Big difference between a company doing what it wants to do, and a company being forced to do something.
This range is doing a public service. There is a social stigma of women against guns, leaving many women ignorant and unprotected. Deals like this encourage women to try out guns, and usually they like them when they actually shoot them. That means more protected women, meaning more dead rapists and burglars.
Now if the government were to try to force ranges to let women shoot free, then I’d have a problem.
I regret that I have to disagree. These are (I hope) unintended consequences of anti-discrimination laws. The $15 entry fee clouds the issue a little. If the range charged women $100 to shoot while it charged men only $15, because on average women miss the targets more than men and that creates some additional maintenance expense (I don’t know if that is really true, but for the example it doesn’t matter), it would be obvious that charging women more would be discrimination. (Substitute race and it is more obvious, I think.)
Don’t get me wrong. I favor ladies’ nights at bars and anywhere as an attempt to get more women to frequent the establishments. But this is what you get when you pass anti-discrimination laws...