many of the comments that men are injured by not having access to the ladies' night discounts is surely wrong. If bars are prevented from having discriminatory ladies' nights, they are probably not going to replace them with "peoples' nights" where everyone gets free drinks. Everyone will pay full freight. Of course, one hopes there will still be "happy hour."
7.12.2007 9:35pm
scote (mail):
...as it is, popular clubs regularly discriminate by using a doorman or bouncer to selectively allow attractive people in with an emphasis on attractive women. But this is a subtler form of gender discrimination than an advertised "Ladies Night."
7.12.2007 9:36pm
scote (mail):

If bars are prevented from having discriminatory ladies' nights, they are probably not going to replace them with "peoples' nights"

Anti-discrimination laws are about equality. The fact that people may not all get a discount if treated fairly is irrelevant. Try substituting "white people's night" for "ladies night" and see how far your argument gets you. Not very.
7.12.2007 9:39pm
Falconet (mail):
Men's Nights have been tried occasionally but they always result in way too many men (and that is ignoring gay nights at bars).
7.12.2007 9:47pm
Steve:
I'm trying to think of another example of discrimination where most of the people being discriminated against have no problem with it, but it's hard.
7.12.2007 9:48pm
DustyR (mail) (www):
Steve [7.12.2007 8:48pm]: How about senior citizens discounts?

Here's another case where I thought this discrimination issue was fought out in the 70's about the same time as women going topless. Is this guy is suing via a different rationale, or is this really the first time in New York? I seem to remember a suit in Rochester around the late 70's early 80's but I can't find anything on google.
7.12.2007 10:11pm
JoshL (mail):
<blockquote>
Sure, but the men are looking for trouble of their own free will. I mean, if you follow that slippery slope to the bottom, it seems like the owner ought to exclude women altogether just so the guys aren't tempted.
</blockquote>

Oh, you mean that women are uncovered plates of meat and men are cats. Got it, thanks.
7.12.2007 10:14pm
whit:
of COURSE it's discrimination.

you are providing a product to one group (women) cheaper (in many cases free) than you are to another group. we wouldn't tolerate this with race. we don't allow businesses to say "hey, you are asian, so you get it cheaper than if you were white or black", so why is it ok with gender?

i am well aware of WHY bars do this, and it might "benefit" men in that way. but so what?

either businesses are free to engage in gender discrimination or they are not. i would say - they are not. or at least - lets be consistent.

personally, i like ladies nights, but i also think it's logically (and legally) inconsistent to say its ok for businesses to discriminate in the selling of products, based on gender in this case, but not in other cases.

this is obviously different from hooters (or chippendales) for that matter, for reasons mentioned above.

in this case, the drink is simply a product that a business can say "if you're a woman, it's free, but if you are a man, it costs money"

i do agree with the last poster that probably the vast majority of men and women have no problem with this sort of discrimination

however, as inummerable ACLU cases etc. like to point out, its the rights of the minority that so often need to be protected, and acceptance of a practice doesn't make it right, or constitutional.

i remember all the way back to 2nd grade, where our teacher allowed girls the choice to play outside at recess OR stay inside and read at their desks, talk, etc. boys HAD to go outside. frankly, i wanted to go outside, but i felt the double standard was unjust.

so, i guess i'm just argumentative or something when it comes to stuff like this
7.12.2007 10:15pm
discus8821 (mail):
Interestingly enough, this issue was partially discussed at the California Supreme Court this last term. Four men sued a club for charging men $20 while charging women nothing. The actual issue in the case was whether the men had to ask to be charged less before they could sue under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

In California, at least, you can sue for these violations. Crazy state!
7.12.2007 10:45pm
discus8821 (mail):
See the opinion at: Angelucci v. Century Supper Club

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S136154.PDF
7.12.2007 10:46pm
Steve:
How about senior citizens discounts?

Well, that's a good example. I personally think it's great that my grandpa gets cheap coffee at McDonald's, but isn't it "wrong" in the same way that Ladies' Night is wrong? We wouldn't let white people get cheaper coffee, yadda yadda.

The problem here seems to be a lack of common sense. Most of us manage to survive just fine in a society that says you can have separate but equal bathrooms for men and women, but not separate but equal bathrooms (or schools) for whites and blacks. It's really not that hard to understand.
7.12.2007 11:05pm
RainerK:
Finally! It does not happen often that, as a middle-aged white male, I am being made a member of an aggrieved group.

As such, I wish to tell Mr. Hollander a hearty: "Buzz off, take a hike, get lost, cease and desist! I do not want you to speak for me and I especially do not much need this victory!"

What an idiot!
7.12.2007 11:12pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
On point, from my You Can't Say That!:
Approximately two million American women belong to women-only health clubs. Some women, such as those with religious objections to wearing revealing clothes in front of men, and abuse survivors who find it traumatic to display their bodies in front of unfamiliar men, use these clubs by necessity. Other women join these clubs to avoid unwanted male attention while they exercise. Still others, including overweight women and women who have had mastectomies, feel much less self-conscious exercising in an all-female environment. The owner of one women’s health club boasts, “I like to think we’re for real women. We don’t have everyone looking like a Barbie doll. They’re average size and shape. And we don’t let men in. We say, ‘No men, no mirrors, no kids.’” The owner of a club that holds women-only aerobics classes explains, “It’s a privacy issue. The women are sweating, they don’t have makeup on, and they feel that the guys are staring at their butts.”
Some women find men to be a distraction when they go to coed gyms. Cynthia Parziale, director of research and development at the Naturally Women chain of fitness centers opines, “If you’re really serious about your workout, it’s distracting to have people of the opposite sex around. Women will spend time getting dressed or fixing their hair or putting on their lipstick before they come to the gym. The coolest thing about a women’s gym is you can be ugly.” Joan Pirone, who patronizes a women-only exercise club in Anchorage, Alaska, told CNN that “[a]t coed clubs you feel like you’re on TV, like the men are constantly looking at you. Some women enjoy the attention from men, but some of us are intimidated by it. I’m glad I have the choice of going to a women-only gym.”
Other users of women’s health clubs find that the women-only facilities are cleaner and smell better than coed gyms. Women’s clubs also often emphasize the workout equipment that is used more frequently by women, and many even have special equipment built for women. The two women-only clubs in Anchorage, for example, have smaller-than-average Nautilus machines designed for women’s bodies, with the weight stacks increasing by three-pound increments instead of the usual ten. Women-only clubs also emphasize educational programs focusing on women’s health concerns, such as preventing osteoporosis and losing weight gained during pregnancy.
Despite their popularity and the privacy interests served by allowing women to work out free from male oglers, women-only clubs have sometimes run afoul of state laws banning sex discrimination in public accommodations. In 1988, noted feminist attorney Gloria Allred filed a sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of a Los Angeles man who was denied admission to a women’s health club. Allred dismissed the concerns of women who join all-women gyms to avoid male ogling. She contended that the idea that all men ogle is a stereotype and that men who misbehave can be excluded from sex-integrated clubs on a case-by-case basis. Yet common experience suggests that heterosexual men are inclined to “check out” women, particularly women wearing small shorts or tight leotards. Further, Allred did not explain how a club would enforce or prevent an anti-ogling policy on an individual basis. It would be very different to actually prove the subtle act of a man evaluating a woman’s body (Mr. Jones, please stop undressing Ms. Smith with your eyes), and sensitive women could very well feel ogled whether or not it was actually happening. Despite these arguments, the Los Angeles club ultimately agreed to settle Allred’s lawsuit and began admitting men. Successful lawsuits against women-only gyms in Minnesota, Orange County, California, and Wisconsin followed.
7.12.2007 11:27pm
ReaderY:
This is, I think, the problem with rational basis tests, and indeed, the over-academization of the law. Human life and conduct is often illogical. Because of this, requiring laws to always be logically consistent can make them dreary, harsh, or even cruel.
7.12.2007 11:29pm
Bored Lawyer:
Why is he suing under Section 1983, with its requirement of state action? Why not sue under the Public Accomodations portion of the Civil Rights Act -- a bar is surely a public accomodation.
7.12.2007 11:39pm
whackjobbbb:
I can't believe a bunch of lawyers are arguing over frickin Ladies Night. If that judge don't bounce this thing 5 minutes after it hits his bench, then his name needs to be added to my lawyer euthanization list. And I can round up 10,000 young guys in every college town in the country who'll take the contract to whack the guy.
7.12.2007 11:51pm
WayneSoc (mail):
whackjobbbb:

What legitimate lawyerly reason do you think justifies Ladies' Nights apart from an implicit assumption that discrimination is good and dandy as long as it comports with our stereotypes of women?
It seems that ladies' nights are wrong because they reinforces discriminatory cavalier gender stereotypes of women as subordinate objects of male veneration. While I think that anti discrimination law may sometimes go too far, I can't see how or why a plainly worded prohibition on discrimination shouldnt be applicable, in particular where the practice amounts to pandering to cavalier stereotypes of women.
7.13.2007 12:29am
VFBVFB (mail):
You can check out the Plaintiff's myspace page at the link below. From his photo, he seems too old to be having a myspace page, or going to a nightclub for that matter.

http://myspace.com/93824748
7.13.2007 12:45am
A Guest:
But aren't they actually selling different products to the two different genders (leaving homosexual patrons aside for the moment):

Men pay, say $20, for a drink plus an environment with 70% potential "targets"
Women pay, say $5, for a drink plus an environment with 30% potential "targets."

These are clearly two different products, right? (Just like most escort service customers would probably be willing to pay different prices for escorts of the two different genders.)

Not all that much different from all the different prices that people pay for equivalent seats on the same plane where the only distinction is *when* the seat was purchased...
7.13.2007 12:55am
don (mail):
The "anti Ladies Night" types are surreal. Bar owners have those for one reason only, to wit, more revenue. So it is strictly a business decision devoid of sexism, looksism, ismism, etc.

Don
7.13.2007 1:06am
whackjobbbb:
Wayne,

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't give you any legitimate lawyer reasons, but I'll let ReaderY above speak for me:


This is, I think, the problem with rational basis tests, and indeed, the over-academization of the law. Human life and conduct is often illogical. Because of this, requiring laws to always be logically consistent can make them dreary, harsh, or even cruel.


This is part and parcel of what I mean when I speak in here about the stunted, pettifogging, linear-thinking lawyers that compose so much of your profession, I believe, and is why I believe you guys are all technically incompetent. With your constant quest for "rationality"... you appear incapable of comprehending the depth and complexity of the world around you.

I'm an engineer. I'm used to ambiguity. I live and work with it. I attempt to make things work in parallel with it. It's my job to do so, to seek solutions to problems, solutions that may not necessarily have square corners... but hopefully have the benefit of actually working in harmony with the world around us. And I'm not typing out little scraps of paper, which if I screw 'em up, I can still go back into court and redo and get paid AGAIN for. My sh!t actually has to work, and has to work WITH every one of those people in that bar on Ladies Night... not just the idiot filing the lawsuit.

Maybe if the legal profession would seek out people with that skillset, you wouldn't be sittin' here arguing frickin Ladies Night.

And who said anything about "cavalier stereotypes of women"? Those college guys who are gonna whack that judge can't even SPELL cavalier. They just wanna get laid, ya' know what I mean? Now don't push me, or I'll be adding another lawyer to my euthanization list!
7.13.2007 1:17am
scote (mail):

The "anti Ladies Night" types are surreal. Bar owners have those for one reason only, to wit, more revenue. So it is strictly a business decision devoid of sexism, looksism, ismism, etc.


That is completely non-sensical. You argue that he gender discrimination is completely devoid of sexism because the motive is profit. That "end justifies the means" isn't a valid justification since it applies equally well to any lawbreaking activity, from racism and religious discrimination to murder. As long as profit is the motive your argument is that it is ok since anything for profit is de-facto impartial--clearly a BS argument.

Arguing in favor of discrimination for "business purposes" is just arguing in favor of discrimination. All of the arguments in this thread fail spectacularly you substitute race for gender. We are conditioned to accept gender discrimination and that conditioning causes us to overlook times when it is completely un-justified. When you substitute race for gender in the arguments, the glaring failings of the pro-discrimination arguments become obvious. An example could be racist bar that has a "White's Night" discount to encourage more whites to show up and buy drinks. They say "nothing personal, we love black people but we make more money on white's night, it's just a business decision." Doesn't pass the sniff test, and neither do "Ladies Nights."
7.13.2007 1:32am
Adam J:
whackjobbbb- you seem oftly angry for someone who's sh!t works with everyone of those people in that bar on Ladies Night.
7.13.2007 1:48am
scote (mail):

They just wanna get laid, ya' know what I mean? Now don't push me, or I'll be adding another lawyer to my euthanization list!

That certainly seems to be in the spirit of humor, but anyone with the handle "whackjobbbb" should really be careful in stating that he/she has a lawyer hit list.
7.13.2007 1:48am
whackjobbbb:
3/4 of the country has a lawyer euthanization list, in case you haven't noticed. And remember, if I'm "angry", so are they. I know this, because I'm not burdened with stunted, linear-thinking, and actually pay attention to the world and the people around me. You should try it sometime. So should your profession.
7.13.2007 2:00am
Jiffy:
scote:


Anti-discrimination laws are about equality. The fact that people may not all get a discount if treated fairly is irrelevant. Try substituting "white people's night" for "ladies night" and see how far your argument gets you. Not very.


Guess maybe that's why I started the comment with the qualifier


Whether it makes a difference to the legal analysis or not, it's worth noting . . .
7.13.2007 2:08am
scote (mail):

3/4 of the country has a lawyer euthanization list, in case you haven't noticed.

That you think that nearly every one has lawyer murder lists does not suggest that you are well grounded in reality.
7.13.2007 2:14am
JLV:
Scote: "All of the arguments in this thread fail spectacularly you substitute race for gender."

Okay, let me see if I have this right:

1. "Ladies' night" at a bar = discrimination
(where "night" = a night of preferential treatment)
2. "Men's night" at a bar = discrimination
3. "Whites' night" at a bar = discrimination
4. "Blacks' night" at a bar = discrimination

So far, so good.

5. "Whites' day" for college admission = discrimination
(where "day" = a day of preferential treatment)
6. "Blacks' day" for college admission = discrimination
7. Every day as "Blacks' day" for college admission = discrimination

I take it you would agree, Scote?
7.13.2007 2:20am
scote (mail):

5. "Whites' day" for college admission = discrimination
(where "day" = a day of preferential treatment)
6. "Blacks' day" for college admission = discrimination
7. Every day as "Blacks' day" for college admission = discrimination

You could certainly make a strong case, especially if there were discounts based on race--which we usually call "scholarships" in colleges.

Why, were you expecting me to be some sort of pro-quota feminist?
7.13.2007 2:34am
whackjobbbb:
scote, face it, you're a stunted, linear-thinking lawyer. And you just popped yourself onto a few dozen lists.
7.13.2007 2:50am
Freddy Hill:
So here's a tentative, non-lawyerly definition of discrimination: It happens when a majority of the allegedly discriminated group actually feels discriminated.

White nights at your local bar: Discrimination.
Women's nights at your local bar: Not discrimination.
7.13.2007 2:55am
scote (mail):

So here's a tentative, non-lawyerly definition of discrimination: It happens when a majority of the allegedly discriminated group actually feels discriminated.

It's not only non-lawyerly it's nonsense. It opens up a whole array of absurd and inequitable situations:

Discrimination would be legal as long as no-one realized they were being denied equal treatment.

Discrimination would be legal if 10, 15, 30 or even 49% of people felt discriminated against.

People were historically "used to" being discriminated against would be pressured to accept it.

Only one person needs to be actually discriminated against to qualify as discrimination. Say I go to a bar and they say "10 bucks extra for black people." I object but they say, "Tough, we already let two blacks in and they are fine with it. You are out voted."

Clearly your standard leads to absurd results and is untenable. As for my position on ladies nights, I don't consider charging everyone the same price to get in an "absurd result," just a fair one.
7.13.2007 3:08am
scote (mail):

scote, face it, you're a stunted, linear-thinking lawyer. And you just popped yourself onto a few dozen lists

I'm going to request that you refrain from the murder innuendo even if it is meant in the spirit of humor. Your usual outrageous statements can at least sometimes be entertaining in an easy-to-disprove sort of way, but I find the continued discussion of hit lists to be beyond the bounds of appropriateness.
7.13.2007 3:14am
WayneSoc (mail):

So here's a tentative, non-lawyerly definition of discrimination: It happens when a majority of the allegedly discriminated group actually feels discriminated.

White nights at your local bar: Discrimination.
Women's nights at your local bar: Not discrimination.


This heuristic consideration is (and should) be irrelevant to whether it's discrimination under the law. After all, the purpose of laws against discrimination is the protection of the individual not the collective of which he or she is a member.
The fact that some men benefit from ladies' nights by enjoying the greater availability of female meat doesn't detract from the fact that less fortunate men are denied goods and services on equal terms with women.
I think the reason that ladies' nights aren't a big deal for an average man is largely dependent on an purely personal expectation that ladies' nights = better chances of sex for himself.
The mutuality argument therefore rests on the assumption that men having internalized discrimination against themselves as the price for cheaper access to sex. While there might well be arguments for not interfering with private gender based business discrimination, it goes to the issue of regulation of discrimination in general and not to whether Ladies' Nights are justified by a mysterious exception to the broader principle.
7.13.2007 3:24am
Qwinn:
I find it amazing that after all these posts, not one person has stated the blazingly obvious:

1) Discrimination between whites and blacks is wrong because there is no salient, testable difference between whites and blacks other than skin pigmentation and other totally superficial qualities.

2) Discrimination between men and women is perfectly okay because - newsflash - men and women are NOT the same, and the ways they differ are profound, not merely superficial.

It's frightening that feminists have so indoctrinated everyone that this simple, obvious point is verboten for anyone to say. Hello? There's a -reason- the Equal Rights Amendment didn't pass. Of course, there's another effort to get it enacted again underway, and I hope the lot of you can remember the idiocy of trying to equate gender and race before you vote in support of ti.

Qwinn
7.13.2007 4:22am
scote (mail):

2) Discrimination between men and women is perfectly okay because - newsflash - men and women are NOT the same, and the ways they differ are profound, not merely superficial.


No, I think people know there is a biological difference between men and women. It makes sense to let them have their own bathrooms and dressing-rooms, but you are failing to note that the genetic difference between men and women don't justify most kinds of discrimination. Unless you think it should be ok to charge men more for, say, groceries and car washes because men and women are genetically different?

I hope the lot of you can remember the idiocy of trying to equate gender and race before you vote in support of ti.

And I hope you remember the idiocy of pretending that they are unrelated before you categorically condemn the comparison. Maybe women should sit in the back of the bus since they differ in "profound" ways? Both race and gender are biological conditions that should have no bearing on what you are charged for the same exact goods and services as other people.
7.13.2007 4:55am
SIG357:
Discrimination between men and women is perfectly okay because - newsflash - men and women are NOT the same, and the ways they differ are profound, not merely superficial.

Does this mean that it would be perfectly all right if a bar refused admittance to women?

In an ideal world, private businesses such as bars would be allowed to disciminate against anyone they liked.

Given that we have these anti-discrimination laws, they need to be applied equally and fairly. That means no preferential treatment for anyone.

But aren't they actually selling different products to the two different genders (leaving homosexual patrons aside for the moment):


No. They are selling admittance to the premises and then beverages, usually alchoholic. Your assumption is that the male customers are not really purchasing those products, but a chance to meet drunk women. Legally you are wrong. And in a significant number of cases I'd say you are also wrong in your assumption.
7.13.2007 5:14am
arbitraryaardvark (mail) (www):
1983 (actually see 42 usc 1985)is a fee-shifting statute, follows the English rule, loser pays (when winner is not a government entity.) Is plaintiff judgment-proof?
A district court ruling, if I understand correctly, lacks precedential value.
7.13.2007 6:54am
Laserlight (mail):
I suppose it would be too simplistic to say we should let the business owner offer ladies night or not as he wishes. If you object, do your drinking elsewhere. If enough other people also object, the non-ladies-night establishment will stay in business.
How is this different from discrimination in housing? Well, first, you don't need to go to a bar, while you do need a place to live. Second, part of what they're selling is the environment, not just the booze. If you disagree, I encourage you to go to a Goth place, gay bar, tchno club, biker hangout, Irish pub, country western bar, and tell me there's no difference between them.
7.13.2007 9:56am
BCN:
I am supprised that no one has mentioned this already; there are places that instead of having ladies night have skirt night or lipstick night. Anyone wearing a skirt or lipstick got the drinks at a discount. This was not considered discrimination in that anyone can wear lipstick or a skirt. If I remember my grad school days at Nebraska correctly this was the case at bars in Lincoln.

BCN
7.13.2007 10:34am
Jeff Licquia (mail) (www):

It makes sense to let them have their own bathrooms and dressing-rooms, but you are failing to note that the genetic difference between men and women don't justify most kinds of discrimination.


"Most"?

There are people who think "separate but equal" bathrooms are discriminatory.

And there are cases where they are. Note how female reporters are now allowed into male lockers for professional sports. I wonder how many male reporters are allowed into the corresponding female lockers; wasn't there an incident with Billie Jean King along these lines?

So why do "separate but equal" bathrooms and dressing rooms get a pass, but ladies' night doesn't?

To answer my own question: the discrimination laws are supposed to be about irrelevant differences, like whether someone's skin color affects their ability to buy a house. Like it or not, gender differences (and ratios) are relevant in many social situations. So, ladies' night should get a pass.
7.13.2007 11:21am
Ken Arromdee:
Wouldn't giving a discount to people wearing a skirt or lipstick still be discrimination, because of disparate impact rules?
7.13.2007 11:31am
PT:

San Diego Union Tribune story

This happened in San Diego a few years ago — the Plaintiffs sued several bars, settled with most, prevailed against the others and put at least one place out of business. Fearless crusaders, no doubt...
7.13.2007 11:48am
Tom A (mail) (www):
So, in New York, where there is a HUGE surplus of single women vs single men, this guy could not get laid and he thinks the policy is the problem?
7.13.2007 12:00pm
whit:
"Bar owners have those for one reason only, to wit, more revenue. So it is strictly a business decision devoid of sexism, looksism, ismism, etc."

the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise

bar owners could use any "ism" for the sake of making money. maybe they live in a an area where excluding whites would make them more money

so what?

it's still discrimination

this is completely different from a fredericks or hooters case

it's selling the exact same product to men and women at different prices.

i can't see why that is so hard to understand.

as i said in other posts, we DO accept gender discrimination (see: publically funded sports teams that exclude men but allow women) but call it as it is

gender discrimination
7.13.2007 12:07pm
WayneSoc (mail):

How is this different from discrimination in housing? Well, first, you don't need to go to a bar, while you do need a place to live.

Utterly irrelevant, swimming is not an essential life activity neither, but under Title VII denying blacks or latinos equal accommodation is unlawful discrimination. Your knee jerk defense of Ladies' Nights essentially boils to defending a private right to discriminate.
The consideration that the victim can go somewhere else and not be discriminated against is very offensive to the sensible idea that discrimination in public accommodation on account of race and gender is reprehensible and should not be tolerated.
Second, part of what
they're selling is the environment, not just the booze. If you disagree, I encourage you to go to a Goth place, gay bar, tchno club, biker hangout, Irish
pub, country western bar, and tell me there's no difference between them.

These establishments are open to the public, whether the owner intends to attract gays, Irish, bikers etc. The beef with Ladies' Night is not that the owner wants to attract more women, rather the problem is that the means to accomplish the ends are discriminatory against men.
7.13.2007 12:21pm
Hans Bader (mail):
This is a frivolous lawsuit. A similar suit was rejected by the Supreme Court in Moose Lodge v. Irvis in the early 1970s. The Supreme Court found no state action even where restrictions on liquor licenses effectively gave a racially discriminatory club that had such a license a special privilege.
7.13.2007 12:22pm
Dick King:
Steve2, although in common cases gender is determined by chromosomes received from the father, the distinction David Chesler raised raised in his statement that gender is not heritable is that men and women alike have the same approximately 50/50 chances of having boys or girls. One of the justifications for reverse discrimination, that a current [say] white person who was born after antidiscrimination laws were passed still benefited by past discrimination by inheriting a stash of money or educational opportunities that blacks did not receive. This lame argument does not apply to reverse discrimination in favor of women.

I find this justification for reverse discrimination unsatisfactory, in part because it admits to no principled standard for ever removing reverse discrimination, but it's out there. The racial reverse discrimination argument is not the subject of this thread, so I hope I don't start a flame war.

-dk
7.13.2007 1:18pm
William Tanksley (mail):
Honest question: do you think it's significant in this case that traditionally, a male looking for a female is required to pay for her food and drinks? It seems that this cultural asymmetry is the cause for the bar's admission price asymmetry.

But I don't see how this can be a federal action. A bar is not the federal government. Someone is overreaching.
7.13.2007 1:25pm
Slocum (mail):
Approximately two million American women belong to women-only health clubs.

But couldn't men-only clubs be justified on similar grounds? Certainly there are religious men who object to being in the presence of women in tight, revealing clothing. Plenty of others might have similar concerns about appearance and not want to be viewed by women with rolls of flesh hanging out. And still others might like the option of exercising without having women thinking they might be looking at them in the wrong way.

And the idea that men wouldn't be interested in such clubs is clearly wrong since they were once quite popular before they were banned or forcibly integrated.
7.13.2007 1:50pm
Jason Korosec (mail):
The NY constitutional challenge case may have broader implications than just for mens rights. Two sided markets (NY nightclubs are an example) are a growing part of the economic and anti-trust literature, particularly with respect to payments networks (i.e., Amex, Diners Club, Discover, MC, Visa, ...).

The economic argument is that pricing one side of the market differently than that other, may be necessary to create the market opportunity in the first place. Nightclubs and dating websites are often cited as examples.
7.13.2007 2:03pm
scote (mail):

So, in New York, where there is a HUGE surplus of single women vs single men, this guy could not get laid and he thinks the policy is the problem

I think you have just made an argument against Ladies night. If there is a surplus of single women then arguing that you need to give them a discount to come to a bar is a weaker argument. Under that case it is the men who should be given the discount since they are the rarer commodity--and, after all, they're going to need that money for all the drinks they are going to have to buy for women.
7.13.2007 2:28pm
Meryl Yourish (www):
The Federal Government regularly discriminates against childless people and people who do not own their own homes. The Federal tax code gives breaks to people with children and mortages.

If Ladies Nights are discriminatory, then so is Federal tax law.

IMHO.
7.13.2007 2:42pm
WayneSoc (mail):

If Ladies Nights are discriminatory, then so is Federal tax law.


And the difference may be that treating childless families, veterans and the rich is often justifiable by reason of objective factors whereas gender based discrimination like race discrimination is almost never justified by anything but expectations to what men and women should do and not by any inherent biological difference.
7.13.2007 2:56pm
chris c:
the point of a ladies' night isn't to entice men with drunk women - it's to get women to come in the first place. as a very general rule, women don't haunt bars as men do, and so they need an extra incentive to show up. when they do show up, men show up in greater #s. (the flip side is dance lessons - lots of willing women, but hard to get men. wouldn't surprise me if dance studios offered freebies to get guys to come out and equal the #s).

as for the legal issue, there's a long line of fed cases allowing differential treatment of men and women - eg hair length restrictions in the workplace, or selective service registration. (if you're a guy and want to test this out, try wearing tevas to work - most ers will nix it even if you have women in sandals all around you.) not sure if that's true for NY state law though.
7.13.2007 2:58pm
scote (mail):

The Federal Government regularly discriminates against childless people and people who do not own their own homes. The Federal tax code gives breaks to people with children and mortages.

If Ladies Nights are discriminatory, then so is Federal tax law.

Of course it is. The question is not whether it is discrimination but whether it is justified by policy aims.

People make the mistake of thinking that "discrimination" is inherently a bad thing. It is not. It is good to have "discriminating taste." It is good for employers to discriminate against unqualified job applicants. And it is good for courts to discriminate the difference between innocent and guilty parties.

Discrimination isn't bad or good. The difference is in what kind of discrimination you are engaging in. The kinds of discrimination we discourage as a society is discrimination against protected classes, usually protecting them from discrimination that has nothing to do with their individual abilities.
7.13.2007 3:03pm
theobromophile (www):
Approximately two million American women belong to women-only health clubs.

But couldn't men-only clubs be justified on similar grounds? Certainly there are religious men who object to being in the presence of women in tight, revealing clothing. Plenty of others might have similar concerns about appearance and not want to be viewed by women with rolls of flesh hanging out. And still others might like the option of exercising without having women thinking they might be looking at them in the wrong way.


Presumably, separate-but-equal gym facilities could not be the subject of a lawsuit, then. So all Curves (or any other female gym) needs to do is to partner with a male-only enterprise and have the same facilities near each other.

I'm VERY surprised that no one has mentioned this yet: won't the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (or whatever they are calling this now) render the entire thing moot - as in, no more Ladies' Nights, no more Curves, etc? (Or is my old-school feminism showing?)
7.13.2007 3:51pm
scote (mail):

I'm VERY surprised that no one has mentioned this yet: won't the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (or whatever they are calling this now) render the entire thing moot - as in, no more Ladies' Nights, no more Curves, etc? (Or is my old-school feminism showing?)

Yes, that is part of the problem with the ERA is that some gender separation is considered reasonable and the ERA makes no allowance for it. The real argument is generally not whether their should be some accommodation made based on gender differences but were to draw the line. I think "ladies night" is over the line but separate showers are not.

BTW, not meant to be snarky:
Moot doesn't mean inoperative. It means debatable.

moot |moōt| adjective subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision : whether the temperature rise was mainly due to the greenhouse effect was a moot point. • having no practical significance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision : it is moot whether this phrase should be treated as metaphor or not.
7.13.2007 4:17pm
whit:
and that's of course a big difference between (gender differences) and (race differences)

the former is based on a much stronger ACTUAL difference - e.g different bodyparts, hormonal profile, biological purpose (childbirth) etc. whereas the latter difference is much more subtle and fuzzy (especially after generations of people from different races intermarry).

we accept women's bathrooms vs. mens bathrooms for those reasons, but not black and white bathrooms

we also accept discriminating against men in areas where women are weaker (sports) and of course the ultimate one - the draft.

i think this is part of why the same sex marriage advocates who use the race analogy (discrimination against same sex marriage is similar to former discrimination against interracial marriage) fall flat. men and women are MUCH MUCH more different than people from different races are.
7.13.2007 5:09pm
Mister Snitch! (mail) (www):
Don't pro basketball teams discriminate against midgets? How come I don't see any 50-year-old exotic dancers? (I think I'm going to be sorry I asked that.) And why won't the Yankees return my call, they've had my resume for years and I'll even bring my own glove?
7.13.2007 5:12pm
whit:
and carmen electra disciminates against ME!!

she has never called me. not even once.
7.13.2007 5:14pm
jckeith (mail):
I wonder how many of those complaining about this suit support all of these obnoxious anti-discrimination laws? You reap what you sow. Apply the law equally and fairly, or don't apply it at all.
7.13.2007 5:34pm
SIG357:
Like it or not, gender differences (and ratios) are relevant in many social situations. So, ladies' night should get a pass.


I don't think anyone would dispute your premise. Sure, gender differences are relevant in social situations. But I don't see how those gender differences justify selling a product at one price to men and at a different price to women. A persons transaction with a business to purchase a product is not a social interaction. The mere fact that there are people of the opposite sex on the premises does make the act of buying a beer a social act exempt from the normal rules.

I suspect that if a store offered to sell computers at a lower price to men than to women you would figure out why it is wrong pretty quickly. And that the gender difference of more men being programmers would not sway you in the least.
7.13.2007 5:58pm
Ken Arromdee:
A computer doesn't become more valuable to the buyer depending on how many members of the opposite sex are buying one at the same time; a beer in a bar does. I'd say that buying a beer in a bar *is* a social act.

Of course, that's separate from whether we should allow discrimination even if it's a social act. I suspect a bar that charged more for beer for blacks because whites preferred to socialize with other white eber drinkers would get shut down pretty quickly.
7.13.2007 6:25pm
SIG357:
A computer doesn't become more valuable to the buyer depending on how many members of the opposite sex are buying one at the same time; a beer in a bar does.

That is speculation on your part. I've had a few beers in my time. Perhaps sometimes the act of buying a beer is an excuse for being a a place with women, although it makes guys sound pretty pathetic to put it like that. When I go out for a beer with friends, I'm going out for a beer with friends. I guess one answer to all this is that the type of losers who will pay through the nose to be in a bar or club on ladies night deserve to get soaked. No wonder so many women regard men with contempt.


I'd say that buying a beer in a bar *is* a social act.


Saying it does not make it so. The act itself occurs between the buyer and the seller. Neither of whom is engaging in a social transaction, but in a commercial one. If you as a man go to a bar with a group of male friends, you are engaging in a social activity. Your buying of drinks from the establishment is not social in nature though. Adding women to the mix does not change anything in the equation.
7.13.2007 6:51pm
SIG357:
A computer doesn't become more valuable to the buyer depending on how many members of the opposite sex are buying one at the same time; a beer in a bar does.

That is speculation on your part. I've had a few beers in my time. Perhaps sometimes the act of buying a beer is an excuse for being a a place with women, although it makes guys sound pretty pathetic to put it like that. When I go out for a beer with friends, I'm going out for a beer with friends. I guess one answer to all this is that the type of losers who will pay through the nose to be in a bar or club on ladies night deserve to get soaked. No wonder so many women regard men with contempt.


I'd say that buying a beer in a bar *is* a social act.


Saying it does not make it so. The act itself occurs between the buyer and the seller. Neither of whom is engaging in a social transaction, but in a commercial one. If you as a man go to a bar with a group of male friends, you are engaging in a social activity. Your buying of drinks from the establishment is not social in nature though. Adding women to the mix does not change anything in the equation.
7.13.2007 6:53pm
SIG357:
A computer doesn't become more valuable to the buyer depending on how many members of the opposite sex are buying one at the same time; a beer in a bar does.

That is speculation on your part. I've had a few beers in my time. Perhaps sometimes the act of buying a beer is an excuse for being a a place with women, although it makes guys sound pretty pathetic to put it like that. When I go out for a beer with friends, I'm going out for a beer with friends. I guess one answer to all this is that the type of losers who will pay through the nose to be in a bar or club on ladies night deserve to get soaked. No wonder so many women regard men with contempt.


I'd say that buying a beer in a bar *is* a social act.


Saying it does not make it so. The act itself occurs between the buyer and the seller. Neither of whom is engaging in a social transaction, but in a commercial one. If you as a man go to a bar with a group of male friends, you are engaging in a social activity with those friends. Your buying of drinks from the establishment is not social in nature though. Your relationship with the bar and bartender is purely commercial. Adding women to the mix does not change anything in the equation.
7.13.2007 6:56pm
SIG357:
Sorry for the duplicates, I'm not sure what happened there. Mods, please feel free to get remove the extras.
7.13.2007 7:11pm
theobromophile (www):
men and women are MUCH MUCH more different than people from different races are.

So we should measure the justifiability of discrimination based on some impossible-to-quantify "difference" between the two groups? If they are sufficiently different, it's acceptable?
7.13.2007 7:14pm
whit:
no, where did i justify laws against same sex marriage? i didn't say i was against same sex marriage. i said i was against using inappropriate, factually void analogies to try to support it.

what i am saying is that analogizing the resistance to same sex marriage as merely similar to the resistance to interracial marriage is a stupid analogy.

laws against interracial marriage were latter day inventions based on racism to exclude one race from marrying another. i really don't want to hop down this bunny trail, but it's a silly analogy. the reasons for opposing/supporting same sex marriage are very different from the interracial thing. simply put, an interracial marriage is not essentially different from an intraracial marriage. a same sex marriage is essentially different from an opposite sex marriage.
7.13.2007 7:29pm
moonrage73 (mail):
Of course Ladies Night is discriminatory to all men; but it is specifically discriminatory against low-income men even as it benefits certain types of men. Precisely because it gives an undue advantage to a very specific type of men - the rich-type - that Ladies Night is corollarily an unlevel playing field for low-income men. Rich men would naturally defend this because transferring the cost of women's drinks and admission to rich men not only increases women's attendance but also excludes a significant portion of men.
7.13.2007 9:15pm
Brian G (mail) (www):
Back before I was a lawyer I had a great job as a DJ at nightclubs in and around Philly. I loved Ladies Noghts because they were packed. The women would come and the guys would follow. This isn't an issue for the law, it is for the private sector. If women felt it to be discriminatory, then all they have to do is not show up and presto, they are gone. And when I went out, as a man, I didn't mind having to pay cover charge and the owmen didn't when the room was 2 or 3 to 1 women to men. Better that than a "sausage party."

All the comments above have WAY overthought the issue.
7.13.2007 10:19pm
scote (mail):

if women felt it to be discriminatory, then all they have to do is not show up and presto, they are gone.

I don't think it's "thinking too much" to note that your argument justifies any and all discrimination on the basis of capitalism. Think the "Whites Only Bar" (blacks allowed, $100 cover) is ripping you off? No problem. Don't go there and they'll go out of business.

I don't buy the idea that profit moots civil rights and you don't have to be a law professor to argue the point.

BTW, it isn't the women who are discriminated against. They are the advantaged class in this thread.
7.14.2007 1:20am
SIG357:
I'm not a lawyer. I'm a mere LEO. But given the quality of thought on display here by people who claim to be lawyers, who tough can it be to graduate law school and pass the bar exam?

Seriously, some of the self-proclaimed lawyers on this and other threads here come across as about as smart as a box of rocks. I've come across petty criminals who had more going on upstairs.
7.14.2007 2:32am
whit:
"mere LEO?"

you are much too modest sir.

(also an LEO)...
7.14.2007 2:52am
Pete Jensen (mail):
From a libertarian perspective, isn't the better solution to boycott rather than sue? If that many men are really offended by this, they could simply not go to bars that sponsor a Ladies Night, or they could go on other evenings.


From a libertarian perspective the best solution would be not to have the stupid &@^#%$! law which provoked this retaliatory suit.

If that many people are really offended by this the obvious solution is to repeal the law so that Mr. Hollander has no leg to stand on.

It's the law of unintended consequences, put into effectr - and in a lot of ways Mr. Hollander is doing a great public service by calling attention to this in this way. He's sure got the spotlight on it, doesn't he?
7.15.2007 12:52am
Brian G (mail) (www):
Scote,

Feels just like law school again, where my liberal/leftist classmates always responded by running to the race card just like you did.

Nightclubs are prviate entities, free to run their businesses as they see fit. You don't like Ladies nights, then don't go. It's that simple. If I was still out dating, the first places I'd be looking to go are ones with ladies nights given my long experience in the clubs.
7.15.2007 3:03am
scote (mail):

Brian G (mail) (www):
Scote,

Feels just like law school again, where my liberal/leftist classmates always responded by running to the race card just like you did.

We're talking about discrimination. Comparing different kinds of discrimination to clarify the argument and showing the absurd results that occur when the pro-discrimination argument is applied to race instead of gender is a perfectly valid method or argumentation. It is called proof by contradiction or an apagogical argument. It is not "playing the race card." I suspect you merely don't like the obvious conclusion that proof by contradiction demonstrates in this circumstance.

Nightclubs are prviate entities, free to run their businesses as they see fit.

Oh, please, You did not just say that. That is total BS and I think you know it. Proof by contradiction: Can they refuse to let black people in? No. Can they ignore city codes? Smoking rules? Fire Safety? Federal Taxes? Bureau of Alcohol rules? No. Fire someone for being Jewish? No. Give discounts just to Catholics. No.

Yours is a completely specious argument unworthy of posting. Maybe it's late or something, but that law school training of yours really isn't showing in your argument.
7.15.2007 4:52am
Mitchell Rubinstein (mail) (www):
The plaintiff probably has a fairly strong case under NYC's Local Municipal Law outlawing discrimination. See my posting about this for additionl information.
I did a posting on my blog. (just do a search for adjunct law professor blog for some reason I cannot post it here)

Mitchell H. Rubinstein
7.15.2007 2:10pm
scote (mail):

Nightclubs are prviate entities, free to run their businesses as they see fit.

BTW, Brian G, Nightclubs are, with perhaps a few exceptions, not actually "clubs," so please don't bother trotting out the private club / free association argument. They used to pull that sham in the south to get by alcohol and/ or discrimination laws that apply to public accommodations like businesses. You'd go to a restaurant and they'd charge you a trivial fee to become a "member" of the "private club" so they could serve alcohol and discriminate against minorities. This sort of blatant sham transaction is rather frowned upon these days, though I think it still exists in some locales as it pertains to alcohol.
7.15.2007 3:32pm
ReaderY:
In my view, the question of when to ban private gender-based preference -- whether to do so in employment, in education, in the bedroom, or in bars, which are arguably a case somewhere between the two which could be classified in either camp -- is entirely a matter of state or local discretion, and is no business of the courts.

The Supreme Courts' current notions that bans of this type represent a "compelling state interest" in contexts that t a majority of its members happen to prefer, while representing an irrational or invidious distinction in contexts that a majority happen not to like, represents nothing other than a constitutionalization of the memberships personal beliefs. In every case where the majority solemnly finds a compelling state interest, the minority can and does declare the majority's feelings nothing other than rank bigotry. In every case where the majority solemnly declares that it can see no rational basis for the laws involved, the minority can and does accuse the majority of willful blindness. And in each case, the majority and minority opinions would be essentially the same if one scratched out one set of issues and wrote the other in in crayon.

In what circumstances to ban private sexual preferences and in what circumstances to permit them are simply no business of the courts. They vary with time and circumstances. The political opinions of a majority of the Supreme Court are merely one set of political opinions, and it wastes the Court's credibility, and reams of paper covered in flowery language, when it pretends to be anything else.

There are people who are much more productive working with, and happier socializing with, people of the same sex, just as there are people who would prefer to sleep with them. In all cases it is likely that society could live with a few exceptions, but great social problems, such as a caste system, could and sometimes have resulted, but need not always necessarily result, if it became the societal norm.

The question of where to draw lines, whether to look at things in terms of morality or utility, and the question of what is moral or useful, are social questions which the consitution leaves wholly to the political branches.

What one person calls natural preference another calls invidious, immoral, or bigotry. Only time and the judgment of history will be able to tell who is right. Judges feel these things as much as anyone else. They should learn to restrain their emotions in such matters.
7.15.2007 5:25pm
scote (mail):

is entirely a matter of state or local discretion, and is no business of the courts.

This is non-sensical. If the states pass anti-discrimination laws, which they have, they are enforced through court actions. The claim in this thread is one that seeks to enforce state law--just as you suggest should be done.
7.16.2007 2:06am
David M. Nieporent (www):
All of the arguments in this thread fail spectacularly you substitute race for gender.
Then that's powerful evidence that it's incredibly stupid to substitute race for gender. The two are simply not perfectly analogous.

Unless you look at men's bathrooms and women's bathrooms the same way you view white-only water fountains and black-only water fountains.
7.16.2007 11:02am
scote (mail):

All of the arguments in this thread fail spectacularly you substitute race for gender.
Then that's powerful evidence that it's incredibly stupid to substitute race for gender. The two are simply not perfectly analogous.

Nope, not perfectly analogous. However, you fail to note the restriction in my argument "all of the arguments in this thread."

I never claimed that gender is completely analogous to race, however you are making the error of implying the opposite.
7.16.2007 4:49pm