Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-02-2004, 01:03 PM   #1 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?

LINKY LINKY

Quote:
'Ladies Night' Discount Axed in N.J. Bars

TRENTON, N.J. - The state's top civil rights official has ruled that taverns cannot offer discounts to women on "ladies nights," agreeing with a man who claimed such gender-based promotions discriminated against men.

David R. Gillespie said it was not fair for women to get into the Coastline nightclub for free and receive discounted drinks while men paid a $5 cover charge and full price for drinks.

In his ruling Tuesday, J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, director of the state Division on Civil Rights, rejected arguments by the nightclub that ladies nights were a legitimate promotion. Commercial interests do not override the "important social policy objective of eradicating discrimination," he ruled.

The ruling specifically addressed the weekly ladies nights at the Coastline in Cherry Hill, but it carries the force of a court decision and applies statewide. Vespa-Papaleo said state officials would write formal rules after a public hearing.

The restaurant's attorney, Colleen Ready, did not immediately return a telephone message left Wednesday by The Associated Press.

Courts in other states have issued divergent opinions on such promotions.

Judges in Pennsylvania and Iowa have said similar events are illegal, but courts in Illinois and Washington state have said that ladies nights are permissible because they do not discriminate against men but rather encourage women to attend.
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.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 01:16 PM   #2 (permalink)
hovering in the distance
 
Location: the land of milk and honey
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?
__________________
no signature required
moonstrucksoul is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 01:18 PM   #3 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Re: Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?

Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
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?
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).
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 03:46 PM   #4 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
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.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 07:48 PM   #5 (permalink)
Insane
 
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.
theusername is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 09:00 PM   #6 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
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.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 10:31 PM   #7 (permalink)
Happy as a hippo
 
StormBerlin's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
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?
__________________
"if anal sex could get a girl pregnant i'd be tits deep in child support" Arcane
StormBerlin is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 10:31 PM   #8 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
Is this a troll?
Wax_off is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 10:58 PM   #9 (permalink)
wouldn't mind being a ninja.
 
MooseMan3000's Avatar
 
Location: Maine, the Other White State.
Quote:
Originally posted by theusername
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.
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.
MooseMan3000 is offline  
Old 06-02-2004, 11:21 PM   #10 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally posted by moonstrucksoul
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?
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.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-03-2004, 12:51 AM   #11 (permalink)
Huggles, sir?
 
seretogis's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Re: Re: Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?

Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk 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).
..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.
__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames
seretogis is offline  
Old 06-03-2004, 02:32 AM   #12 (permalink)
The Original Emo Gangsta
 
Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository
Quote:
Originally posted by Wax_off
Is this a troll?
No, this is a troll:

That poor bastard should have just purchased some pussy repellant and saved the system a lot of time and effort.
__________________
"So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."
KillerYoda is offline  
Old 06-03-2004, 04:00 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
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).
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-03-2004, 08:19 AM   #14 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
Re: Re: Re: Anti-descrimination legislation -- why?

Quote:
Originally posted by seretogis
..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.
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?
Wax_off is offline  
Old 06-04-2004, 09:58 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
How ladies night different from affirmative action? Men are more likely to get laid with ladies night than with affirmative action.
filtherton is offline  
Old 06-05-2004, 06:22 AM   #16 (permalink)
Upright
 
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.
PDiddy is offline  
Old 06-07-2004, 03:00 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by PDiddy
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.
kutulu is offline  
Old 06-08-2004, 12:36 PM   #18 (permalink)
"Officer, I was in fear for my life"
 
hrdwareguy's Avatar
 
Location: Oklahoma City
Quote:
Originally posted by Wax_off
Is this a troll?
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.
__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today
hrdwareguy is offline  
Old 06-09-2004, 05:56 AM   #19 (permalink)
Americow, the Beautiful
 
Supple Cow's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, D.C.
Quote:
Originally posted by PDiddy
I also can't wait for the ruling making it illegal for car insurance companies to charge males more than females.
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.
__________________
"I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. Twenty-six times I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."
(Michael Jordan)
Supple Cow is offline  
 

Tags
antidescrimination, legislation

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:32 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360