Posted on 06/01/2007 10:23:34 AM PDT by SmithL
Four men who were allegedly refused ladies' night discounts at a Los Angeles nightclub have the right to sue on the grounds of discrimination even if they never demanded equal treatment from the club, the state Supreme Court said Thursday.
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibits a broad range of discriminatory business conduct, including sex-based pricing, and does not require customers to demand that a company change its policies before going to court, Chief Justice Ronald George said in the unanimous decision. A lower court had thrown out the case because the men had not complained first.
The ruling addressed a small point of law contested by powerful forces -- on one side, plaintiffs' lawyers and civil rights groups, who feared a weakening of anti-discrimination laws, and on the other side business advocates, who said unscrupulous attorneys are exploiting those laws for "shakedown'' suits against innocent companies.
The court acknowledged the possibility of abusive lawsuits, but said it was up to the Legislature or the voters to restrict what kinds of suits can be filed under civil rights laws.
Requiring customers to demand that businesses change before allowing them to sue, George said, would leave companies free to discriminate and make exceptions only for people who complained.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
It’s okay to have Ladies Night, Ladies Free, Women health clubs, women only education, etc. etc..
3 men doing anything together is discrimination nowadays.
How long before the Rosie O’Donnells of the world demand that they be able to play in the NFL????
What Girlymen Want
(coming to a theater near you)
Until it is in the judge's political interests to say otherwise. Then they will dictate what is and is not a valid civil rights issue.
I suppose the homosexual men get no benefit. What a sad, sick culture we have become.
Oh I agree with you. That’s what I meant by having no particular interest in defending the bar. But it’s a bar. That’s what they do. Doesn’t obligate them to take the sick slide even further by denying that humans are heterosexual and that men and women are interested in each other — so when you have a “ladies night,” it is supposed to benefit the men too.
What if they had “African Americans Drink Free Night”? All blacks drink for free while whitey pays full price?
How about “Jews Drink Free”, let the Christians pay the overhead of the bar.
How about “Twenty Somethings Drink Free”, let the old geezers pay for the kids free booze.
Can’t pick and choose, it’s all equal for everyone or no one.
Well said.
Wish that your post was SCOTUS precedent!
>How long before the Rosie O’Donnells of the world demand that they be able to play in the NFL????
I can’t wait - I would love to see Ray Lewis demonstrate for her the term “vicious tackle”. Just hope he doesn’t land underneath her.
This is all very stupid.
The "Blacks drink free night" would be different in that it doesn't benefit non-blacks too. This isn't difficult. It is so obviously not about discrimination that only a nearly insanely immoral generation would be unable to figure it out. Used to be, men liked women and they bought the ladies drinks a good lot of the time. Even when they didn't buy, they benefited from the presence of more women. I would think "ladies night" was originally a man's idea.
Hey, maybe you can sue all those places that give senior citizens discounts or the ones that give free admission to children. Let's end all discrimination. In fact, let's just drug everyone and end all thinking.
Your FR credentials are noted, but you sound like those people who want gender neutral restrooms. Puh-leease. Tell me what night single men flock to a popular bar. If they are normal, it's on ladies night.
Sometimes being discriminate is not at all about bigotry.
Although I’ve been to plenty of bars and clubs I’ve never attended a “ladies drink free night”, but some men feel the need because they are fat, ugly or stupid and couldn’t possibly get a “date” unless the victim was inebriated or unconscious.
BTW - I do believe any kind of price discounting due to age is a flat out in your face violation of not only anti-discrimination laws but the equal protection clause since government engages in the same kind of practices as some business.
As for Senior discounts you mention, retirees are the most wealthy demographic segment in society. The kids are grown, the house is paid off and they don’t just give the discounts to the ones on fixed incomes, the retired doctors, attorneys and millionaires get them too. If it were a welfare program for poor seniors, that may have some merit, but it isn’t so it’s extremely discriminatory.
As for your comments that kids have no income, heheh, that is a pretty lame excuse. If the parents can’t afford them they shouldn’t have them and they certainly shouldn’t expect others to pay higher prices (which is what they do) to subsidize their food, housing and entertainment, which they also do.
Regarding the “favor” to parents, see my first sentence. You can’t excuse bigotry or discrimination by claiming “I’m not against someone, I’m just FOR someone else”. If the result is that another individual is unfairly treated in terms of price, service or goods and the determining factor is a state and federally protected characteristic like race, religion OR AGE, it’s discrimination and it should be illegal.
Good story...A few years ago, New Jersey banned "ladies nights" on discrimination grounds. Several shore-area bars subsequently ran "free admission if you're wearing a bra" nights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.