Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?
 

LINKY LINKY

This ruling, and anti-descrimination policy in general, cause me actual physical pain from rolling my eyes so hard. If there were no such legislation does anyone actually think that 100% of bars would have "No Blacks, Jews, Fags" signs in their windows and expect to stay in business? Is it truly the business of the government to make sure that everyone can buy their eggs at the same store? This particular ruling is laughable to me, and I'm willing to bet that whoever is responsible is going to get a bunch of angry letters from guys with blue-balls, heh.

i've got no problem with it sounds fair to me. why should women pay less(or nothing) to get into the same establishment as men? so men can offer them drink after drink, in order to get their pants down?

Re: Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?
 

Not sure what the posted article has to do with your point, but...

If there was no legislation, there would be more than 0, and that, to me, is too many. And yes - it is the government's business to make sure "everyone can buy their eggs at the same store" - not necessarily the federal government, but the city council, county board, the state government all have a role in insuring things like that don't happen.

Taking it out of the scope of the government, and hoping it goes away by itself, is overreachingly optimistic, at least in my state. I suppose Minnesota is better off that way (even if it is 95% white and doesn't have to worry about such things).

I agree that this is technically discrimination, but I think straight men want women at bars and don't mind this sort of thing. Still, in for a penny, in for a pound.

The Supreme Court protects ethnicity, color, creed under strict scrutiny which basically means no bar can discriminate.

Gender however has "heightened" scrutiny, but you are still allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender as long as it is "reasonable." This is a stupid law, everyone knows cheaper drinks for lady's is fine and reasonable but whatever.

Meh, I don't care either way. Courts go both ways on this issue. If you roll your eyes painfully over this, I feel sorry for you. :)

Not a big deal to me either way.

Come to think of it, clubs only do this to attract more men and more money so it's that discrimination?

Is this a troll?

How is that reasonable? It's reasonable because the establishement's owner wants me to come and spend more money because I think I can get a drunk chick to come home with me because I have a small penis and I need to prove myself to my friends who also all have very small penises? Meh. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

I don't really drink, for a lot of reasons, but even if I did I wouldn't approve of "lady's nights." I DO believe it's discrimination (I wouldn't go so far as to take it to court, but that's another matter...), and trying to argue that it's not is just silly. It's the very DEFINITION of discrimination. More to the point, however, I don't agree with the principle behind it. It's designed by men and for men. That women get free drinks is just a clever device to further men's interests, and I think it's a foul manifestation of misogyny.

But maybe that's just me.

What gives a government the right to deny a bar of the right to institute a policy that is widely accepted, hurts nobody, and increases their number of paying customers, and therefore makes teh business more successful?

If you want to reduce discriminations, look at the poor school districts that snake thorugh minority neighborhoods, conveniently looping around, but not including, the individual caucasian households in those neighborhoods, which are included in caucasian-only schools.

Re: Re: Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?
 

..on the other hand, making it a priority for government is excessively pessimistic. If a group of friends is looking for a bar/grocery store/disco to go to and encounter one that won't let their black friend in, guess what? They go elsewhere, thereby boycotting that establishment. If they tell friends and family about that establishment, and take the time to stand outside handing out fliers, they can change the establishment's policy by directly affecting their bottom-line.

Social inequality should be dealt with by means of citizen founded and run groups, not the almighty wrath of government legislation. Educate the people of the city/state/country about the importance equality, don't simply impose more vague and condescending laws upon them. We need more grassroots involvement in social issues, not less.

Lastly, Minnesota is 88.2% white, as of the 2000 census. :)

No, this is a troll:
http://www.columbian.com/outerlimits/troll.jpg
That poor bastard should have just purchased some pussy repellant and saved the system a lot of time and effort.

I agree with the ruling. Equal is equal. You don't get to pick and choose based on gender, race, religion, etc what prices you will charge. It's just as unacceptable as charging Hispanics more to get into a club so fewer will come.

It wouldn't surprise me if the next challenge will be to bars who only allow men over the age of 25 to enter while allowing women 21 and older in (or in some cases 18 and older).

Re: Re: Re: Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?
 

You're joking, right? Where's the /sarcasm tag?

This is specifically what the civil rights movement was about. Establishing the fact that govt. has an interest in people being treated equally, regaredless of their race, creed or sex. While it's true that we're not 100% perfect at not descriminating all the time, it's no reason to not try to eliminate discrimination where it exists. Including bars.

I don't want to engage in personal attacks, but you should probably pick up a book on the history of the civil rights movement. It was a disturbing time. People were fighting for the right to be treated equally. And I don't mean handing out flyers, I mean fighting and dying. You seem to ignore that completelty.

I still think you're a troll. Bringing race into it?? And how could anyone not know why the government has an interest in non-discrimination?

How ladies night different from affirmative action? Men are more likely to get laid with ladies night than with affirmative action.

I think it was a good ruling.

I also can't wait for the ruling making it illegal for car insurance companies to charge males more than females.

Discrimination is rampant in the insurance industry.

This adds noting to the conversation.

If anyone thinks a post or thread is a troll, they should use the report this post button located in the lower right corner of each post.

I'm not positive, but I think most insurance companies are biased (by gender as well as by high-risk activities like smoking) based more on statistics than prejudice. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of accidents among men is higher than it is for women. I don't think it's fair to responsible, safe men on the road, but I do think it's an insurance company's right to charge what they will based on statistical evidence. Then again, I don't know any of this for sure.