Ladies' Nights and the "Cancer of Discrimination"

Should it be illegal for bars to offer discounts to women?

Steve Chapman | September 18, 2008

David Gillespie may be an unlikely Rosa Parks, but we have to take our civil rights heroes where we find them. Parks rebelled because, being black, she was told to ride in the back of an Alabama bus while whites got to sit up front. Gillespie could not tolerate paying a $5 cover price on "ladies' night" at a New Jersey bar while females were getting in free.

This being a civil rights drama, you can guess how it ends. Gillespie took legal action, and in 2004, the walls of discrimination came tumbling down. The state Division on Civil Rights ruled that giving women a special incentive to patronize a drinking establishment is illegal.

"Once a place of public accommodation makes its goods or services available to the public," the division said, "it is bound to treat all members of the public alike." To allow exceptions to the policy "would be to disregard its intended goal, which is nothing less than the eradication of the cancer of discrimination."

That last sentence brings to mind what Oscar Wilde said about an emotional scene in Charles Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop": "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing." American history holds numerous examples of discrimination that are thoroughly malignant. This is not one of them.

When it comes to relations between the sexes, a little common sense goes a long way. It's not sex discrimination to bar men from women's locker rooms. It's not sex discrimination to let only females audition for the role of Juliet. It's not sex discrimination to roughly balance males and females in an entering college class. And it should not be sex discrimination to offer favors to one sex in order to benefit people of both sexes.

Why, after all, would a bar offer discounts to women? Not because the owner harbors a deep-seated hostility toward men, perpetuating centuries of oppression. People who run such establishments understand that a lot of men patronize taverns partly to meet women, and that they will come more often and stay longer if women are abundant than if they are scarce.

Since females are generally less attracted to the bar scene, discounts may be needed to draw them out in respectable numbers. The owner of the Coastline Restaurant and Bar in Cherry Hill, the target of the complaint, said after the ruling came down that his male customers are unhappy "because they're wondering, 'Are the girls going to show up?'"

Unlike Gillespie, those guys realize that they're not victims here, because there are no victims. Women get to enjoy a night out at a bargain rate, while feeling less isolated in a sea of males. Men get to enjoy a night out with a better chance of meeting someone of the opposite sex. Pre-existing couples save some money. Misogynists have the chance to confirm their prejudices.

By contrast, it's hard to see how David Gillespie will be better off once these discounts have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Saloon managers are not likely to cut prices for men to match the specials offered to women. Gillespie will merely get to sip his beverage of choice at full price—and chances are better than before that he'll be doing it in solitude.

His supporters insist that what's important is upholding the principle of nondiscrimination. To allow ladies' nights to go on, we can deduce, would invite the return of Bull Connor and the abolition of women's suffrage. Offering a discount for women, to George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, is no more defensible than charging whites less than blacks. "Sex discrimination is wrong, no matter whose ox is being gored," he declares.

But context is crucial, and relations between the sexes are different from relations between the races. We don't accept racially segregated restrooms, but we do accept sexually segregated restrooms. All-white colleges would be offensive, but all-female schools are not.

Charging whites less than blacks would suggest a desire to drive away black customers because of racial animus. Charging women less than men suggests nothing comparable. No reasonable man is going to feel the sting of humiliation when a tavern offers women something he can't have. No reasonable woman is going to feel insulted by the differential treatment.

Only people with a rigidly dogmatic mindset and an aversion to reality could think ladies' nights are part of "the cancer of discrimination." But in New Jersey, unreasonableness rules.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Editor's Note: Steve Chapman is on vacation. The following column was originally published in June 2004.

Comments

Making a Joke:|9.18.08 @ 7:13AM|#

Jim Crow was just a way of driving up the value of interracial companionship.

|9.18.08 @ 7:40AM|#

To allow exceptions to the policy "would be to disregard its intended goal, which is nothing less than the eradication of the cancer of discrimination." [snip]

American history holds numerous examples of discrimination that are thoroughly malignant. This is not one of them.

Some cancers are benign.

Guy Montag|9.18.08 @ 7:40AM|#

Should it be illegal for bars to offer discounts to women?

No.

And establishments should be free to establish their own smoking, pricing and other policies as they see fit.

Tom G|9.18.08 @ 7:50AM|#

Ever since I heard of the first case like this in NJ a few years ago, I have wondered what sort of idiotic man actually wants to _discourage_ more women from going to the bars he frequents.

Also, what Guy Montag said. I agree completely.

|9.18.08 @ 8:17AM|#

Finally, a Chapman article that I can get behind.

Also, this is slightly relevant, especially since it is Jersey.

|9.18.08 @ 8:30AM|#

I have wondered what sort of idiotic man actually wants to _discourage_ more women from going to the bars he frequents.

Perhaps he'd be more comfortable in this type of establisment.

NTTAWWT.

|9.18.08 @ 8:31AM|#

Wow. Didn't realize that certain forms of discrimination are permissible as long as you only discriminate against the right people. All forms of discrimination are bad unless you discriminate against Guys or based on age (child and senior discounts). Or is it that you can discriminate as long as it is for the right reasons?

jtuf|9.18.08 @ 8:32AM|#

I disagree with the court ruling, but for a different reason. Law suites are only justified to prevent government discrimination. Private people and institutions has discriminate how ever they see fit. It's up people to eliminate private discrimination by voting with their dollars. If the plantif had started a boycott of bars with Ladies Night Out policies, I would cheer him on.

jtuf|9.18.08 @ 8:35AM|#

What if bar offered gift bags full of cosmetics to all customers one night a week?

Bingo|9.18.08 @ 8:44AM|#

Girls are gross and they have cooties! EWWWW!!!

Man From 2077|9.18.08 @ 8:45AM|#

Property rights was such an old-fashioned concept.

Nephilium|9.18.08 @ 8:49AM|#

jtuf:

Some bars that have been in cities that banned "Ladies Night" enacted either a Skirt or Dress night. Which has then been subverted by having guys go to the bars wearing kilts, dresses, and skirts.

Nephilium

[e-mail]|9.18.08 @ 8:50AM|#

I'm suprised it took this long for this case to gain notoriety. It happened back when McGreevey was governor.

In fairness to the government, the bar owners failed to appear at the hearing and, if I recall correctly, failed even to submit a position statement until it was too late. So Gillespie's claim was essentially unopposed.

The logical flaw in the government's logic was that this was not "discrimination," but a classic case of adjusting one's pricing to reflect the demand for one's product among a specific segment of the market. For good or ill, females are less inclined to partake of bar services, so in order to reach this segment of the market, the bar owners must lower their prices. This is not discrimination, but the operation of the free market. It is similar to senior citizen discounts at supermarkets (which NJ's discrimination laws expressly permit) or restaurants that offer "early bird" discounts to those who are willing to eat dinner at 4:30.

|9.18.08 @ 8:52AM|#

I'm suprised it took this long for this case to gain notoriety. It happened back when McGreevey was governor.

And, had you RTFA, you would have noticed that this is a reprint from 2004.

BB|9.18.08 @ 8:57AM|#

I think the point is to show that equal rights means equal rights for better or worse.

Sizzlechest|9.18.08 @ 8:57AM|#

The idea that these discounts to women is beneficial to men is wrong. They're attracting more women, but who says those women are going to meet someone from the opposite sex? Do the club owners have any actual evidence that men are more likely to "hook up" with these policies in place? If not, you cannot assume they have any effect other than discriminating against men.

|9.18.08 @ 9:14AM|#

NO NO NO
STOPIT STOPIT STOP IT

Stop running the retarded musings of Steve Chapman.

|9.18.08 @ 9:15AM|#

They're attracting more women, but who says those women are going to meet someone from the opposite sex?

What? Are you obtuse or just stupid?

adrian|9.18.08 @ 9:23AM|#

discrimination at a private place should be allowed on any basis. It is their property and their right to allow anyone on. This is one of the reasons Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act. It is a complete attack on private property rights.

Of course discrimination sucks, but in a free market the problem should solve itself.

Scott|9.18.08 @ 9:30AM|#

Sizzle - huh? It's a numbers game. The more numbers of girls in a bar means that guys have a better chance of meeting someone in a "target-rich environment". Besides, guys don't have to talk to any girls that show up for Ladies Night to get some benefit. Checking out a bunch of girls is a lot better than not having any girls to check out. It would be one hell of a boring bar if there were a hundred guys and one girl...who would likely leave if she was by herself.

That's why girls (especially pretty ones) get to cut in line in Vegas clubs. The managers are very aware of the girl to guy ratio. Too many guys...guys don't have anyone to flirt with, dance with, or ask out. Also, the few girls who are there don't want to be the only girls in a bar full of guys looking to flirt. Too many girls...never seems to be a problem. Managers are technically discriminating, but it's for everyone's benefit.

If I was a guy bar-hopping and looking to meet girls, I'd find a bar with a lot of girls in it. If the bar has to have free cover / free drinks / free whatever for girls to make that happen, then I'm all for it. Even if I wasn't looking to meet girls, I'd much rather have a mixed crowd than a sausagefest.

Seems to me the bonehead in the article was just itching to drum up some discrimination press and got his wish. If he had thought things through, he might have realized that the bar was doing all the guys a favor.

armchairpunter|9.18.08 @ 9:33AM|#

For Reason, this is a bit of "straining out gnats and swallowing camels." The real scandal is that courts and legislatures have for several decades taken it upon themselves to decide with whom one may fraternize (or "sororize") on one's own damned private property while peddling whatever one might choose to peddle at whatever price one might choose to charge. Once freedoms of association and private property are compromised, the sort of spectacle this article points to it just tragicomic aftermath.

|9.18.08 @ 9:34AM|#

It's not sex discrimination to bar men from women's locker rooms. It's not sex discrimination to let only females audition for the role of Juliet. It's not sex discrimination to roughly balance males and females in an entering college class. And it should not be sex discrimination to offer favors to one sex in order to benefit people of both sexes.

discriminate [v di-skrim-uh-neyt]
to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

In short, Steve Chapman is an idiot who doesn't know what words mean. Of course its sex discrimination to differentiate between men and women: that's what sex discrimination is. The question is not "is it sex discrimination to bar men from women's locker rooms?" (it is, you moron!) but "is sex a reasonable quality to discriminate upon in the given circumstances?", or more simply, "should we care?".

I'm with Warren, can we be rid of this schmuck's retarded musings?

Alan|9.18.08 @ 9:40AM|#

RE: Discrimination at a private place...

The law prohibits discrimination in offering a public accommodation, not in a "private place." When an establishment that is open to and serves the public discriminates against a racial minority, and this is tolerated by the legal establishment, it puts that minority into the position of being less than a free and equal member of society. This is the meaning of the phrase "second class citizenship."

Those of us who are advocates of freedom and equality need to be very clear and unequivocal in our opposition to discrimination and intolerance of this sort.

As far as the free market somehow magically "solving the problem itself" rather than reflecting the prejudices of its paying customers, exhibit A: men pay more on ladies night.

|9.18.08 @ 9:45AM|#

Yes,we can blame this whole issue on liberal women of 'NOW'! They want equality between men and women. It's plain and simple.

|9.18.08 @ 9:47AM|#

Josh, you are right, and you make a good point, but you are a bit harsh. The term "discrimination" often means "pernicious discrimination" and carries a perjorative connotation in informal discourse. You're going to have to get used to that, or you won't be effective at communicating with a broad public.

|9.18.08 @ 9:58AM|#

David Gillespie may be an unlikely Rosa Parks
Any relation to Nick?

That last sentence brings to mind what Oscar Wilde said about an emotional scene in Charles Dickens' "The Old Curiosity Shop": "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing."
Actually, the quote is: "One would have to have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without dissolving into tears...of laughter." Notice how much less ham-handed and more applicable it is in the original.

It's not sex discrimination to bar men from women's locker rooms. It's not sex discrimination to let only females audition for the role of Juliet. It's not sex discrimination to roughly balance males and females in an entering college class.
Well yes, in fact all those things ARE sex discrimination. They just happen to discriminate against what we believe to be the privileged sex, and therefore have societies blessing (With the exception of Juliet. Discrimination of all manners in acting has been allowed to go unchecked). Note that female reporters can not be barred from men's locker rooms.

But context is crucial, and relations between the sexes are different from relations between the races. We don't accept racially segregated restrooms, but we do accept sexually segregated restrooms. All-white colleges would be offensive, but all-female schools are not.
Totally off planet. Sex and race are treated different, but that's hardly the point. The fact is, what matters most is "whose ox is being gored". Discrimination laws generally allow for favoring what is perceived to be the underprivileged class. All-white colleges are offensive, but all-black schools are not. All-female colleges are not offensive, but all males schools are.

Context Of course is crucial. Ladies night is not a problem that needs correcting. But Chapman is no where near any of the relevant context. There are larger issues here regarding property rights and equal protection, but Chapman won't, or more likely can't, stretch his infantile mind far enough to grapple with them.

adrian|9.18.08 @ 9:58AM|#

alan: If you advocate freedom, then you should see that the owner of a private establishment (even if open to the public) should be FREE to serve whoever they want.

|9.18.08 @ 10:07AM|#

Adrian, it would be a bit hard to make the case in a "hit and run" blog post, but it is my belief that an establishment that is open to the public is not a private establishment. This is, indeed, a distinction that is made in law, and, I believe, for good reason.

Like I said, it would be hard to do more than make the assertion here, but I hope you will be open to thinking about it, because racial discrimination is not only hurtful to individuals, it is also an ideology that supports collectivism and authoritarianism in society.

|9.18.08 @ 10:09AM|#

Another positive liberty advocate has stumbled his way into Hit & Run.

Given the topic, it was inevitable.

Bill Scott|9.18.08 @ 10:17AM|#

Well, obviously the way to do this is to offer discounts for "people" wearing skirts, lipstick, and other feminine regalia. If some bozo wants to show up in a kilt, let him.

|9.18.08 @ 10:33AM|#

I also support the dress discount idea, but then I've been looking for an excuse to go out in a dress for ages.

|9.18.08 @ 10:37AM|#

Charging whites less than blacks would suggest a desire to drive away black customers because of racial animus. Charging women less than men suggests nothing comparable.

Why not?

Of course, racial discrimination had nothing to do with discriminatory prices; it was outright refusal to provide service at any price, and/or outright ejection from the premises.

We just need to frame this in a Progressive context: a favored group (females) is being subsidized by the larger, and less favored (male), group. Hence, the transfer of wealth from male to female may be construed as a desirable outcome.

Mad Max|9.18.08 @ 10:40AM|#

"When it comes to relations between the sexes, a little common sense goes a long way. It's not sex discrimination to bar men from women's locker rooms. It's not sex discrimination to let only females audition for the role of Juliet. It's not sex discrimination to roughly balance males and females in an entering college class. And it should not be sex discrimination to offer favors to one sex in order to benefit people of both sexes."

Of course it's discrimination - but (except perhaps for the college example) it's *good* discrimination. Just as it's good discrimination for the Department of Motor Vehicles to deny driver's licenses to blind people. At worst, it's a judgment call to be made by the people doing the discriminating. A director could have a woman play Juliet, or could have a boy do it, as in Shakespeare's time, and it ought not to be the business of the New Jersey Department of Doing Stupid Shit.

Even if the discrimination is the bad kind (a White Night or African-American Night down at the local bar), then as long as it's a private establishment, it's not *automatically* the government's job to step in (it may be in extreme circumstances).

Rosa Parks protested segregation on *city-owned* buses, not private buses, although this distinction later became lost on the civil rights movement.

Now, with apologies to Kool and the Gang, let me give a version of the song "Ladies' Night."

Oh yes it's ladies night
And they think it's right
To discriminate
Oh, what an awful sight!

Dagny T.|9.18.08 @ 10:54AM|#

Finally, a Chapman article that I can get behind.

Or in front, on top, underneath...

*rimshot*

|9.18.08 @ 11:03AM|#

i question whether david gillespie or anyone else who would challenge a "ladies night" is a truly virile, red-blooded american male.

|9.18.08 @ 11:04AM|#

Or in front, on top, underneath...

Such a dirty mind. Which is good!

|9.18.08 @ 11:06AM|#

If some bozo wants to show up in a kilt, let him.

I tell you now, I am that bozo. Chicks dig kilts. Actually, guys usually do too.

Actually, I'd like to complain about the club that rejected me for wearing a kilt, and the unconscionable bias against non-bifurcated men's clothing and my Scottish heritage shown by the bouncer and the club owner.

Sure, they had the right to turn me away, but dick move, guys.

...it ought not to be the business of the New Jersey Department of Doing Stupid Shit

Man, I really hate that agency.

|9.18.08 @ 11:27AM|#

So is the take away message from this is that the LP should not charge women membership fees?

truthbetold|9.18.08 @ 11:36AM|#

"Parks rebelled because, being black, she was told to ride in the back of an Alabama bus while whites got to sit up front"

This isn't exactly true. The Montgomery buses had a movable placard that designated the black section from the white. If there were more blacks than whites then the placard would be moved toward the front to make more room in the black section. Parks was actually sitting in the black section, in the seat right behind this placard. When the white guy got on the bus he came and told her to move out of this seat and let him have it. This is what she refused to do. She didn't refuse to "move to the back of the bus" as it's so often stated. She refused to give up her seat, which was in the black section, to a white customer. She said, "I paid for this seat and I'm not giving it up". When the bus driver confronted her and she still refused that's when the police were called. Also, though what she did was brave, she wasn't some poor maid with sore feet on her way home from work. She was a secretary who worked for the local office of the NAACP. So I think she knew she would have backup when she did what she did. Her husband was a member of the Porters Union and they were the ones who actually started the boycott. King was brought in a little later to lead when it had started to gain momentum.

adrian|9.18.08 @ 11:55AM|#

alan: so then could a membership only club give memberships to only white people? Or is this still considered private but public?

Dagny T.|9.18.08 @ 12:04PM|#

Such a dirty mind.

Yes. Also, I couldn't resist going for such an easy one.

Kolohe|9.18.08 @ 12:21PM|#

It's not sex discrimination to let only females audition for the role of Juliet.

Ironic (?) example, as back in the day, females were in fact barred to audition for the role of Juliet.

It's not sex discrimination to roughly balance males and females in an entering college class

Um, as Warren said, yes it is, unless this balance occurs spontaneously. Whether it is *right* is another matter.

Nick|9.18.08 @ 12:37PM|#

Just to throw a wrench in the whole machine, what if the bar owner decided that his bar would benefit from getting more racial minorities, and therefore gives racial minorities half-off pricing? Would Steve Chapman still think this is "common sense" discrimination? Colleges do it all the time in the name of "diversity." What about the reverse - if a bar wanted to attract more white people?

The word "discrimination" has gotten a bad rap but the word itself should not have a negative connotation, per se. We "discriminate" when we decide to go with the Mars bar instead of the Snickers bar. We discriminate when we pick a girlfriend or boyfriend we find attractive over someone who we don't.

Companies that discriminate against certain biological groups are the only ones that suffer because by treating groups differently, they are less likely for the punished groups to frequent their business. Thomas Sowell documented how many companies pre-Jim Crow in the Deep South did not treat blacks any different than whites. Segregation forced them to change. The railcar system in some cities even refused to enforce the laws when they came into effect until forced to do so. This is because the laws hurt businesses financially. Having to build separate restrooms for black men and women and white men and women? What a waste of money! Telling half your customers that they're not welcome? Stupid!

What incentive does any business have to put negative discrimination in place? All it will do is keep customers from coming in, and the few who might because of the discrimination will be far outweighed by those who won't (the groups being targeted and the sympathizers in the non-targeted group). In a laissez faire system within a highly educated society, I would bet that negative discriminators would be shut out of the market by consumers, thus egalitarian businesses would take the market share of the discriminators.

We are debating ridiculous things like this case because the Civil Rights Act and many similar legislations have confused the gap between the public and the private, and made it to where the government is now making what was once self-determined operating decisions of business into federal mandates. Of course, there's nothing politicians can do about it without being branded as racist/sexist/anti-civil rights, and thus political correctness rules the day instead of common sense.

|9.18.08 @ 12:49PM|#

"Yes,we can blame this whole issue on liberal women of 'NOW'! They want equality between men and women. It's plain and simple."


If this were true, and society became absolutely equal to both women and men, in every way... well, everyone loses. How truly sad (and boring). Count me out.

|9.18.08 @ 12:53PM|#

What about the reverse - if a bar wanted to attract more white people?

Play more Moby.

|9.18.08 @ 2:19PM|#

Alan | September 18, 2008, 9:47am | #
Josh, you are right, and you make a good point, but you are a bit harsh. The term "discrimination" often means "pernicious discrimination" and carries a perjorative connotation in informal discourse. You're going to have to get used to that, or you won't be effective at communicating with a broad public.

Yes, I'm well aware of that, which is why I attack it at every opportunity. Using "discrimination" to mean "pernicious discrimination" is essentially a form of begging the question: it manipulates people's emotions and gut reactions to get them to think that something is bad without actually having to argue the point. If the broad public is falling for it it's because they're morons, and I would prefer the articles I read on reason to be aimed a little higher than "moron".

Sizzlechest|9.18.08 @ 3:01PM|#

[i]Besides, guys don't have to talk to any girls that show up for Ladies Night to get some benefit. Checking out a bunch of girls is a lot better than not having any girls to check out. It would be one hell of a boring bar if there were a hundred guys and one girl...who would likely leave if she was by herself.[/i]

Yeah, stand around and look at pretty women, chat them up with inane conversation, buy them drinks you really can't afford, and then go home by yourself. It's every guy's wet dream.

Face it; it's a shell game they're playing. It's not my fault most men are too stupid to realize it.

Dello|9.18.08 @ 3:50PM|#

"Face it; it's a shell game they're playing. It's not my fault most men are too stupid to realize it."

I don't care if having more women in my club is a net benefit to men: I care that more women in my club is a net benefit to my profits. Having a ladies night with low/no cover and discount drinks brings in patrons that otherwise WOULD NOT BE THERE. Any profit I make is more than I would otherwise.

Plus, these same folks may come in on other nights if they like my place.

Ladies night is a loss-leader.

St. V|9.18.08 @ 4:44PM|#

This isn't discrimination! This is a few pissy males bitching over nothing! I'm sure the gay bar down the street has an "assless chaps" night that these whiners can attend.

Let the ladies have their booze, and don't question me as I drag them to my van...

Sizzlechest|9.18.08 @ 5:01PM|#

I don't care if having more women in my club is a net benefit to men: I care that more women in my club is a net benefit to my profits.

You could make the same argument about giving a discount to white patrons. White people, in general, spend more and have lower incidents of violent crime. Do you agree?

duster|9.18.08 @ 7:24PM|#

dude could just be teh gey, or think so poorly of himself that he doesn't feel he has a chance no matter how many women there are, or married.

In any case, he should just accept his lot instead of being a douche about it....

armchairpunter|9.18.08 @ 8:56PM|#

"Public accommodation" is a fancy way of saying "private property the government decides to control". If I can exclude everyone from my property, I should be able to exclude anyone from my property. Would I patronize an establishment that excluded others on the basis of race? No.

Dello|9.18.08 @ 9:52PM|#

"You could make the same argument about giving a discount to white patrons. White people, in general, spend more and have lower incidents of violent crime. Do you agree?"

White patrons will show up anyway, and spend more money. Why would I give a discount to people who are predisposed to spend?

Loss-leaders are to bring in the people who otherwise wouldn't be there.

|9.18.08 @ 10:57PM|#

"Public accommodation" is a fancy way of saying "private property the government decides to control"

That's not true. If the government decides to control your house, it would not therefore make it a public accommodation. In fact, your house is, to a great extent, is controlled by the government, but since you are not offering it as an accommodation to the public, it is not controlled in the way a public accommodation is.

You can invite or exclude anyone you want from your house. But if you offer rooms to the public, then you are responsible to the public, an you may not discriminate on the basis of race.

|9.18.08 @ 11:15PM|#

RE: What incentive does any business have to put negative discrimination in place?

The same incentive any business has for catering to a niche market.

Beyond that, however, racists are motivated by a self-righteous, ideological hatred, so they don't always behave in ways that might be predicted by a free-market analysis.

Amazed|9.19.08 @ 5:44AM|#

I'm always amazed at the number of men who think it's great to pay for women to show up at a bar, so the men can go out and pay for them on dates, so they can marry them and pay for them for the rest of their lives.

Just go to a prostitute if you feel so worthless that you only have money to offer a woman.

And I won't even get started on what I think about women who will only talk to men (or more, depending on the price) for money.

Charging men and not charging women is sex discrimination. Although I agree that the government (i.e. the courts) should leave private establishments alone, if the government is hot about breaking apart any men-only arrangements, then you have to apply it where women get an advantage.

Lajaw|9.19.08 @ 1:50PM|#

If I own a property/business, why can't I discriminate against who I will? If I don't like you, I should be able to keep you out. If there was a true free market, then the market would take care of me and my discriminating ways. Wouldn't it?

Alan|9.19.08 @ 6:32PM|#

Lajaw, as I mentioned above, we should not expect the free market to "take care of" racial discrimination in public accommodations and housing.

The reason is that there are economic incentives for businesses to cater to niche markets. This is one of the free market's strengths. Racists are a "niche market" and there would be plenty of like minded bigots who would be only too happy to set up and patronize a local Ku Klux Klan Klub. The fact that this would cause a lot of pain and humiliation for African Americans would only add to its value for them.

Indeed, racists are motivated by a self-righteous, ideological hatred, so they don't always behave in ways that might be predicted by a strict free-market analysis. The pain and suffering they cause would be enough reward, even if it wasn't a going concern.

This isn't an economic problem, it is a mater of justice and equality for all citizens.

Alan|9.20.08 @ 12:22AM|#

RE: So then could a membership only club give memberships to only white people? Or is this still considered private but public?

Since I am not a lawyer and don't keep up with the exact state of the law at any one time, I cannot give a completly accurate answer to this question. However, it is my understanding that, within a very circumscribed set of rules, a private club or oraganization can indeed practice racial discrimination.

Obviously, such discrimination is looked down upon and it is my understanding that various regulations are used to squeeze as hard as possible. For instance, if anyone talks about or conducts business on the club's property, it may no longer be considered a private club and therfore would have to quit discriminating. There may also be limits on the club size, on the theory that a club with, say, hundreds of members most of whom hardly know each other personally can't be considered a "private" club.

The big exception is for political or religious organizations that are public in nature but exist strictly for the purpose of advocating a specific ideology or theology. If the ideology is intrinsicly racist, the organization may limit membership in the interest of protecting their free speach rights. Thus the KKK can prohibit African Americans from joining.

Alan|9.20.08 @ 12:41AM|#

Adrian, Lajaw, armchairpunter, I've published a more extensive analysis of the concept of a "public accomidation" and it's importance to freedom and equality on my web site:

http://contradictum.blogspot.com/

It seemed a bit too long for a comment.

|9.20.08 @ 11:34AM|#

You wonder what benefit the "offended" plaintiff got from this lawsuit. Has anyone considered that he's homosexual, and that's why he prefers bars which are nothing more than "sausage fests"?

Street Wise|9.20.08 @ 2:34PM|#

JR, it was performance art. That being the case, he was definitly gay.

|9.21.08 @ 2:07AM|#

Of course it's discrimination. But as it's a private business, who cares? Let them discriminate as they wish.

Same goes for companies that don't wish to hire women or blacks. As long as the companies are privately owned, what business is it of the government (or anyone else?)

|9.21.08 @ 2:09AM|#

>
> Has anyone considered that he's homosexual, and
> that's why he prefers bars which are nothing
> more than "sausage fests"?
>

If that were true, so what?

The law is the law. Sometimes, the best way to make an ass of the law is to force everyonde to actually follow it.

|9.21.08 @ 8:52AM|#

I have wondered what sort of idiotic man actually wants to _discourage_ more women from going to the bars he frequents.

A guy who doesn't want icky girls around him when he goes drinking. In which case, there are any number of gay bars he can go to instead. If he's gay himself, so much the better for him. If he doesn't want to be hit on by gay guys, he can drink at home. Or open up his own bar.

Personally, as a male, I approve of any bar policy that increases the "hot drunk girls: me" ratio.

And yes, regardless of what the current law is (and it's fucked up and overcomplicated, is what it is), a privately owned bar should be able to discriminated on the basis of sex, race, shoe size, or whatever stupid reason the owner wants. True, in most cases discriminating on race would be a dick move with the stink of racism on it, but that's okay. Maybe it will cost the owner the business of right-thinking tolerant folks. At the very least, it will mean the most hard-core racists will tend to gather in the same spot, where they can be avoided. That's not so bad.

Anti-Stevo|9.21.08 @ 5:39PM|#

"A guy who doesn't want icky girls around him when he goes drinking."

--

That's cuz you're a hard guy who sees the value in paying for women to pay attention to you. Those other guys with partners as wives (partners who earn well) are not hanging out in bars trying to get fat Lulu to talk to them by giving them money.

You hard guys know what it's all about.

But if I were going to a bar to drink, I'd say that it should probably treat people equally. I agree that gubment shouldn't be sticking its nose into it; I'm saying that I would not want a bar to charge me more based on a personal characteristic.

But God love you hard guys. Otherwise golddiggers would have to grow up and get a real job.

|9.22.08 @ 9:40AM|#

Whatever you think of the justness of the law, fact is smaller fees for girls does not equall "more drunk hot girls for me". That's wishfull thinking. Most girls are prefectly happy to put the "I'm the Prize" look, go out, pay less then men, get free drinks from men, get attention from men, and then leave home alone in groups, with no men. They will at most give an exceptionall male their (true) number, and choose later what to do with it. They also reserve the right to reject the unwanted (the "EWWW!"s) in any rude manner.
And men sponsor this behaviour, in more ways than one.

|9.22.08 @ 12:09PM|#

Any male that has a problem with this is a moron, forget all the blather I've read above; we're talking about what makes life worth living. Unless you smoke dick or have a secret desire to smoke dick, who doesn't prefer to go to an establishment with a good supply of women?

I suppose you could be muslim, but then you shouldn't be drinking anyway.

|9.23.08 @ 10:11PM|#

Just atke any of the arguments above and reverse the genders and see if it still seems right. "Why should women pay more to go to a bar where there are plenty of men, and the have a good chance of meeting a guy?" Here's a hint guys, women like guys just as much as guys like women. Stop acting and thinking like you are inferior and have to lull women into accepting you.

|9.24.08 @ 2:15PM|#

If you don't like bars with Ladies' Nights, go to bars that don't have them.

If you don't like bars with smoking, go to bars that don't allow it.

If you don't like bars with white people, go to bars where white people don't go.

None of these things require government intervention.

This is all so g-d simple I can't figure out why the rest of you can't figure it out.