Ladies' Nights Ruled Legal, But Still Sexist?

I LOVE it! I pay my bitches a little more than half what I pay my men employees. They complain, but I'll be hanging this story up in the staffroom Monday morning. The guys will see a nice entertainment stipend in their checks from now on too. PLUS, I'll be looking for an insurance company that offers a policy with no prescription coverage for birth control. I'll not provide paid leave for childbirth either, unless you're a man!

Ahhhhhhh. It really is a man's world and I love it!

Hollander is a fool, the Supreme Court invalidated his "they have a liquor license therefore the government condones discrimination" theory with the Moose Lodge v. Irvis case in 1972.

If I ever open a bar, I'll definitely have Muslim Night:

ALL OBSERVANT MUSLIMS DRINK FOR FREE

Hollander had a valid point, but blew it by being a douchebag.

His rants against "militant feminists" (as if they concentrated on making successful bars for drunk women to meet drunk horny men) make you question his choices in medications.

Women pay more for haircuts and drycleaning.

haha. If they can differentiate by gender, they should definitely charge different fess by skin color.

All women under 100lbs should drink for fee. 101-120 half price. !21 & up move above 125th & hope chubby-chasers spent their stacks of $20s on them.

"Yes, I do subscribe to Barely Legal, why do you ask?"

maybe he should just stick to regular bars like real men

Or maybe he should just stick to gay bars.

Bottoms drink free on Thursdays!

"It does not matter whether the nightclubs charge males or females or blacks or Latins or any other identifiable group more for admission—it is now constitutional."

Since he's apparently not very good with lawyer stuff, I'll summarize for him what the court actually said: The law he cited in his suit does not apply to bars and nightclubs, as their admission policies are not formulated with government authority.

I'm too lazy to read the decision. But if you wanna indulge me and the audience, how is this not a blatant violation of the state and city human rights laws?

These are public accommodations, so how can they justify charging a different price based strictly on gender?

We'll never know, unless someone chooses to challenge the practice under those laws. In this case, his was a "section 1983" suit -- arguing that under federal law (42 U.S.C. section 1983, aka "The Civil Rights Act of 1871"), the establishment is liable for civil damages due to its discriminatory practices.

But there's a catch: that law specifically addresses discrimination that takes place under color of state or local law. The decision essentially says that holding a state-issued liquor license doesn't make a business an agent of the state, and that the liquor license isn't the reason behind the discriminatory action.

As for the city Human Rights Law, it's hard for me in reading it to imagine a judge finding it applicable. That type of decision would, as I see it, have to equate the different pricing as an indirect attempt to withhold services from males. Seems to me a hard argument to make, since it's pretty clear that the intent is generally the exact opposite of that. Take it in front of a judge, though, and who knows?

That's the best argument for ladies night being nondiscriminatory that I've seen. Thanks.

Now let's scramble around for a minute for a rebuttal of that logical stance... It's not discriminating against men because men get the benefit of all the extra lady folks around, so is it discriminating against gay men who don't realize either benefit?

Everyone involved knows its sexist...bit it's cool cos everyone wins so we all ignore it.

Which is what Hollander should have done.

Men getting paid a lot more than women for equal work is still legal too, right? As long as I continue to get paid more, I don't really care.

The more women in the bar/club the better, who cares what promo brings them in. Dan crawl back into your hole.

Why is Hollander trying to ruin a good thing?