I came across this story on a Conservative blog and was offended at his lack of respect for the Constitution.
this is what he said… (and I usually find this guy amusing, but not this time)
I’m not quite sure what this guy’s problem is and let’s just hope he decides to drop his crusade now. The thought of having the Supreme Court hear arguments on the legalities of allowing women to drink at a discount just strikes me as un-American.
I find it amusing that so called Conservatives and Feminists would team up because in the end everyone is looking for their cookie. This is not the way fair law should be applied.
The problem here is the blogger takes the stance that this guy is in the way of getting stupid drunk girls.
I’m actually not against ladies night. Nor am I against a “Jew night” or Christmas. We have events that cater to groups and our laws should never get in the way of this. As long as other groups have an opportunity to also have nights for them… or an event or even a prayer group of men (as Jewish Orthodox men do with their minions). This is not a matter of separate but equal because this is private property.
As for the man who is claiming that ladies night is sexist, I also disagree. In fact I’m fairly certain that a feminist like Gloria Steinem would be bemused to see a man trying to take advantages of women away because it would put them in a position of being sex objects. I’m not a fan of feminism and I think affirmative action and thinking in terms of gender as a means to advocate change is wrong constitutionally, but at the same time we also need to acknowledge identity and the needs for identity to congregate. We also need the government to recognize identity (which is why I’m against gay marriage) because identity is a form of transparency which is a characteristic that government should strive to attain.
From the blog one gets the feeling however that the judge ruled against the man against ladies night because he was threatened because of a need to take advantage of women. I agree with his finding that ladies night is constitutional, but the reason is not because it is inconvenient. I also think that even though the man is wrong, we should congratulate him for thinking about the slippery slope between discrimination and the right to be different.
here is the news story.
Lola can still get into the Copa for free.
A federal appeals court this morning upheld “Ladies’ Nights” promotions at the Copacabana and other city nightclubs.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected claims by “anti-feminist lawyer” Roy Den Hollander that charging men more for admission than women violates their civil rights.
A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that Hollander failed to prove that several popular nightspots — including China Club, Lotus and Sol — are subject to a law barring discrimination by anyone acting under government authority.
Hollander alleged that the clubs “engage in state action” because they sell booze pursuant to licenses issued by the state Liquor Authority.
“(W)ithout the draw of alcohol, his argument goes, the nightclubs would not be popular destinations and accordingly, would not be able to charge for admission,” the judges ruled.
“Regardless of the veracity of this statement, we cannot agree that the state’s liquor licensing laws have caused the nightclubs to hold ‘Ladies’ Nights;’ liquor licenses are not directed related to the pricing scheme.”
The judges noted that Hollander “paints a picture of a bleak future, where ‘none other than what’s left of the Wall Street moguls’ will be able to afford to attend nightclubs.”
But because they agreed with a lower court ruling that Hollander “has failed to sufficiently allege state action, we must affirm.”
Hollander blasted the ruling, saying it will allow nightclubs to “discriminate against any group of persons by charging them more for admission than other groups.”
“It does not matter whether the nightclubs charge males or females or blacks or Latins or any other identifiable group more for admission—it is now constitutional,” he said. “It’s either a decision driven by feminist ideology or the Second Circuit decided to punt the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.”