jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (10/18/85)
The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars and other
businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of gender. No
kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on the 11:00 news.
--
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeffray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/21/85)
> The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars and other > businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of gender. No > kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on the 11:00 news. > -- Equal rights, remember, fairness to all. I better never have to pay more for a beverage than the female sitting next to me.
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (10/21/85)
> The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars and other > businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of gender. No > kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on the 11:00 news. I wonder why the court thinks "ladies' nights" are any different from any other Affirmative Action program. My understanding is that the usual reason for such affairs is to attempt to remedy the great preponderance of men in these bars. By giving women economic incentives to visit the bar, they hope to remedy the sexual imbalance in their establishment.
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (10/22/85)
In article <696@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars and other >businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of gender. No >kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on the 11:00 news. Massachusetts outlawed "Ladies' Nights" (for the same reason) around 1980. AWR
brkirby@watmum.UUCP (Bruce Kirby) (10/22/85)
In article <4468@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars and other >> businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of gender. No >> kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on the 11:00 news. > >I wonder why the court thinks "ladies' nights" are any different from >any other Affirmative Action program. My understanding is that the >usual reason for such affairs is to attempt to remedy the great >preponderance of men in these bars. By giving women economic >incentives to visit the bar, they hope to remedy the sexual imbalance >in their establishment. ladies' nights are not designed to be an Affirmative Action program. The bars that have them tend, to varying degrees, to be of the Meat Market variety, and realize that the best way to attract men is to get as many women as possible. It is the men who drink the most, and provide the most revenue. The goal of the bar is simply to make money, not produce a sexual balance, because the number of men will increase along with the number of women.
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (10/23/85)
>> The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars and other >> businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of gender. No >> kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on the 11:00 news. > >I wonder why the court thinks "ladies' nights" are any different from >any other Affirmative Action program. My understanding is that the >usual reason for such affairs is to attempt to remedy the great >preponderance of men in these bars. By giving women economic >incentives to visit the bar, they hope to remedy the sexual imbalance >in their establishment. Are "ladies' nights" really an Affirmative Action program? What form of discrimination exists in bars with such a preponderance of men? Do the men impose some kind of barriers to shun women who want to go to the bars? My understanding of the reason behind "ladies' nights" is the desire of men to meet more women at the bar. Bars that don't attract a lot of women don't get a lot of business from men either. "Of course, I could be wrong." -- Paul Dubuc cbsck!pmd
crs@lanl.ARPA (10/24/85)
>> The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars and other >> businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of gender. No >> kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on the 11:00 news. > > I wonder why the court thinks "ladies' nights" are any different from > any other Affirmative Action program. My understanding is that the > usual reason for such affairs is to attempt to remedy the great > preponderance of men in these bars. By giving women economic > incentives to visit the bar, they hope to remedy the sexual imbalance > in their establishment. The Federal Government will probably declare the California Supreme Court's decision to be illegal under the affirmative action laws. (;-)/2 -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (10/27/85)
Just a thought... What if they called it "women's night"? That would sure change the emphasis! Not that it ought to be any more legal that way.
chabot@miles.DEC (10/29/85)
> What form > of discrimination exists in bars with such a preponderance of men? > Do the men impose some kind of barriers to shun women who want to go > to the bars? *Some* men do. For instance, there was this dandy bar in Massachusetts that received national attention this past year...but then I don't know if it ever featured a Ladies Night (certainly not recently as someone pointed out). ("Yes, ma'am, gang bangs are free tonight!")
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (11/04/85)
-- > The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars > and other businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the > basis of gender. No kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on > the 11:00 news. Of course it's for real. There's been a lot of comment about how silly this decision is, with occasional reference to our oppressive government having nothing better to do, etc. And way off the mark, by the way, since it's a judicial ruling, *not* another law. Last I heard, even libertarians believed in both equal rights and justice. Or claimed to. It's a proper decision. If "ladies' night" is acceptable, how about "Blacks' night", or "Jews' night"? Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Think about it, you male Reaganoid knee-jerkers--do you think it's fair that you have to pay a surcharge for your drinks (which is what "ladies' night" differentials amount to)? I'm surprised it wasn't one of you who brought suit on the basis of "reverse discrimination". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 04 Nov 85 [14 Brumaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***