"Ladies Night Not All Right, State Says" --MN Bars [updated]

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MattSepeta, Jun 14, 2010.

  1. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #1
    http://www.startribune.com/local/96108304.html

    "It's a bastion of bar culture: "Ladies' Night," staged to attract female customers by cutting their drink prices and cover charges.

    It's also illegal gender discrimination, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

    The department charged this week that by having ladies' nights, five Twin Cities establishments denied men the right to "full and equal enjoyment" of their businesses." From the Star Tribune out of the Twin Cities

    -----Awesome. Awesome. Awesome. Now we can all be equal, we can finally get rid of those

    "seniors discounts" - age discrimination
    "family changing rooms" - familial discrimination
    "BET/lifetime" - race/gender discrimination

    etc.


    I hope to God that this ridiculous system finally breaks itself.

    You may call Rand Paul a "racist", but I'll call him a martyr.
     
  2. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #2
    :rolleyes:

    Because thats not a ridiculous statement.....
     
  3. MattSepeta thread starter macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #3
    haha

    If you read the article and think about what it means on a grander scale, it is not ridiculous in the slightest.

    Rand came out and said that it was wrong for the government to mandate association within private businesses and persons.

    Why is that so wrong?

    Look at what is happening. If the government can make the assumption that a "ladies night" is "wrong", where can it stop? I am a male and have no problem with "ladies night". Who gives a ****? Oh, yeah, the government.


    Title II of the civil rights act of 1964 is stupendously vague and detrimental to the American psyche. Ventures into the thought-police realm.

    Wiki: "Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

    Leaves it up to the government to decide what sort of discrimination is ok.

    -BET
    -Lifetime
    -NAACP
    -Etc.

    Potentially illegal, although they sure should not be!
     
  4. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #4
    Might want to tone down the rhetoric a bit there buddy, Rand Paul is no martyr. :rolleyes:

    How is a network aimed at a demographic discrimination? I had no idea being a white male I wasn't allowed to watch BET or Lifetime. Come on, you can think better than this.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Oh boy- here we go again. :rolleyes:

    "OMG- I'm made powerless because I'm a white male!" Whatever.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6
    As long as we're getting rid of discriminatory practices, can we abolish the Apple Student Discount? :D
     
  7. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #7
    I wonder what a woman's perspective might be. But MacRumors is probably 1% female and that might be generous.
     
  8. MattSepeta thread starter macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #8
    LOL@mindless backwards assumptions!!!!!

    That is so the opposite of what I was getting at, and let's not play the race card. That's getting a bit old.

    Reread what I said. I said that the NAACP, BET, Lifetime, ladies night, gay bars, etc are all currently legal. If the gov't is going to decide that ladies night is illegal, it opens a whole new can of worms, that could very well lead to those sorts of organizations being deemed discriminitory under title II.
    I then said that they sure should not be.

    I think that if you want to give gay black women a discount on their drinks, you should be able to do that. You should be able to do whatever you want, and if you want to commit business suicide by discriminating against blacks, women, gays, what have you, that should be up to you as well.

    And I think you would be awfully surprised at how little anything would change if Title II was amended. Here is how it would work out, worst case scenario:
    -Moron bigot who owns bar thinks"YES I CAN DISCRIMINATE NOW!"
    -market boycotts bigot's bar
    -bar closes because the majority of people are sane and accepting and are repulsed by this bigots actions.
    -bigot looses his bar

    America elected a black president! We don't need the government to tell us not to discriminate. We need the government to keep the government from discriminating.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    Like women buy their own drinks anyways.

    Seriously though this could hurt quite a few bar establishments, guys only show up for the girls and girls don't like spending a lot on drinks.
     
  10. MattSepeta thread starter macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #10
    I heard Sue Jeffers, a local (libertarian) radio personality and former bar/restaurant owner speak a few word son it, and she said it was a ridiculous idea (who knew?).

    She must really be a democrat, I mean she is a woman- she is just confused ;)
     
  11. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #11
    I think we can pretty much all agree that this is a rather silly law.

    And...That it does not signal the transformation of our republic into a police state.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    You make far too many assumptions about human nature. You might have a few bars that close, but I'd bet you my life that a lot of them would succeed quite well in many parts of the country.

    Yep- but I think it's really reaching to say that we now need to get rid of the civil rights act as the OP suggests.
     
  13. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #13
    Promotions should be given a special status in law then. I can see the purist's argument, but law has a spirit, and is interpreted at the highest level according to that.

    This sort of thing is technical, and absurd.
     
  14. MattSepeta thread starter macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #14
    Agree, and disagree.

    It IS a rather silly "law", although it's not a law. They are claiming the bars were breaking the law according on the Civil Rights act Title II. And that is where it gets silly.

    You can't have it both ways! you CAN NOT tell a bar owner that they MUST serve anyone that comes in, then in the same breathe tell them that its ok to give ladies a discount on drinks but not men!


    "You make far too many assumptions about human nature. You might have a few bars that close, but I'd bet you my life that a lot of them would succeed quite well in many parts of the country. "

    And you have a problem with that why?

    -your right. uhmerkans are stupid and ignant. no way we could handle ourselves.
     
  15. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #15
    I have mixed feelings based on the somewhat shady intent behind intoxicating women for a reduced price. However, on the whole I don't think it's anyone's business but the owners' what a bar charges its punters. I think it's a little patronizing and cliché but it's not something that bothers me that much one way or another. Charge the same, charge less. Whatever. I'm not a naive woman and I know how things go in most bars.
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    Uh, you realize you're rallying against an individual state's decision right? This is in no way the federal government.

    So it is just governments in general you dislike or is it "states rights" you have an issue with? This is an example of when a state chooses to go too far.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Why do I have a problem with racial discrimination? Are you serious?

    And they did go too far. The law should be challenged and struck down.
     
  18. MattSepeta thread starter macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #18
    Nope, I am rallying against "government", in general, micro-managing.

    I support any decision that a state makes as opposed to the Federal government making it, but that does not change the fact that it is such a silly situation.

    "And they did go too far. The law should be challenged and struck down."
    So what "law" are you talking about?
     
  19. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #19
    from my significant other (and I agree with it all):

     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    The ruling made to do away with ladies nights. They went too far. If you're going to try to get me to say that we need to get rid of the civil rights act, you won't be able to.

    Exactly.
     
  21. MattSepeta thread starter macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #21
    Agreed!

    Thats why I don't go to bars or clubs, the entire shtick of it disgusts me. I would rather spend my time having a few drinks with friends in the backyard than getting hammered, trying to get a chick even more hammered, and trying to take advantage of her. Wacko.

    But you missed the point. The general thoughts here seems to be that "Ladies nights" are fine. None of the guys have griped about it being unfair.
     
  22. MattSepeta thread starter macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #22
    lol, so the government just needs to pick and choose?

    That sounds fairly safe and non-orwellian to me....
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    Non-gays can actually go to a gay bar if they want, so they aren't discriminatory.

    If so this way they have to just get a man to buy them a drink instead <shrug>

    That's a good point, and one I hadn't thought of before :eek:.
     
  24. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #24
    BET and Lifetime? You're joking, right? You're actually comparing those to ladies night?

    White people can watch BET. Men can watch Lifetime. Women and black people don't get discounts on their cable bills because of those channels. Their programming is geared towards one particular group but others aren't prevented from watching it. Just like you don't have to be an overweight, beer bellied male redneck living in a trailer home married to his sister to watch Larry the Cable Guy's standup special on Comedy Central even though that's who it's geared towards.
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    So, you're saying we should do away with the civil rights act? Just say it. I'm a fan of the direct approach. If you want to play games, I'm not going to.

    Nope. He's not joking.
     

Share This Page