Judge kicks out ladies night lawsuit
We read:
"It's closing time for a lawsuit alleging ladies nights at nightclubs discriminate against men. Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum tossed the lawsuit out of federal court in Manhattan on Monday. She said nightclubs may price their products as they wish because they're not acting as representatives of the state."
Source
12 comments:
Let's try having a "guys' night" and watch the fireworks.
Of course the same judge would have to be arranged to preside over the case...
"She said nightclubs may price their products as they wish because they're not acting as representatives of the state.""
does this mean that I can charge illegal immigrants more since I am not representing the state?
lets ask BHO
how about I pay women less than men? It's not representative of the government according to the judge
How is this different from senior citizen discounts? Charging me more than a senior citizen is age discrimination.
I wonder what would have happened with a male judge? Females lack the common sense gene needed for rational thought.
Guys
Get real, the purpose of half price drinks for gals, isn’t to give the gals a break, it is to get the gals into the bar, because every bartender knows that when there are gals there, the guys are going to follow, and the guys will then be buying the drinks trying to get lucky.
We can even use pure knowledge to give the gals a break, as the great statesman Hillary Clinton said, broads only earn 78% of what the guys make, so charging the less for drinks is only fair!
Mobius
Mobius,
While some of the comments on this have been over the top, the case is actually valid.
A few years ago, a similar case was launched by a woman in NY city saying that the amount she pays to get her hair cut should be the same as that of a man. Despite the fact that hairdressors lined up saying that it takes more time to cut women's hair, and that women's hair styles are generally more intricate and therefore more time consuming, the judge ruled that one price had to be charged for all. They found that that different prices were discriminatory.
The same thing happened with a dry cleaning suit. A woman sued saying that her being charged more to have a blouse cleaned than a man gets charged to have a shirt cleaned is wrong. Even though the cleaners presented evidence of silk blouses taking more time and care to clean and therefore more costs, the dry cleaners were told "one price for all."
Now here is this case that seems to go against the previous rulings. This judge is saying that the business has the right to price things as they want.
That's fine and dandy as well. As noted elsewhere, that means that as a business, I don't have to openly discriminate against anyone - I can just charge them more. If I don't want to have women in my gym, I can charge men a $50 fee to join and women $1000. If I don't want a certain ethnicity to eat at my restaurant, I can charge the group I want $10 per meal, and the "undesirable" group $30.
All perfectly legal according to this judge.
The problem, of course, is that what you said makes perfect sense and is quite logical. Businesses should be able to run their business without interference from the government. But yet there have been previous rulings where the government has said they can demand equal pricing.
There is a caveat here. The ruling is based, in part, on the idea that the guy sued the government as well because they issued the liquor license to the bar. Most legal commentators have said the suit wouldhave succeeded if he had only sued the bar / club and kept the government out of it.
Either way, it is an interesting commentary on what we think is the law not being equally applied to all.
Perhaps you can get a better understanding of the cases Mobius quoted when you realize the judges in question were in NYC. Judges in NYC are not known for being rational, or all that knowledgeable of the law. They "enjoy" one of the highest rates of overturned decisions in the nation!
BTW, in NYC, women still pay more for their haircuts and dry cleaning, as it should be!
Coming to a local bar near you:
"Gay night"
Don't let them push in your stool.
"Big Dick night"
The bigger your dick, the more drinks you get for free.
"Negro night"
(See above)
"White Male Christian night"
You won't be drinking, but we'll still recognize you.
"Illegal Immigrant night"
There's a van waiting in the back with a designated driver to take you "home".
As I recall, there was an identical case tried a few years ago in Hawaii which resulted in an exactly opposite outcome.
Heh.
"She said nightclubs may price their products as they wish because they're not acting as representatives of the state."
Someone should take this ruling and show it to all those people who protest "Affirmative Action Cookie Sales."
@Mike Pechar: Ain't states rights fun?!?
Post a Comment