Well, since (according to the Internet) there are more women than men in the US, it's clearly a case of an oppressed minority attempting to be heard...
I am sorry it's hurting small businesses, but we really, really need to get rid of the whole concept of "protected classes."
years ago there was a “handicapped “ guy that went around to various businesses in kalifornia. many that he didn’t have a need to go into.. when he couldn’t getin them by himself in a wheel chair he sued them for YUGE money. this forced many to close as they would go bankrupt fighting. one such business was the DRIVE IN diner featured in American Graffiti.. it had inside tables he couldn’t get to… people that sue over “ladies night” don’t have enough to do and probably couldn’t get laid in a womens prison.. the stupid is deep.
My standard test to see if a rule is evil is to exchange all occurrences of "man" and "woman, and of "black" and "white". If a proposed rule still feels ok after that transformation, fine. If it starts to look ugly, you shouldn't do it.
Would a "men's night" pass muster? I don't think so.
That sounds like a gender-based variant of Legal Insurrection's "Equal Protection Project", where they challenge a lot of race-based and -preferenced programs in colleges and universities, with the goal of ending institutionalized racism at the college level.
Their track record of either winning or getting the colleges to "voluntarily" end those programs is pretty impressive. But that makes sense given that it's not a difficult argument to make that anti-white "reverse racism" is still racial discrimination, and non-discrimination laws prohibit ALL racial discrimination.
In my opinion, a bar or restaurant offering special deals to the fairer sex on "Ladies' Night" (particularly on drinks or menu items favored by ladies) is a wildly different animal than the same bar or restaurant hosting "Ladies Only" events. The former is an encouragement for women to come out; the latter is a blanket prohibition on men.
But depending on how the local non-discrimination laws are written, either could be running afoul.
Well, since (according to the Internet) there are more women than men in the US, it's clearly a case of an oppressed minority attempting to be heard...
I am sorry it's hurting small businesses, but we really, really need to get rid of the whole concept of "protected classes."
"Protected classes" is institutional racism.
years ago there was a “handicapped “ guy that went around to various businesses in kalifornia. many that he didn’t have a need to go into.. when he couldn’t getin them by himself in a wheel chair he sued them for YUGE money. this forced many to close as they would go bankrupt fighting. one such business was the DRIVE IN diner featured in American Graffiti.. it had inside tables he couldn’t get to… people that sue over “ladies night” don’t have enough to do and probably couldn’t get laid in a womens prison.. the stupid is deep.
My standard test to see if a rule is evil is to exchange all occurrences of "man" and "woman, and of "black" and "white". If a proposed rule still feels ok after that transformation, fine. If it starts to look ugly, you shouldn't do it.
Would a "men's night" pass muster? I don't think so.
That sounds like a gender-based variant of Legal Insurrection's "Equal Protection Project", where they challenge a lot of race-based and -preferenced programs in colleges and universities, with the goal of ending institutionalized racism at the college level.
Their track record of either winning or getting the colleges to "voluntarily" end those programs is pretty impressive. But that makes sense given that it's not a difficult argument to make that anti-white "reverse racism" is still racial discrimination, and non-discrimination laws prohibit ALL racial discrimination.
In my opinion, a bar or restaurant offering special deals to the fairer sex on "Ladies' Night" (particularly on drinks or menu items favored by ladies) is a wildly different animal than the same bar or restaurant hosting "Ladies Only" events. The former is an encouragement for women to come out; the latter is a blanket prohibition on men.
But depending on how the local non-discrimination laws are written, either could be running afoul.