it's ladies night...

[Mike70]

for sure now. a judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a guy who was claiming ladies nights were discriminatory because of the difference in prices that women were charged vs. those men were charged.

can you say frivolous much?

i think this line from the article pretty much sums up the dude involved:


The lawsuit was brought by attorney Roy Den Hollander, who has crusaded against feminism and recently sued a university over its women's studies program.

this guy sounds like the anti-fems answer to jack thompson.


http://www.kirotv.com/news/17590759/detail.html

[Yojimbo]

for sure now. a judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a guy who was claiming ladies nights were discriminatory because of the difference in prices that women were charged vs. those men were charged.

can you say frivolous much?

i think this line from the article pretty much sums up the dude involved:



this guy sounds like the anti-fems answer to jack thompson.


http://www.kirotv.com/news/17590759/detail.html

In this day and age where folks sue people for getting roids on their rectums and fast food chains for having hot coffee, this ridiculous suit does not surprise me.

[slickwilly13]

That guy and anyone who thinks like him are idoits. The whole point of ladies' night is to attract chicks to bars. The more chicks. The better the chances are of picking one up.

[Bub666]

Yeah,this lawsuit was stupid.This guy needs to get over it.

[darth los]

That guy and anyone who thinks like him are idoits. The whole point of ladies' night is to attract chicks to bars. The more chicks. The better the chances are of picking one up.

O.k so i won't get offended at your remark.

As a legal major i must say it's not like this claim doesn't have merrit. Based purely on the law, it does seem to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. It's only because it's a man do we laugh it off just as we would if he said a woman raped him. Reverse the situation for a moment. when the feminists were in an uproar beause Augusta country club wouldn't let them be members because of their genders no one told them to get lost or to get a life. You could say it's their establishment and they can do what they want. But what's to stop them from charging blacks 20 dollars to get in and whites only 10 dollars becuse that's the clientelle they would like for the most part. Same logic and it's a slippery slope. That's the constitution for you. Either well all get to do something or none of us do.

Either way it's a fascinating debate.

Now with that said. I'm all for it. More chicks, more fun, more chance of scoring..etc, etc..


:cool:

[acealive1]

he's got a good point tho. cuz they grow balls and talk all about how "im a woman and im gonna stand up for myself" then when the deck is stacked, they cower and go "im just a woman" :rolleyes:

[Danny]

whilst its not sue worthy i can see what he means, like at high school pretty much everyone rushed to grab the computers t lunch for the internet ,msn, newgrounds and the like but on fridays it was girls only, i asked why and was told some dodgy thing along the lins of "well girls use it less so...." and they sort of trailed off, and that was crap boys and girls used it equally every other day f the week so why this special day was set up i dont know, other than so the od biddy could lock the doors and get out her scotch i cant figure.
still rambling aside i can see how the double standards kind of stupid.

[Publius]

As a legal major i must say it's not like this claim doesn't have merrit. Based purely on the law, it does seem to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. It's only because it's a man do we laugh it off just as we would if he said a woman raped him. Reverse the situation for a moment. when the feminists were in an uproar beause Augusta country club wouldn't let them be members because of their genders no one told them to get lost or to get a life. You could say it's their establishment and they can do what they want. But what's to stop them from charging blacks 20 dollars to get in and whites only 10 dollars becuse that's the clientelle they would like for the most part. Same logic and it's a slippery slope. That's the constitution for you. Either well all get to do something or none of us do.


The 14th Amendment argument probably didn't work out for this guy because of the "state action" doctrine. The relevant part of the amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since all the operative clauses refer to "states," the state action doctrine holds that only actions by states can violate these clauses, not actions by private individuals or businesses. So "ladies' nights" would only be constitutionally problematic at state-owned nightclubs, etc. Which I doubt there are very many of. :p

Also, the obvious difference between this case and your examples is that the businesses in your examples are intending to discriminate against women and blacks by making it more difficult to get in, whereas the clubs that have ladies' nights are actually trying to make their business more attractive to both men and women.


whilst its not sue worthy i can see what he means, like at high school pretty much everyone rushed to grab the computers t lunch for the internet ,msn, newgrounds and the like but on fridays it was girls only.

This seems to present more of a constitutional issue. More possibility of state action (unless your school was private), and it appears that there may have been an actual discriminatory purpose.

[darth los]

The 14th Amendment argument probably didn't work out for this guy because of the "state action" doctrine. The relevant part of the amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Since all the operative clauses refer to "states," the state action doctrine holds that only actions by states can violate these clauses, not actions by private individuals or businesses. So "ladies' nights" would only be constitutionally problematic at state-owned nightclubs, etc. Which I doubt there are very many of. :p

Also, the obvious difference between this case and your examples is that the businesses in your examples are intending to discriminate against women and blacks by making it more difficult to get in, whereas the clubs that have ladies' nights are actually trying to make their business more attractive to both men and women.



This seems to present more of a constitutional issue. More possibility of state action (unless your school was private), and it appears that there may have been an actual discriminatory purpose.

An interesting point. However, just because a business is privately owned does not give them liscense to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or any other constitutionally protected class.

Not a direct dig against you or anyone personally but anyone who studies law would know that.

Try opening up your own business and not hire blacks or women and see how well that line of logic works out for you when explaining it in court. Anything that's open to the public, i.e. bars and clubs, are subject to these laws. You would have a much better arguement if, say you didn't want any blacks or women in your home. that is indeed your private property and you are free to discriminate on any class of people you like.

:cool:

[Publius]

An interesting point. However, just because a business is privately owned does not give them liscense to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or any other constitutionally protected class.

Not a direct dig against you or anyone personally but anyone who studies law would know that.

Try opening up your own business and not hire blacks or women and see how well that line of logic works out for you when explaining it in court. Anything that's open to the public, i.e. bars and clubs, are subject to these laws. You would have a much better arguement if, say you didn't want any blacks or women in your home. that is indeed your private property and you are free to discriminate on any class of people you like.


I realize that. :) The fact that a business is privately owned is not a license to discriminate. But that doesn't mean the 14th Amendment applies to such discrimination. Such discrimination is prohibited not by the U.S. Constitution, but by civil rights and antidiscrimination statutes enacted at all levels of government, from municipal up to federal. So when it comes to private entities, we're not talking about "constitutionally protected classes," we're talking about statutorily defined and protected classes.

For example, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in hotels, restaurants, etc. and restricts employment discrimination by private employers (among other things). That law was passed not under Congress' power to enforce the 14th Amendment, but under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. So it only applies to private businesses that are engaged in interstate commerce (which, fortunately for Congress, is interpreted extremely broadly by the courts). Every state and most cities have additional laws that fill in the gaps, covering any businesses that don't fall under federal law and often adding additional protected classes not protected under federal law (for example, sexual orientation).

[darth los]

I realize that. :) The fact that a business is privately owned is not a license to discriminate. But that doesn't mean the 14th Amendment applies to such discrimination. Such discrimination is prohibited not by the U.S. Constitution, but by civil rights and antidiscrimination statutes enacted at all levels of government, from municipal up to federal. So when it comes to private entities, we're not talking about "constitutionally protected classes," we're talking about statutorily defined and protected classes.

For example, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in hotels, restaurants, etc. and restricts employment discrimination by private employers (among other things). That law was passed not under Congress' power to enforce the 14th Amendment, but under Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. So it only applies to private businesses that are engaged in interstate commerce (which, fortunately for Congress, is interpreted extremely broadly by the courts). Every state and most cities have additional laws that fill in the gaps, covering any businesses that don't fall under federal law and often adding additional protected classes not protected under federal law (for example, sexual orientation).


Ah, the old interstate commerce trick!! That's been argued in front of the Supreme court since the 1790's!!



This is why the law is fascinating. You can have 2 or more people look at the same law and interpret it differently. There's no better example than Brown vs. Board of ed. overturning Plessy v. Fergusson. There were for all intents and purposes the same triable facts present yet the court decided exactly the opposite of the previous descision.

My point is along the same line of your logic. Ever since the Plessy decision, since the end of the civil war really, there have been attempts to discriminate against blacks, not overtly on racial grounds but demanding that criteria be met that a newly freed slave couldn't possibly meet such as the poll tax and reading and reciting the constitution. This is why the civil rights act was passed. To stop shennanagins like this not the other way around as you're suggesting although i see how it can be interpreted that way.


It is universally recognized that the 14th ammendment prohibits discrimination on the grounds we stated earlier. It is not uncommon for state and municipal legislatures to "fill in the blanks" on issues totally unrelated issues to the one we're discussing. It seems as though no matter how much care is put into acrafting apiece of legislation there's always a loophole to be exploited. As a result, laws must be made to correct them. If that weren't the case all we would need is the constiution and nothing else. Not even that great document is exempt which is the reason why there have been so many amendments to it over the years.

:cool:

[Publius]

Ah, the old interstate commerce trick!! That's been argued in front of the Supreme court since the 1790's!!

What trick? Congress clearly has power to regulate interstate commerce. There has been a lot of debate over the years about the scope of this power. That may provide some basis for an "as applied" challenge to the '64 CRA, but it's clearly facially valid.


This is why the civil rights act was passed. To stop shennanagins like this not the other way around as you're suggesting although i see how it can be interpreted that way.

How was I suggesting the other way around?



It is universally recognized that the 14th ammendment prohibits discrimination on the grounds we stated earlier.

It's universally recognized the the 14th Amendment prevents states from engaging in such discrimination. Read the language of the amendment again:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.)

There's no way to read that as applying to private businesses. Private businesses aren't "states." Private businesses don't make or enforce "laws." Private businesses don't have "jurisdiction." Hence the state action doctrine. The 14th Amendment was intended to restrict the actions of states, like the states that seceded and then attempted to discriminate against blacks in all kinds of ways, both overt and covert (as you pointed out), after they lost the Civil War.

There are some exceptions or loopholes to the state action doctrine. For example, it is unconstitutional for state courts to enforce racially discriminatory private contracts. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), involving an attempt to evict a black family from a house due to a whites-only clause in the house's title. A private company can be subject to 14th Amendment restrictions when it engages in traditional government functions, like operating a public park, a prison, or a concession in a government building. See Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the classic "company town" case. But generally speaking, if there's no discriminatory state action or state involvement in or entanglement with a discriminatory private action, the equal protection clause does not apply.

[darth los]

What trick? Congress clearly has power to regulate interstate commerce. There has been a lot of debate over the years about the scope of this power. That may provide some basis for an "as applied" challenge to the '64 CRA, but it's clearly facially valid.



How was I suggesting the other way around?




It's universally recognized the the 14th Amendment prevents states from engaging in such discrimination. Read the language of the amendment again:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Emphasis added.)

There's no way to read that as applying to private businesses. Private businesses aren't "states." Private businesses don't make or enforce "laws." Private businesses don't have "jurisdiction." Hence the state action doctrine. The 14th Amendment was intended to restrict the actions of states, like the states that seceded and then attempted to discriminate against blacks in all kinds of ways, both overt and covert (as you pointed out), after they lost the Civil War.

There are some exceptions or loopholes to the state action doctrine. For example, it is unconstitutional for state courts to enforce racially discriminatory private contracts. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), involving an attempt to evict a black family from a house due to a whites-only clause in the house's title. A private company can be subject to 14th Amendment restrictions when it engages in traditional government functions, like operating a public park, a prison, or a concession in a government building. See Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the classic "company town" case. But generally speaking, if there's no discriminatory state action or state involvement in or entanglement with a discriminatory private action, the equal protection clause does not apply.

Like i said, just try and open a private business and see how that works out.

:cool:

[Publius]

Like i said, just try and open a private business and see how that works out.

:cool:

I've no doubt it wouldn't work out well, as I've repeatedly stated. But I guarantee you that the complaint filed against the business (if it's successful) will cite a federal, state, or local civil rights law rather than the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I'm not saying that private racial discrimination is okay, just that the 14th Amendment did not address that particular problem.

[Chic Freak]

i think this line from the article pretty much sums up the dude involved:

What's his problem with Women's Studies? You can always study Masculinity Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_studies) if you want.


That guy and anyone who thinks like him are idoits. The whole point of ladies' night is to attract chicks to bars. The more chicks. The better the chances are of picking one up.

A little heterocentric there Slick? ;)


they grow balls and talk all about how "im a woman and im gonna stand up for myself" then when the deck is stacked, they cower and go "im just a woman" :rolleyes:

Who is "they"? I'm assuming you don't mean most women or most feminists are like that :/


Also, the obvious difference between this case and your examples is that the businesses in your examples are intending to discriminate against women and blacks by making it more difficult to get in, whereas the clubs that have ladies' nights are actually trying to make their business more attractive to both men and women.

That's an interesting point, the intention of the seemingly discriminatory action... I do actually agree that "ladies' nights" are theoretically out of order, but in practice it doesn't really matter... I don't think it would be the same, in practice, as having a "white people's night" or a "straight people's night."

[MissJacksonCA]

Doesn't ladies night kinda help men?

a. They know they can find women there
b. They can buy those women less expensive alcoholic bevvys
c. Thus they can afford to buy them MORE of said beverages
d. Its soon to be every mans lucky night!

i'm just saying...

[Publius]

Doesn't ladies night kinda help men?

a. They know they can find women there
b. They can buy those women less expensive alcoholic bevvys
c. Thus they can afford to buy them MORE of said beverages
d. Its soon to be every mans lucky night!

i'm just saying...

Good points, but:

a. As Chic Freak suggests, you can't assume that every man in a club, bar, or pub is looking for women, because
b. Some may be gay, and
c. Others may be, say, married men (without illegitimate intentions) who just like to stop by the bar for a drink after work every evening

[darth los]

Doesn't ladies night kinda help men?

a. They know they can find women there
b. They can buy those women less expensive alcoholic bevvys
c. Thus they can afford to buy them MORE of said beverages
d. Its soon to be every mans lucky night!

i'm just saying...

All very valid points mj. And as i posted earlier, of course it benefits men by making it easier to score but that's hardly the point. The point is if it's discriminatory and there's a very good case to be made that it is.:cool:

[EvilNed]

Over here we treat everyone equally. So should you!

[darth los]

Over here we treat everyone equally. So should you!

Even the people thrown in mental assylums because they have a different political philosophy? :confused:


:cool: