NJ civil rights official saying Ladies Night discriminates against men

[Kyteland]

It's about time somebody addressed this issue. Us poor, downtrodden men have been discriminated against for long enough.

:roll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4161306,00.html

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

Wednesday June 2, 2004 10:31 PM


TRENTON, N.J. (AP) - 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.

Gov. James E. McGreevey criticized the decision, calling it ``bureaucratic nonsense.''

``It is an overreaction that reflects a complete lack of common sense and good judgment,'' McGreevey said in a statement.

The governor does not have the authority directly rescind the ruling. But he met with state Attorney General Peter C. Harvey on Wednesday, telling him that the civil rights division had better things to do with its time, said Micah Rasmussen, a spokesman for McGreevey.

A spokesman for Harvey did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

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.

 

[TallBill]

see, we got it right in illinois

 

[ElFenix]

i hope you yankee bastards stay up in your cold freezing north.

women don't pay for drinks anyway.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: TallBill
see, we got it right in illinois

No kidding. I'm waiting for someone from NJ to comment on this. How could you let this happen?!?

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i hope you yankee bastards stay up in your cold freezing north.

women don't pay for drinks anyway.

oh come on!
have you seen the women in jersey bars!?

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: TallBill
see, we got it right in illinois

i don't think you guys got it right... encouraging one gender over another by way of monetary discount is still discrimination, you're just wording it in fuzzy feel-good semantics. what if i wanted to encourage white people to come to my store, so i gave them discounts that weren't available to blacks? doubt many of you would think that's kosher. discrimination is discrimination, the definition is not limited to situations when minorities are the losers.

 

[nan0bug]

I hope someone snatches him off the street, ties him up in some dark room, and kicks him in the balls every 15 minutes for the rest of his life.

 

[mikebb]

Whatever happened to private establishments being able to admit/serve/etc whoever they chose to? Like country clubs that only allow people of certain races/sexes/economic classes to join, and other such situations. Is someone going to sue the KKK for only having recruiting drives for white people? While I'm all for equality, crap like this is ridiculous.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TallBill
see, we got it right in illinois

i don't think you guys got it right... encouraging one gender over another by way of monetary discount is still discrimination, you're just wording it in fuzzy feel-good semantics. what if i wanted to encourage white people to come to my store, so i gave them discounts that weren't available to blacks? doubt many of you would think that's kosher. discrimination is discrimination, the definition is not limited to situations when minorities are the losers.

Whether someone initially agreed with ladies night or not... after reading your argument, I hope they have the intelligence to realize you are absolutely correct.

 

[HappyPuppy]

It makes perfectly good sense, legally.

There is a reason for lady's night at bars and clubs though. Horny young men sniffing after all that poontang spend a lot of money.

 

The governor does not have the authority directly rescind the ruling. But he met with state Attorney General Peter C. Harvey on Wednesday, telling him that the civil rights division had better things to do with its time, said Micah Rasmussen, a spokesman for McGreevey.

No sh!t.

This is what they spend their time on? :roll:

i don't think you guys got it right... encouraging one gender over another by way of monetary discount is still discrimination, you're just wording it in fuzzy feel-good semantics. what if i wanted to encourage white people to come to my store, so i gave them discounts that weren't available to blacks? doubt many of you would think that's kosher. discrimination is discrimination, the definition is not limited to situations when minorities are the losers.

Way to be sickeningly PC.

 

[rh71]

it's true though... discrimination that is. Not saying men's night makes sense.. just the whole premise is unfair.

 

[PingSpike]

Obviously the solution to this is to institute a 'Men's Night'. Also known as a 'no one buys any drinks at all, because women won't ever buy men any drinks' Night.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: rh71
it's true though... discrimination that is. Not saying men's night makes sense.. just the whole premise is unfair.

Last I checked, under the constitution and federal law, it is not illegal for a private establishment to discriminate.

Im sure they are somehow linking this to the liqour license though. Or they could argue its not a "private establishment" doing the whole what is a private establishment, and what the law was intended for.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TallBill
see, we got it right in illinois

i don't think you guys got it right... encouraging one gender over another by way of monetary discount is still discrimination, you're just wording it in fuzzy feel-good semantics. what if i wanted to encourage white people to come to my store, so i gave them discounts that weren't available to blacks? doubt many of you would think that's kosher. discrimination is discrimination, the definition is not limited to situations when minorities are the losers.

Whether someone initially agreed with ladies night or not... after reading your argument, I hope they have the intelligence to realize you are absolutely correct.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. There are plenty instances of reverse discrimination, many that are sanctioned by the law. I don't know which bars you go to, but a majority of the patrons are male. If a private business wants to cater to both groups (women get cheap drinks, men get to meet drunk women) but caters to them differently, I don't see the problem.

Some people take the whole anti-male thing too far. I find sites like this to be laughable.

4.4 million human males in the world lost their lives in 1997 due to anti-male discrimination. In the whole world, every seven seconds one male human life is being sacrificed on the altar of feminism.

I don't understand how everyone expects all aspects of life to be 100% equal between every demographic. Yes people should have the same opportunities in life, but it is impossible to make everything equal, especially with 6+ billion people in the world, 280+ million in the USA. Somebody else is always going to have some advantage. "All men are created equal. All men are not equal."

I remember reading a book in the 7th grade (I can't for the life of me remember the title or author) that was about making things equal in the future. The main characters were a husband and wife. The husband was a little smarter than the wife so he had a device implanted in his brain that would make it hard for him to concentrate, therefore making them equal in that respect. How silly is that?

Who is being disadvantaged by ladies night, and what opportunities are they losing? The right to get drunk for cheap? If that's what they were after then they wouldn't do it in a bar, they would buy a 24 pack from costco or something. People go to bars to socialize (for the most part) and ladies night caters to that.

That's all of my rambling for now.

 

[Fingolfin269]

You idiots. The point of ladies night is to bring more women to the bar. Here comes the sausage fest!

 

[nageov3t]

ladies nights are a total sausage fest anyways. at least in North Jersey, they tend to add up to a bunch of greasy gombas with too much cologne on trying to pick up the two chicks in the bar.

 

[Viper GTS]

I think you're all missing the point, ladies night serves EVERYONE.

- The women (obviously, cheap drinks + no cover)
- The guys (more women there = better chance of scoring)
- The management (more women + more men = more customers)
- The goverment (more taxes collected)

The list goes on.

If we do away with this we also need to do away with:

- Child fares
- Senior fares
- Student movie tickets

Etc, etc, etc.

Viper GTS

 

[Nanotech]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TallBill
see, we got it right in illinois

i don't think you guys got it right... encouraging one gender over another by way of monetary discount is still discrimination, you're just wording it in fuzzy feel-good semantics. what if i wanted to encourage white people to come to my store, so i gave them discounts that weren't available to blacks? doubt many of you would think that's kosher. discrimination is discrimination, the definition is not limited to situations when minorities are the losers.

True, but were not doing this in Illinois and it would be ignorant for anyone to try. Also I don't think the fact that woman drink much less than men has been brought up yet which should be addressed.

On another note, I bet that guy in Jersey winds up dead or severly beaten soon!

 

[NuclearNed]

Hypothetically speaking, let's say I am the owner of a bar. I spent the money to set up the bar and it's my butt on the line if the bar fails to bring in enough money to support itself. As a private owner in this free nation of ours, I'll do just about anything I want to with my business. I am the one who is risking my own financial well-being by doing things that may make my bar fail. If you don't like my business practices, there are plenty of other bars to which you can go. It is called capitalism (or if you like, "survival of the fittest"). You, the consumer, get to vote on which bars stay in business simply by giving your favorite bar your money. The bars that don't get the money go out of business. So if I want to have a "ladies night", and you don't like it, feel free to give your money to someone else instead of stomping on my freedom to run my bar any damn way I feel like it.

 

[Jzero]

Ban LordJezo and he spends his new-found free time lobbying for this crap.

You can tell election time is coming because suddenly Jim McGreedy seems to have regained his senses. He's right. Spiralling taxes, spiralling insurance rates, and they're worried about some bar not charging a cover to women.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: TallBill
see, we got it right in illinois

i don't think you guys got it right... encouraging one gender over another by way of monetary discount is still discrimination, you're just wording it in fuzzy feel-good semantics. what if i wanted to encourage white people to come to my store, so i gave them discounts that weren't available to blacks? doubt many of you would think that's kosher. discrimination is discrimination, the definition is not limited to situations when minorities are the losers.

really?

i see it more that bars are paying women to party at their establishments to bring men in.

is hooters being discriminatory by only hiring women to be waitresses? oh wait a minute, mb they are.

 

[isasir]

Is it discrimination? Yup.

Is the civil rights official stupid? Yup.

Didn't a guy sue to be a waiter at Hooters years ago? Whatever happened with that case?

 

[Nanotech]

Originally posted by: isasir
Is it discrimination? Yup.

Is the civil rights official stupid? Yup.

Didn't a guy sue to be a waiter at Hooters years ago? Whatever happened with that case?

He lost and thousands of Hooters waitresses rallied in Washington D.C. to show their support for the legislature.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Nanotech

Originally posted by: isasir
Is it discrimination? Yup.

Is the civil rights official stupid? Yup.

Didn't a guy sue to be a waiter at Hooters years ago? Whatever happened with that case?

He lost and thousands of Hooters waitresses rallied in Washington D.C. to show their support for the legislature.

I think he lost because Hooters has tons of other jobs that a male can do beseides waiting tables. I guess there was a similar issue with Abercrombie hiring mostly whites.

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/06/18/Business/Abercrombie__Fitch_sa.shtml

I found this through google.

Well Abercrombie, in my opinion WILL get away with it... as they clearly state that their floor people are "brand representatives" (per their application) therefore they are subject to a type of casting. Just like a theatrical production.

Just like Hooters, Abercrombie puts out an image for itself. And the Hooters male waiter never made it. They offer other jobs at Hooters, thus he lost the case. Anyhow they deemed towards Hooters favor, once again because they had an "image" to the restaurant. The position of "brand representative" has set standards, but Abercrombie does offer other positions--So I just see a repeat case.

If it really gets to you, just don't shop or wish to be employeed there. There are plenty of other clothing retailers you can get your clothes or job at.

Where do you draw the line for this kind of thing? What is acceptable, and when is it time for the government to step in and say "No, you can't do that."?