Posted on 07/31/2016 6:48:55 AM PDT by ConservativeStatement
It was about a year ago when Steve Horner told young proprietors of the Wet Republic Ultra Pool at the MGM Grand that he had just transitioned to a woman and should be allowed to pay the woman’s price of $20 to get into the pool party.
They looked him up and down and saw no signs that the person stood before them ever had any intention of being a woman for anything other than not paying the $33 entry fee for a man.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
The purpose of “ladies nights” is to provide fish for the fishermen. As such, it is a valid business purpose, is not illegal, and is most assuredly not “unconstitutional” since an amendment which could possibly have made it so was rejected by the States.
Whether it’s unconstitutional in Minnesota depends on the specific provisions of the Minnesota constitution, with which I am not familiar. Similarly, the Las Vegas situation currently involves the collision of city and Nevada law.
In a free society, it would make perfect sense for prices to reflect the differing values of people of each sex. Women want cheaper drinks or pool entry; men want access to women; and businesses want more customers of either sex at an average revenue of $27.50 (for example). However, this sort of thing has been outlawed in many circumstances and jurisdictions.
If I were to open a bar and proclaim a "White Night," where white people got charged one price and others -- Blacks, Hispanics, Asians -- got charged another, I would be liable to criminal and civil action.
I'm fully aware of the reasons behind "ladies nights." The motives are irrelevant.
Discrimination on the basis of sex is still discrimination. It is no more tolerable to charge men one price and women another than it is to give women extra time off work, higher pay, or any other special privileges. The Constitution ensures EQUAL protection under law, commerce, and trade. And the courts have repeatedly ruled that such discrimination is not permitted in public accommodations.
I think that the courts should more frequently invoke the “public nuisance sanction”, both on such litigants and those lawyers who engage in “barratry” (The practice of exciting and encouraging lawsuits and quarrels.)
This basically says, “You promote frivolous lawsuits, either for profit, nuisance value, harassment, or in an effort to operate outside of legislative oversight. Therefore your future access to the courts is restricted.”
I agree with this guy. Gender discounts are discriminatory and should be stopped. Same with local-only discounts.
You are correct.
There’s a crazy dude who says he’s a 6 year old girl. And you get weird accommodations like no one taking away his driver’s license though he drives a snow plow for a living, though he wears dresses and plays like a child.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.