'Ladies night' axed at N.J. bars

[Kadie]

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

Wednesday June 2, 2004 4:16 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.

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.

more... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4160086,00.html

[NashVegas]

1. LOL

Mixed feelings:

1. Yes, it IS discriminatory.
2. Someone should have told this poor guy the whole point of 'ladies night.' Maybe he'd have appreciated it more.

[Mandate My Ass]

3. Yeah

He was definitely not hooking up.

[Bandit]

2. I guess it was inevitable ~ It really is a form of gender discrimination.

:shrug: So now the gals have to pay full amount. I'm sure the guys will buy it for them anyway. Maybe the bars should just lower their prices all across the line to compensate.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. They should have "person's nights"

LOL

[GoddessOfGuinness]

15. That would discriminate

against dogs.

[mmm]

5. This judge needs to get out more

Mon All rail mixers 1.50 ALL NIGHT!
Tue FREE TACOS!
Wed Ladies Night - ladies drink half price 4 - 9!
Thu Live Music - No Cover! Buckets of Miller $4.00!
Fri Fish Fry - all you can eat cod 8.50! Happy Hour 4-6!
Sat King Cans for a Buck, 4-close! LIVE MUSIC!
Sun CLOSED

[Dogmudgeon]

6. "But, Your Honor ..."

"... they aren't Ladies!"

(Ducking to avoid airborne dishware, cutlery, produce and computer components.)

:evilgrin:

--bkl
When Adam delved
And Eve did span
Tell me who
Was ere the gentleman?
(attrib. to Pepys)

[Eloriel]

7. Will he also be mandating that

dry cleaners can't charge more for women's clothes? And crack down on auto sales and repairs when women pay more?

How about equal pay for equal work -- or just the pay inequity affecting all his state's women (is the national average up to "merely" $.80 on the dollar of what men make yet)?

Is he equally concerned about the disparities that negatively affect women in Social Security and Medicare?

Are there any medical or other scientific studies going on in his state which do not even include women in their test subjects, but yet are for conditions or drugs that neveretheless apply to women too?

And what about spousal abuse, rape and other violence against women? Does New Jersey have that problem fixed?

Oh, yeah, let's make a big deal about women getting a break when being asked to serve as bait at some bars. Sheesh. What a jerk.

[Triana]

8. thank you Elorial - well said!

...bastard(s). If they're so all-fired concerned about "fairness" when, indeed, are they going to start charging men 20% more for dry cleaning, insurance, medical care, etc. etc. - and paying them 20% LESS - that's what they do to women.

FAIR? Hell no.

Discrimination? Youbetcha!

[bleedingheart]

9. agreed!

if anything Ladies Night is a ploy to bring women into bars as potential sex partners for the bar's male patrons....

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. Bravo! (eom)

DTH

[Kadie]

12. Very well said.

Thank you for such a great post.

[Skittles]

18. you know it, Eloriel

I have to laugh when some men claim gender discrimination - they just don't f***ing get it.

[NewJerseyDem]

19. You're being ridiculous

He made a ruling because a complaint was brought before him. He has to rule on complaints that are brought before him. Perhaps, no women have thought to file complaints about a lot of these issues so he hasn't ruled. Also, spousal abuse, rape, etc. is illegal. The Civil Rights Commission isn't going to be the one to deal with. That is up to the Legislature and law enforcement to better get a handle on the issue.

Here are a few cases where this same man has ruled for women in sexual discrimination cases recently:

3/24/04
http://nj.gov/lps/newsreleases04/pr20040324a.html
This case says that the Red Cross's decision to fire a pregnant woman was discriminatory.

1/27/04
http://nj.gov/lps/newsreleases04/pr20040127a.html
This case said that a computer company showed discrimination when it fired a woman and agreed that she had been paid less than her male counterparts.

12/8/03
http://www.state.nj.us/lps/newsreleases03/pr20031208a.html
This case ruled that there was sexual harassment against this woman at her workplace.

7/31/03
http://nj.gov/lps/newsreleases03/pr20030731c.html
This case ruled that another employer discrminated against a female employee because of sexual harassment.

And finally this is a summary of part of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination which is one of two laws that the New Jersey Civil Rights Commission is responsible for enforcing.

http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/accom.html
The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prohibits an owner, manager, or employee of any place that offers goods, services and facilities to the general public, such as a restaurant, hotel, doctor's office, camp, or theater, from directly or indirectly denying or withholding any accommodation, service, benefit, or privilege to an individual because of that individual's race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, sex, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability. Further, individuals accompanied by a guide or service dog are entitled to full and equal access to all places of public accommodation.

There are certain exceptions. Places of public accommodation which, by their nature, are reasonably restricted to individuals of one gender (such as dressing rooms or gymnasiums) may deny access to the accommodation to members of the other gender. Also, the provisions of the LAD that govern public accommodations do not apply to a place of public accommodation that is "in its nature distinctly private" or to schools operated by bona fide religious institutions. However, it is unlawful for a private club or association to discriminate against a member with respect to the advantages and privileges of membership on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, marital status, sex, or affectional or sexual orientation.

[Shakespeare]

24. WHOOSH! Right over your head.

You missed her point completely. Try not being so literal next time.

[NewJerseyDem]

25. Then, what exactly is the point? n/t

[Shakespeare]

39. It was pointed sarcasm.

Was she suggesting that it was a bad decision? No. She was simply pointing out that it's a little absurd in the face of so many forms of discrimination that women and minorities face on a daily basis. But, by all means let's make sure men don't pay a penny more for a beer than a woman does. You guys get so few breaks as it is.

That was more sarcasm, btw.

[Eloriel]

26. "a complaint was brought before him"

He has to rule on complaints that are brought before him.

His "ruling" shoulda been to laugh the complainant completely out of the state, telling him to get a life (not to mention a clue) and quit being so utterly ridiculous and wasting government time resources.

OTOH, he's accomplished what N.O.W. probably would've been unable to do in a decade, even if for all the wrong reasons. Now, the sexist practice of attracting bait -- or inventory for the meat market -- will end.

Even so, it absolutely frosts me, and it's true for all forms of discrimination. With these "reverse discrimination cases," it's like saying to minorities and women, "Okay, only so equal and no further. You want full equality? Tough." I wouldn't mind this "ruling" if there weren't so many other terribly pressing issues, many of which become literally life-and-death matters for women. In light of that, to devote ANY time to an issue like this is insulting in the extreme to all women and the really serious issues involved in discrimination.

[Beatrix]

29. You have no right

to decide what issues are more important than others and to decide rather or not they can be considered in a court.

Frankly, I couldn't give a damn if your mailbox was knocked down by your neighbors car every other day and I bet the vast majority of people in this nation wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. I bet it would be a very important issue to you though. So because the rest of us don't give a damn about your issue, does that mean we can just say you don't have a legit reason to go to court?

" it's like saying to minorities and women, "Okay, only so equal and no further"

Damn right - as it should be. And I say that as a minority. No one should be treated unequally.

[Eloriel]

36. Oh, but I AM entitled to my opinion about it.

And that's all I was offering -- my opinion. Are you trying to say I have no right to do that? Sheesh.

Further, you missed my point:

it's like saying to minorities and women, "Okay, only so equal and no further"

Damn right - as it should be. And I say that as a minority. No one should be treated unequally.

Which I probably could've made more clearly. Let me try it this way:

Women and minorities have been discriminated against in the U.S. (to put it mildly) since before we were a nation. That discrimination continues apace. We've made some nice gains, we are NOT fully equal. (With me so far?)

Given centuries (millennia, actually) of abuse of the WORST kind due to sexism and racism, and plenty of continuing abuse of some pretty awful kinds, I get pissed when it's clear that those poor, mistreated white men can't STAND it if a minority applicant to a college here and there should get the wee smallest "break" for admission or, in this case, a few women get a break on drinks as a sort of compensation (benefit) for showing up to make a few bars in New Jersey more attractive to the men they'd also like to attract.

There's not much worry that women and minority men are going to end up with wholesale unearned, unwarranted benefits across all of society any time soon (like white men have ALWAYS enjoyed -- usually invisibly so to them), so any instances of perceived (or actual) "reverse discrimination" are, IMO, not a particularly big deal given the millennia of horrors and the continuing racism and sexism. WHEN everything is truly equal -- or even just much MORE of everything is MORE equal and threatening to be UNequal in favor of women and minority men, I'll worry about reverse discrimination. In the meantime, a case like this is just ridiculous on its face and ought to be acutely embarrassing to most men and especially the complainant, and proves my point that white men are willing only to let us be "just a little equal" before they start engaging in legal and other types of backlash against us.

YMMV, esp. if you don't see that there are far bigger fish to fry to equal the scales.

[NewJerseyDem]

38. I'm not really concerned with millennia of discrimination

I don't think that really affects men because I WASN'T ALIVE!!!!

Past discrimination does not justify reverse discrimination today. I'm opposed to all discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But, I believe that the only way to truly achieve this end to discrimination is to no tolerate any discrimination of any kind.

You have basically said that since white men have had millenia when they discriminated against others, then white men can be discriminated against now. That is unbelievably illogical!

Also, there is no such thing as "just a little equal." There either is equality or there isn't. One can move toward equality but one can not have some of it.

Certainly there are more important things than this case. But, there are more important things than charging pickpockets for their crimes, but it doesn't mean you don't do it.

[NewJerseyDem]

30. He has to enforce the law

If he determined that the policy was against the law, he is suppose to just let it happen? It isn't his job to determine what discrimination is important and was isn't. It is his job to determine what is discrimination and what is not and he has done this in this ruling.

Certainly, this is not the most important issue in the country but NJ is not the first state to make a ruling on this issue. Other states have banned "ladies nights" as well due to rulings like this one. The government has to deal with all issues, large and small. It can't just focus on the most major issues of the day.

Also, I take a different opinion on what these "reverse discrimination" cases are saying. They say "You want full equality? Great! But, you are going to get the good and the bad aspects of that equality."

Also, to suggest the Civil Rights Commission to just focus on life and death issues is ridiculous. The commission doesn't do that. It enforces the Family Medical Leave Act and the Law Against Discrimination. What you suggest would mean that criminal courts should just really focus on the murder and rape cases because burglary just isn't that big of a deal.

[lazarus]

27. That's right

discrimination is just fine, so long as everything's not perfect.

:eyes:

Maybe we can mandate that women be randomly killed until the life expectancy rate is equal, too?

[Beatrix]

28. First of all

Clothing price is NOT gender specific. If a male were to bring in a dress it would NOT be a different price for cleaning vs. if a female brought one in. And there is actually LEGIT reason different clothes have different rates to be cleaned. Believe it or not some types of clothes actually cost more for the cleaner to clean than others.

And what exactly are you talking about giving "women a break"? Do you get out much? I trust you are fully aware "ladies night" at clubs is intended to bring in more women for possible sexual purposes, right? Add to the fact when it is advertised a standard reaction among many club goes is "DAMN! I'M GOING TO GET SOME ASS AT THAT CLUB!" Damn this judge not letting women be used as sex objects for exploitation. And please don't deny it. Unlike some people I actually get out.

Oh, and I'm sure if the dems and repubs didn't whore themselves out to corporations we actually WOULD have equal wages here. Of course the repubs would be screaming socialism and the dems would be dead silent.

By the way - would you support stores giving different prices based on race? (you know, to give one race a break and all) It's funny how some people let discrimination go by so long as it is desireable to them...

[DoveTurnedHawk]

32. Psst! Men Are Not Oppressed.

It's not appropriate, IMO, for a member of the dominant group to claim "reverse discrimination" whenever a member of the oppressed group receives some kind of benefit.

This case is somewhat surreal and ridiculous, simply because it deals with such a trivial benefit. And as Eloriel indicates, there is absolutely something to be said for the concept of not supporting the "women as bait" paradigm.

But the official wasn't trying to address that concern, he was trying to "redress" this obviously horrible form of "reverse discrimination" against men.

Cry me a fucking river. Maybe the NJ guys can use part of their higher-than-average wages vis-a-vis women to buy themselves the cover and full-price drinks.

DTH

[freeforall]

37. On the money eloriel!

I'd especially like the equal pay for equal work mandate, and the violence against women addressed.

These guys are idiots.

[eyesroll]

10. It's fair, if petty

I personally refuse to patronize a haircut place that charges different rates for men and women. Long hair and short hair? Fine. Simple cuts and complex styles? Fine. But my hair isn't any more difficult to cut than my husband's, and I don't need a blow-out or lots of little razor cuts or anything like that.

Same with dry cleaning -- the place I go charges the same price for shirts, regardless of which way the buttons go. Skirt and dress prices are in line with similarly-sized garments.

So, while I do think that this civil rights official should be paying more attention to the bigger issues (see Eloriel's post), he's right.

I don't object to bars having ladies' nights, if they have men's nights at the same approximate frequency. (The local roller-skating rink offers a girls' discount one Sunday, and then a boys' discount the next, which works beautifully for the usually sex-segregated birthday parties young kids have there.) One bar I know of got around the gender equity laws in its state by having a skirt night -- no cover and discounted drinks to anyone who showed up in a skirt. Plenty of men did.

[Xithras]

13. Why is this governments business?

Really. While I wholeheartedly support civil rights laws, my support has always wavered in cases like this, where granting "equality" requires the government to erase the freedoms of another. If I own a bar and want to give women free drinks, why is that anyones business but my own? It's my bar and my financial loss, after all.

Hypothetical: What if my theoretical club wanted to have Latino Night, where we'd play nothing but latin music all night and every latino would get their first drink on the house. I'd call that a cool marketing trick and a lot of fun for those involved. Is the government going to shut me down for discriminating against blacks and whites?

Sorry, but it's wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

14. It's the government's business...

because if it weren't, businesses could get away with having things like "White Night", and use it as a tool to discriminate.

Your latino night is partially OK, but partially discriminatory. There's no problem with playing latino music all night, but there IS a problem with giving people free drinks based upon their ethnic status. Now if you called it "latino night", and gave EVERYBODY their first drink free, that wouldn't be discriminatory

If they had a "White Night", and gave free drinks to white people, while charging minorities more, you'd be pissed as hell if you were a minority, and that irritation would be totally justified.

Race and gender equality means equality for EVERYONE. Discrimination based upon gender or ethnicity is bad, REGARDLESS of who is being discriminated against.

[Beatrix]

33. Exactly

"White night" discounted drinks - $1.50 - everyone else $1000.

[Beatrix]

31. Here is why

"Why is this governments business"

Because it used to be in this country businesses could refuse service to black people. They could refuse service to GLBT people. They could refuse service if you were disabled.

Eventually that shit was challenged and eliminated as it should be. Google "civil rights movement" for more info.

So do you think businesses should be able to do this? It was never "fun" for those involved, and with the right if you let them have an inch they take a mile. Establish a precedent in court where they can discriminate and they will go all the way with it.

I don't see how you can legally say a business can have something like "latino night" and not a "whites only night". Bad area to get in to.

[Stuckinthebush]

16. Well...in theory, he is correct

However, I think the man who complained doesn't understand why a bar would have a ladies night.

A little hint....it gets more women into a frickin' bar where they normally may not congregate so this guy can get his Norm butt off of his barstool and actually have a chance to meet someone.

[Voltaire99]

17. Meddlesome silliness! The sort of thing that gives equality a bad name.

I'm amused by those here trying hard to equate this practice with the real, serious and abiding issues of racial and sex discrimination.

Pragmatists know that in the arena of gender equality you have to pick your battles. If you go after frivolous issues like "Ladies Nights," not only do you achieve no valuable social result. You also outrage public opinion with the appearance of a totalitarian approach to social custom. People don't like the state interfering with them needlessly in the private sphere. That engenders contempt. In turn it does harm to the cause of real issues, real battles, and makes it harder next time when the state needs to use its power to redress a true imbalance or inequity.

No male in New Jersey has been harmed by the quaint custom of serving cheap drinks to women once a week. Quite to the contrary, women who have suffered enduring economic inequities in our system have been able to slightly recoup from this tiny perk. We can also probably abstract from the practice more than a little data showing how many guys have got laid as a result; and at the same time how many women were able to throw off the shackles of psychological, social and religious repression, and get jiggy. This policy is a blunder by well-intentioned fools.

[robcon]

21. I agree, Voltaire.

There is an undeniable instinct for bureaucrats to make blanket decisions because they CAN. Sadly, these reactionaries, who can't tolerate freedom, and only have allegiances to...

1. Strict and rigid interpretation of statutes/regulations

2. Any method to increase their power - i.e. their ability to boss other people around

This is a sad, but not unusual, case.

[TexasMexican]

20. The Guy must be Gay.

:P

[StaggerLee]

23. Reminds me of a gay nightclub here in town

Thursdays are billed as college night.

college night = straight night
:D

[Fleshdancer]

22. fine. and may ALL men start wearing make-up, pantyhose, under wire bras,

high heels, short skirts, tight pants, and whatever the hell we do to go out on a fucking Friday night to have a little fun. The day the guys start spending the same amount of money to get ready to go to the damn bar is the day they should get the same damn cheap price for low quality, watered down drinks women get. (guys, you really don't think women's drinks are all that great, do you???)

Screw political correctness. At the end of the day, we all know women spend more money and time for the attempt of finding a mate and/or casual encounters than men do at bars and night clubs. Nothing is more insulting and annoying than spending over an hour picking out clothes, bathing, applying makeup and body lotion, and attempting to look our best at a club when the guys are wearing shirts and dirty jeans and looking like they just rolled out of bed. And no...the heavy amount of disgusting cologne does NOT mask the fact that you're wearing dirty underwear.

I'm sure the DU guys here don't fit this particular description (freepers who lurk, you know what I'm talking about) but it has to be said. It's not right, it's not the high ground, it's not politically correct, and yes it actually goes against my feminist beliefs...but damn it, it has to be said by someone.

on edit: thongs. wearing thongs should be worth a dollar off of a drink just because they're SO stupid and uncomfortable.

[Beatrix]

34. With all due respect

If you are even moderatly attractive at a club you could be wearing jeans and a $6 t-shirt and you will have NO problem having a "casual encounter" if you want one.

[Earth_First]

35. As if the bar isn't already male dominated...

right ON! You, David Gillespie, are an inspiration to us all...

<sarcasm off>

[lindsayg]

40. I've never posted here before but,

I think this is ridiculous.. What's next, outlawing senior citizen's discounts because it's discrimination against younger people?

[GinaMaria]

41. The complaintant strikes me as obtuse

Does he understand the point of 'ladies nite' is to ply women with free alcohol making them less inhibited and more likely to sleep with the complaintant? Why is he complaining that the bar has set up a situation meant to get him laid? I'm truly baffeled by this. :shrug: :crazy:

I would understand it better if he pointed out the bar was exploiting his sex drive to make a buck.