About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 8:21pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Someone should take this Den bugger and smack him on the side of the head with a frying pan - preferably cast iron......



Post 1

Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 9:35pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
hilarious! thanks.



Post 2

Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 11:21pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Well said, Robert!

This is yet another example of one's chickens coming home to roost and of the unintended consequences of the so-called 1964 "Civil Rights" Act -- "so-called," because it is a violation of true civil rights -- a clear infringement on the rights to freedom of choice, freedom of association, and private property. Yet no one with any political clout has come forward to challenge this travesty of justice. The reason, of course, is that the current misconception of civil rights is a fait accompli. Anyone who dares object to it is immediately branded a racist. Yet these very "rights" have given rise to legally mandated racial preferences and to absurd lawsuits like the one by Roy Den Hollander.

What the New York nightclubs are doing by giving women discounts on drinks and admission does indeed violate our current laws against discrimination -- which is another reason why these laws should be repealed -- but charging women different prices from men is no different in principle than what restaurants and movie theaters do when they give senior citizens discounts on meals and movies, which is technically ageism or age discrimination. The next thing you know, some attorney will be suing restaurants and movie theaters for violating the civil rights of non-seniors.

A lawsuit against "ladies night" is what you get when you pass "civil rights" legislation that outlaws discrimination by private business -- that and such crimes as not allowing cabbies to pass up potentially dangerous passengers. Then, of course, there's racial quotas and racial preferences which are both an infringement on and an effect of, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (see my article on "The True Meaning of Civil Rights"). These are the moral absurdities that arise from the government's attempt to dictate people's choices by outlawing private discrimination.

- Bill






Post 3

Friday, July 27, 2007 - 7:26amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill,

You just mentioned civil right actions being a "fait accompli."  Just so happens I read this timely and cogent article that explains it all (http://www.mises.org/story/2643).  It's a disappointing situation...if only we could educate enough people on how this works, and emphasize that this method of "getting what you want," is ultimately destructive.




Post 4

Friday, July 27, 2007 - 8:13amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
As a hotel and restaurant owner, I specifically vetoed an idea by my staff to have a ladies night at my restaurant/bar precisely because I was a afraid of opening up myself to a lawsuit. It is frustrating to no end.




Post 5

Friday, July 27, 2007 - 9:00amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I don't want to mixed posts, however has anyone thought of what a 'transgender' does in this situation?

'It's ladies night folks!' 'Hey, I'm a lady.'

or

'This is a mens club.' 'Just because I wear a dress doesn't mean I'm not a man!'



Post 6

Friday, July 27, 2007 - 12:05pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
George,

This phenomenon of concentrated benefits to a minority of interested parties and of dispersed costs to a majority of taxpayers who have little stake in opposing a particular law or measure is a well recognized principle in "public choice economics," which is now part of the curriculum at many universities. Hopefully, this kind of education will influence public policy decisions in the future. So there's some reason for optimism.

- Bill



Post 7

Monday, July 30, 2007 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
     Wonder if there'd be any money in just opening up a 'Ladies Club' place that most males wouldn't be interested in (unless they had a Gentleman's Night)?

     Hmmm...buisness worries aside, this stupid suit certainly kiboshes that idea, as per Armaos.

LLAP
J:D




Post 8

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 2:01amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
No one has mentioned the whole point of "Ladies' Night" at a night club:
 
To attract hordes of single, attractive ladies...whose presence, in turn, attracts hordes of single, attractive men eager to meet them and buy them drinks. 

"Ladies' Night" at the clubs doesn't exist for chivalrous reasons..which is why I'm sort of surprised it's being challenged. It's always been a time-honored part of the mating dance between men and women! What the hell is wrong with this dude? 

Wonder if there'd be any money in just opening up a 'Ladies Club' place that most males wouldn't be interested in (unless they had a Gentleman's Night)? (John D.)

Most Guys don't go out to see other guys, and most girls don't go out to see other girls. (And the ones that do already have Ladies' Only and Men's Only nightclubs, if you catch my drift.) So I'm not sure I'm following you here, John.

Now, I have seen "Ladies' Day" promotions at carwashes, and oil change places, and such. The reasons have to be different for offering such deals---guys don't go to Jiffy Lube to meet girls---I always assumed it was just some smart marketing strategy: "If none of the other garages are offering a similar deal, I can make Soccer Mom feel special on 'Ladies' Tuesdays' and she'll always bring her minivan into my shop"--- that kind of thing. 

Of course, intent aside, all special considerations offered to specific groups would be fall under the same legal guidelines, like Bill Dwyer said, and could definitely include the discounted coffee for senior citizens at McDonald's. I'm just surprised that someone went after a nightclub example, not a Jiffy Lube example first, I guess. The men in the nightclubs aren't exactly being harmed...there is something in it for them, after all: more women in attendance. ;-)

(Which is the point.)

Erica




Post 9

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 8:16pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Erica:

     Hmmm...guess I've been out of the (sub-)cultural loop for too long. Chalk it up to moi being married; one can't be a casanova, a brain-surgeon and an underground arms-dealer simultaneously in life, I guess.

     I always thought Ladies' Night really meant (barring a good bribe to the 'doorman') Ladies ONLY.

     Guess I'm discussing  territory out of my league...now. Interesting, ntl.

LLAP
J:D




Post 10

Tuesday, July 31, 2007 - 8:40pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Oh no John, Ladies night is an effort to get the guys out to your bar to look at the ladies. Men spend more money on liquor than women do so whatever a bar can do to get the guys out they do it. I wish I could try that with my bar but no way would I risk a lawsuit and having my insurance company pissed at me.

Oh and you left out moonlighting as a secret government spy. Are you trying to be modest with us now?




Post 11

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 3:55pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What if you just had one night where all "Girly Drinks" are half off?



Post 12

Wednesday, August 1, 2007 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Oh my - would I be downing the strawberry daquiris.........;-)



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.