 |
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted on 06/04/2004 6:46:55 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
In New Jersey, it's last call on Ladies' Night. This week, director of the state division of civil rights, J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, announced that the Garden State will henceforth ban the longstanding practice of offering drink and admission discounts to women on designated ladies' nights. The 13-page ruling lectures that a bar's desire to attract customers doesn't override the "important social policy objective of eradicating discrimination." In this case, "discrimination" refers to a Cherry Hill restaurant's Wednesday-night practice of charging men a five dollar cover while letting women in free and offering them cheaper drinks.
This ruling will apply to restaurants and bars across the state — and ultimately may have an impact that extends far beyond the loss of ladies' nights. After all, if discounts for women violate someone's civil rights, then what about promotions that favor other groups? Seniors citizens regularly receive discounts at restaurants and movie theaters, surely a form of discrimination against New Jersey's more youthful citizens. College students are offered a break on museum admission and train fares — a slap in the face of those who can't afford or aren't smart enough to attend college. Holiday Inns and other family-friendly hotels sometimes offer "kids eat free" promotions — perhaps couples without children should sue?
New Jersey's Governor, Jim McGreevey, reportedly called the ruling "bureaucratic nonsense," suggesting that ladies' night may be in line for a stay of execution by the executive branch. Nevertheless, the ruling — however absurd — is emblematic of the growing arrogance of a government caste that seeks to micromanage every aspect of Americans' lives.
Consider that the federal register — Washington's rule book for how we're supposed to live — contains more than 75,000 pages. Most of it governs the minutiae of how people can interact economically, from how many sick days people get to limits on what products can be sold and how they must be made. The cost of compiling with these rules is an estimated $380 billion annually.
Ultimately, it's not just the women who will now have to pay the full five dollars for their beers who are harmed by this ruling — and from the culture of hyper-regulation it represents. Small-business owners and their employees are actually the biggest losers. While large companies have the resources to interpret and comply with the increasingly complicated thicket of commandments and dictates, smaller businesses have a tougher time. The per-employee cost of complying with regulations is more than 50-percent higher for small businesses than for large ones.
Of course, the ladies' night ruling is also laughable for its unchivalrous nature. What's next, ticketing men for opening doors or giving up their seats on the bus? Yet this is the logical outcome of a campaign to eradicate any acknowledgement of difference between the sexes.
Sadly, the New Jersey story wouldn't have even been reported on had the ban applied to "men's nights." Feminists have worked for decades to convince Americans that men-only policies are discriminatory while women-only associations and institutions should be celebrated. Prestigious men's colleges are forced to open their doors to women, for example, while women's colleges are allowed to thrive.
Ultimately, this new sexist double standard seems untenable. While Governor McGreevey characterizes the current episode as "an overreaction that reflects a complete lack of common sense and good judgment," it's actually a logical extension of the existing government overreach. Therefore, while this ruling fails to indicate if this new anti-discrimination regime must extend to discount for senior citizens and children, businesses using such promotions should be warned: government will probably be coming after you next.
New Jersey ladies may now pay more for drinks, but Vespa-Papaleo has done all women a favor with this ruling. By staking out a policy that most Americans see as inappropriate state meddling, he invites us to examine the system that made it happen. Women may discover it's not the ruling that's outlandish, but the system itself.
— Carrie Lukas is the director of policy for the Independent Women's Forum.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lukas200406040906.asp
|
||||
perhaps they should have called it a form of affirmative action?
bump
It's their business. They should be able to run their business without stupid rules from the government.
The ladies can drink free drinks and everyone can smoke. If that's the clientele they want to attract, then they should be able to do it their way.
How?
They should just be able to run it that way, but the government makes them play silly games.
They'll redesignate it a "club." You will have to sign up for the club to get through the door. When signing up, you will acknowledge and accept the smoking and ladies' night rules. Your cover charge will be the club fees.
Another case of liberal logic(?): Find something that ain't broke and fix it. Of course the fix is worse than the original state of things, but it's all in the name of diversity (puke).
Us younger people will not tolerate this blatant discrimination.
Yes, call it "gender reparations night" and you'll present the PC busybodies with a real quandry.
I hate it when I have to compile rules. Especially without the source code.
As nonsensical as this is, I support it. I think the key to bringing down the liberal superstate is pushing its rules to their contradictory conclusions. It doesn't work, but if we keep brushing over the incoherence and making compromises, we're dancing down the path to hell.
It looks like this guy (?) J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo has a strong affiliation with this group of pillow biters. Gay and Lesbian Political Action and Support Groups http://www.gaypasg.org
Just plain dumb and I can't see the discrimination. A bar can give ANYONE it sees fit a price break. This is not the same as a retail establishment.
While I think this is a waste of the court's time and should just have been left alone, I can't help but think what would have been happening if the roles were reversed, if it were the men who got the discounted drinks. Does anyone here think for one minute that the leftists would not have sued everyone in sight?
And the reason that bars give discounts to the ladies is that they hope it will attract a large crowd of ladies, thereby attracting a large crowd of men.......
It's a good business model, folks.
Yes, here we go again....
Good intentions?
What about children's prices at the movies? Don't they use up a chair just like an adult? And don't weekday matinee prices discriminate against the traditionally employed?
"You must be this tall for this ride" is a blantant attempt by the amusement park industry to discriminate against the vertically challenged.
women want equal rights, so they shoudl be happy. They just got a few more rights. Guys should also be banned by Federal Law for paying for more than 50% of the times in dates, just to make it more equal :)
"the "important social policy objective of eradicating discrimination." "
So when does the state require unisex restrooms?
Somebody should tell the owners of strip clubs (don't they also have, ahem, "ladies' nights?") that this is what comes of electing Democrats.
I LOVE IT!!!!
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.