Have you ever see that news guy on ABC named John Stossel? He’s got a mustache, and he’s a libertarian (read: Republican who likes drugs and sex) and he does these condescending news reports in which he exposes some falsehood. Yeah, that guy.
He’s a tool.
Anyway, ABC News has this report of people suing bars over ladies’ night. The lawyer (and it’s always the lone lawyer bringing these suits) is claiming ladies’ nights at bars discriminate based on gender and are illegal.
Roy Den Hollander is a New York lawyer who says Ladies' Night drinks and admission specials are unconstitutional, and he says he's suffered personally. Hollander is also a graduate of Columbia Business School and seems like a guy who should be able to get into a decent bar and afford the drinks. So what irks him?
"I'm tired of having my rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen," said Hollander, who is seeking class-action status for his suit in federal court.
Sigh. Okay, let’s continue with the article:
Tim Gleason, general manager of the China Club in New York, calls Hollander's complaint "pathetic" and echoes other club owners who argue that the discounts actually help both sexes by balancing out the ratio between men and women. Nevermind that some men are more than happy to pay for inequality in the ratio department.
Yes, that’s true. What will Hollander counter with?
In court papers, he cites a 1970 case against a bar called McSorley's Old Ale House. The ruling in the case struck down a policy excluding women, claiming it violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
I’ve been to McSorely’s. It’s a great bar, but not a good comparison. Today’s bars aren’t excluding men, only giving discounts to women:
Club owners maintain that Ladies' Night is not a policy of exclusion, but rather an economic enticement to increase business and satisfy their customers. They say the marketplace dictates whether the promotions are abandoned, not the courts.
And Hollander shoots back with fratboy logic:
But, Hollander said these perks do not justify discriminatory prices because the same beneficial end could be achieved by charging men less or equal to the amount women are charged.
"Each guy that walks into that club will have more money to buy her a drink, and the more she drinks, the more fun she and the guys will have," he said.
Okay, so Hollander is wasting tax money and court resources. Normally I would bag on this guy for being so lame and then Stossel does a commentary on it, and I hate John Stossel. ABC News apparently will hire anybody. Here is Stossel on how ladies's night is actually against the law:
…It IS against the law — which ought to make us think about how many laws we have. Ladies' night is a long and useful tradition, but activists have actually succeeded in getting them banned in more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia.
Stossel is saying that discrimination law is one too many. Then he says ladies’ night is long and useful. Long and useful? Ladies’ night? Starting in the 1970s is not long and it’s useful only to greedy bar owners. Here’s a thought, don’t charge to get into your lame meat market. Unless you have live music, you shouldn’t charge to get into your bar. And really, in meat market bars, women rarely buy their own drinks anyway, No need for discounts.
Some people go to bars to relax and see friends. Pubs are social centers. Some go to bars to see sports. Have you ever been to a bar with six television screens? Some people go to bars to get hammered. That’s what they are there for. Some go to dance and see live music.
And yes, some go to bars to get laid. Some people go specifically to get laid. These are the lamest bars of all. Why? Because there is a palpable sadness in the air at meat markets. Desperation and booze don’t walk so well together. And if a place has to bribe women to get them to come down that makes it all the more seedy and sad.
So, why I think it’s a wasteful use of the court, I won’t miss ladies’ night. It’s dated anyway. Women don’t need encouragement to hit the bars. Sorry, Kool and the Gang. Back to you, Stossel, ya tool.
He’s a tool.
Anyway, ABC News has this report of people suing bars over ladies’ night. The lawyer (and it’s always the lone lawyer bringing these suits) is claiming ladies’ nights at bars discriminate based on gender and are illegal.
Roy Den Hollander is a New York lawyer who says Ladies' Night drinks and admission specials are unconstitutional, and he says he's suffered personally. Hollander is also a graduate of Columbia Business School and seems like a guy who should be able to get into a decent bar and afford the drinks. So what irks him?
"I'm tired of having my rights violated and being treated as a second-class citizen," said Hollander, who is seeking class-action status for his suit in federal court.
Sigh. Okay, let’s continue with the article:
Tim Gleason, general manager of the China Club in New York, calls Hollander's complaint "pathetic" and echoes other club owners who argue that the discounts actually help both sexes by balancing out the ratio between men and women. Nevermind that some men are more than happy to pay for inequality in the ratio department.
Yes, that’s true. What will Hollander counter with?
In court papers, he cites a 1970 case against a bar called McSorley's Old Ale House. The ruling in the case struck down a policy excluding women, claiming it violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
I’ve been to McSorely’s. It’s a great bar, but not a good comparison. Today’s bars aren’t excluding men, only giving discounts to women:
Club owners maintain that Ladies' Night is not a policy of exclusion, but rather an economic enticement to increase business and satisfy their customers. They say the marketplace dictates whether the promotions are abandoned, not the courts.
And Hollander shoots back with fratboy logic:
But, Hollander said these perks do not justify discriminatory prices because the same beneficial end could be achieved by charging men less or equal to the amount women are charged.
"Each guy that walks into that club will have more money to buy her a drink, and the more she drinks, the more fun she and the guys will have," he said.
Okay, so Hollander is wasting tax money and court resources. Normally I would bag on this guy for being so lame and then Stossel does a commentary on it, and I hate John Stossel. ABC News apparently will hire anybody. Here is Stossel on how ladies's night is actually against the law:
…It IS against the law — which ought to make us think about how many laws we have. Ladies' night is a long and useful tradition, but activists have actually succeeded in getting them banned in more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia.
Stossel is saying that discrimination law is one too many. Then he says ladies’ night is long and useful. Long and useful? Ladies’ night? Starting in the 1970s is not long and it’s useful only to greedy bar owners. Here’s a thought, don’t charge to get into your lame meat market. Unless you have live music, you shouldn’t charge to get into your bar. And really, in meat market bars, women rarely buy their own drinks anyway, No need for discounts.
Some people go to bars to relax and see friends. Pubs are social centers. Some go to bars to see sports. Have you ever been to a bar with six television screens? Some people go to bars to get hammered. That’s what they are there for. Some go to dance and see live music.
And yes, some go to bars to get laid. Some people go specifically to get laid. These are the lamest bars of all. Why? Because there is a palpable sadness in the air at meat markets. Desperation and booze don’t walk so well together. And if a place has to bribe women to get them to come down that makes it all the more seedy and sad.
So, why I think it’s a wasteful use of the court, I won’t miss ladies’ night. It’s dated anyway. Women don’t need encouragement to hit the bars. Sorry, Kool and the Gang. Back to you, Stossel, ya tool.
1 comment:
Wow, great. You have no problem with a lawsuit that restricts the freedom of business owners to promote their businesses...since it wasn't affecting you, anyway! Glad to hear you're above the "meat market bars." Although you sound as though you have much more experience with them than I do. I expect if I read more of your blog, I'd find you bitching about encroachments on freedom that actually affect you - but since you don't respect the freedoms of others, I won't bother to continue reading.
Post a Comment