this is like that dude who sued hooters because he said they discriminated against him for being a man by not hiring him.

I agree that feminism can be anti-male in some peoples eyes, but this case isnt one of those instances. Ladies night? brings tha ladies out dude, otherwise? sausage fest.

What's next, demanding equal pay for women? Private employers aren't representatives of the state, so it can't be discriminatory or illegal.

"Have you heard the one about the Men's Studies department? It's called "History.""

Citizen!

Lame, and I'm pretty sure the guy raising hell about this just wants attention and hates women.

I admit I'm not quite sure what discrimination law covers.

I mean, could a restaurant only allow whites or is that against the law?

Is all decision re: patronage left up to the private company?

I feel that since it's a private business, they should be permitted to do what they please. If this particular person is unhappy with bars that offer Ladies' Nights, he should take his business elsewhere.

He's fundamentally right but good luck on getting half those ladies back into the bar/club who are only there for the free/half-priced drinks.

'What's next, demanding equal pay for women? Private employers aren't representatives of the state, so it can't be discriminatory or illegal.'

There is a big difference between employment laws and how a company can price its products.

popgoestheworld - I think if a suit is brought against a company, they'd have to justify their discriminatory practices as something that is of business necessity.

I think this dude should get together with the angry dad from the 'Obama is a terrorists BFF' shirt debacle. I bet they could have themselves some riveting conversations.

I guess it would essentially fall into the freedom of association category...and because the case is dealing with patrons, and not employees, I think a private company/organization has the right to implement practices such as this, even if they are rather discriminatory.

Well said mydiadem...Title VII protects employees from discrimination, unfortunately not patrons though, unless of course the employer is the state.

"There is a big difference between employment laws and how a company can price its products."

What is it?

First of all, the guy should be glad that it makes girls a cheap date . Which is what the bars are trying to do in the first place. I agree with the judge that the bar isn't an arm of the state, but bars = interstate commerce and federal gov't can provent discrimination. BUT I don't think it rises to the level of discrimination. The purpose of it is not to discriminate but to get more bodies in the bar. You get more girls, you get more guys. Just good business sense.

This lawyer seems to have some underlying mommy issues. Maybe he didn't get enough hugs from her. Like caterpillar girl said, the women would not be there if it weren't for the half priced drinks and free admission. It seems to me that private estaablishments such as bars have the right to promote their establishment any way they would like.

I voted that private companies should be allowed to do business as they see fit. However, I think many of the people who voted for that are being hypocritical. If the bar were to offer half off drinks for white people, would that be alright?

Michelin, for me personally, I wouldn't support that, but I think it should be allowed. I would not try to legally block it, but I would take my business elsewhere.

Lilkim, I feel the same way. They should have the right to sell what they want to who they want, and I have the right to spend my money at another bar.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand their are many laws on the books that protect the employee and guarantee certain rights like workers compensation, equal access for folks with disabilities, and anti-discriminatory practices. These would prevent employers from only hiring people of a certain race, gender, age, physical appearance, etc. Those kind of things don't exist to protect potential consumers from similar 'discrimination'.

This is just my understanding of the status quo

i can understand why someone would be upset about this but think about it - even from a guy's perspective. you're going out with your group of 5 guys..and you're at a bar...and there are about 6 other groups of guys (5 each) and maybe 4 girls. well...that means that your chance of talking to those 4 girls is slim to none. BUT...if a bar has a promotion where there are drink specials for them, well..then chances are there will be 4+ groups of girls and then your odds are higher.

i think that the lawyer was just trying to make a point, and wasn't successful about it. it's like saying that a women's clothing store can't just sell women's clothes...

Mydiadem, if those laws don't exist to protect consumers, then why don't you see 'Whites Only' signs outside restaurants anymore?

In this particular it sounds like it is about pricing and not patronage and the guy at Hooters is also a lot different because that was an employment situation. Yeah this lawyer just wanted a little attention women on one night pay a cheaper fee than men he's stretching the bounds of discrimination a little. And yes if they only allowed white/green/purple people then someone could file a discrimination lawsuit against them. It's kind of hard to prove "a club" discriminated towards you because of your race I had a problem come up regarding SBE Clubs in L.A. and how they only let black people in if they are famous other than that you have to be white.

Well, any club associated with Heidi probably isn't worth going to anyway!

j/k

Sort of.

Mich,

While I agree with you in theory that businesses should do as they please i.e. " No shirt, No shoes, no service" and " We reserve the right to ...." and yes the dreaded "whites only". It's something that is hard to deal with on a personal level as being someone who has been discriminated against by a business because of the color of my skin and this happened in 2007 in what is suppose to be a "progressive" and "liberal" city!

The difference is that men want women at the bars & they are paying for that "service." If they don't want to talk to or dance with women, there are many places they could go where everyone is charged the same.

Oh but I can't lie a sign I like is " No Children" so I guess I'm a part of the problem ahahahah!

Lilikimbo,
Well I should have known not to go I actually watch "the hills" ( no laughing) and have notice that there isn't one "non-white" person that works for SBE so I should have exspected it!

Again I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it wouldn't be against the law to have a whites only sign. It wouldn't be a good business decision and you would get a lot of bad press however. But then again, I could see something like you have to let people into an establishment without discrimination (unless its a law like underage drinking or something) but what this guy was suing over was pricing discrimination. Also very different in my limited experience.

"if those laws don't exist to protect consumers, then why don't you see 'Whites Only' signs outside restaurants anymore?"

Michelin - there are federal and state public accommodation laws that were established to end segregation in public spaces like hotels, restaurants, stores, parks, etc. This is what allowed a class action suit against Denny's a while back.

Mydiadem, it is certainly against the law to only allow whites into your restaurant.

Woop, I know. I was making a point.

Bastyle, don't worry, I watch The Hills from time-to-time, too! I won't commit to DVRing it, but I watch it if it's on!

I do understand where this guy is coming from. It's the burden of being a "higher"-salaried man, duh.

So based on what I'm reading, an establishment cannot deny entrance based on race, but they could refuse to serve someone once they're in? Or they could effectively refuse to by charging thousands of dollars more for an item?

Where are all the discrimination lawyers hanging out? Not on citizen sugar?

I feel like this is a case of common sense. I can understand the whole "discrimination" argument since they are discriminating against men but seriously- take your business elsewhere. Ladies Night is a common theme in almost every bar around here in liberal NYC! If a business is offending enough people - they will lose money and change their policy.

Pop, are you talking about what the laws actually are or what I think they should be?

As of now, you can't deny a person service based on race. The way I think it should be? Businesses should be able to do what they want, even those awful things you listed.

I'm talking about what the laws actually are.

I just think that we hear "ladies night" and think "whatever, no big deal." But if it were "white night" the tone on here would be WAY different.

I think we implicitly understand that ladies night isn't some big ploy to discriminate against men, but to me it begs the question of why is it different under the law?

Oh, okay, Pop. I agree with you. People seem to have a double standard on this one. Like I said earlier, I don't think everybody would dismiss it so quickly if whites got half off drinks.

So would people be more up in arms if it were disabled people who got half off drinks? Is it fair that military personnel get a certain % off, is it fair that seniors get a certain % off or that students get a & off as well...this opens up a whole new door!!!

I personally think there is a difference between a practice done with the intent of encouraging increased patronage and enhancing the experience for its current patronage and a practice that is intended to keep out and exclude people. The bars are trying to get increased female turnout on certain nights. If there are lots of females, more guys go in as well. It's like when cell phone and cable companies have different pricing and deals for new customers that aren't available for existing customers.

I agree that common sense dictates that it's very different. That is why I was curious about exactly how the law was worded.

I mean, seniors get discounts. Is that discriminating based on age?

I agree that common sense dictates that it's very different. That is why I was curious about exactly how the law was worded.

I mean, seniors get discounts. Is that discriminating based on age?

This is a marketing scheme and is not excluding a group of people but giving one group incentive to come in. This business isn't saying "men aren't allowed" in a backhanded way it's saying "ladies here men you know you want to come in". It's like Nordstrom's and the Women's Half Yearly sale is that discriminatory to me....hardly.

I mean even on the race issue you don't have to place a "white's only" sign up to run an all white establishment if you are savvy, and targeted in your marketing then it can be done. I use to live in the South and it was just places that non white people just didn't go period!

"is that discriminatory to men....hardly." I meant

Michelin- bars aren't allowed to discriminate based on race because it would violate the commerce clause of the constitution, which the federal govt. has the right to regulate. It must be shown that a certain amount of the bar or restaurants products come from out of state, because it is interstate commerce that can be regulated. The scope of the federal govt. and their power to regulate commerce has been decreased a bit by a more conservative govt. in support of states' rights, and I don't know how states regulate these things. Of course, I don't even know if this is a federal or state court, but it is under the commerce clause that businesses can't discriminate based on race. And theoretically, it is a case-by-case judge-made law based in precedent. The 14th amendment, giving equal rights to the races unfortunately does only apply to the government.

Labor laws are different entirely, but also federal, arose during the New Deal...maybe a real lawyer could come explain that!

And this guy is SO not getting laid. I just don't get what his legal claim here is? No matter what a double standard you think this is, if you have no legal claim, then yeah, your suit is going to be dismissed. Our country isn't founded on, "what so and so thinks is fair," principles.

I agree with the sentiment. It frustrates me when I go to a bar, and because I'm a guy, and it happens to be ladies' night, I have to pay twice as much as the other gender. Can anyone explain to me how only making 83 cents to every dollar I make merits a 50% reduction on drinks?

"I personally think there is a difference between a practice done with the intent of encouraging increased patronage and enhancing the experience for its current patronage and a practice that is intended to keep out and exclude people. The bars are trying to get increased female turnout on certain nights. If there are lots of females, more guys go in as well. It's like when cell phone and cable companies have different pricing and deals for new customers that aren't available for existing customers."

So if a certain restaurant realizes that they live in a rather racist town, and that white people won't eat there if black people are eating there, I guess that restaurant could cut prices for whites in half? I mean, that way it would be done to increase patronage and improve the experience for that patronage. That fits your logic, doesn't it?

It just seems like a lot of people have rather confused ideas about when discrimination is okay and when it isn't. There's no underlying principle, you just decide on a case to case basis.

Snowbunny, I'm well aware of the commerce clause. It's that tricky little part of the Constitution that the federal government has decided gives them the right to do pretty much whatever they want, even though they were never intended to have those powers.

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer and no expert. I do know about the legislation governing pricing (as part of my job)and most of it must cross state lines to be an issue.

I don't live in NYC and we pretty much never have ladies night here anyway. Besides, don't most women make every night ladies night by expecting the guy (or some random guy) to pay for all their drinks?

I think ridiculous lawsuits like this and the one from the t-shirt to school article waste my tax dollars. The guy who brought it earlier hates women and can't get a date or is so uptight about the law he sees it as one big game.

LAME!