Progressiveness Gone Wild

[steve_bank]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/31/business/ladies-night-lawsuit-small-business/index.html

Historically, “Ladies’ Nights” have been great for business.

The discounted drinks or meals tend to draw a large crowd of women, which in turn tends to draw more men — which then leads to packed bars and increased sales for the business.

But a family-run restaurant in the San Francisco Bay Area is shutting down this week because it can’t afford to operate after it settled a “Ladies’ Night” discrimination lawsuit, CNN affiliate KGO reported last week. John Marquez, the chef and owner of Lima Restaurant in Concord, told the outlet that it hasn’t been able to bounce back after settling a lawsuit over a promotion that discounted drinks for women.

It’s not the first small business to be sued over a Ladies’ Night promotion due to technicalities in discrimination laws in certain states. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, a California law that dates back to 1959, says businesses can’t discriminate against religion, race and gender. A slew of lawsuits have since followed, and that has meant a sharp drop in the promotion.

In the past a California food truck business selling Mexican food was hounded out of business for 'cultural appropriation' by activists.

I suppose then someone of Mexican descent can't sell Italian food, and someone of Chinese decent can't sell French food.

Progressives in the extreme are not much different than Christians on a moral crusade.

 

[pood]

In a world teetering on the abyss of Christo-authoritarian fascism led by Donald Trump and his minions of MAGATs, it’s very important to focus on a few rare outlier examples of progressives overdoing it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

For all the circumstances recognized by the Reasonable Person Standard, judges should exercise the same in such circumstances. Society has always treated the sexes different in social situations but when it comes to a promotion with some small monetary value, legal trolls start screaming bloody murder. If I were on the bench, I would come to the decision that the tradeoff in value of a decreased price for ladies' drinks is the prospect of getting laid.
You don't like it, dude, then shave your legs, put on your face and go get your due. It's my understanding no one can tell you you're not a lady.

 

[pood]

I suspect the are cases of lawyers (legal trolls, ambulance chasers, what have you) ginning up business for themselves by luring people to frivolously sue.

 

[pood]

I can’t believe the people who made these laws intended them to apply to things like “Ladies’ Night” promotions.

 

[pood]

Reminds me of the sign I saw once outside a bar or restaurant somewhere:

Large type: WE DON’T SERVE WOMEN.

Small type: You have to bring your own.

Lawsuits waiting to happen right there.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I thought this was a thread full of progressives showing their tits. Glad to be wrong.

 

[southernhybrid]

I remember ladies night from the 70s, during the disco era. I didn't know it was even still a thing. Yes, it was used to get us women to come and have few drinks making us a bit more vulnerable to being picked up by a stranger. From what I recall, there was only one bar in Greenville, SC, the city where I met my current husband in a disco, that offered ladies night. I think it was 2 drinks for the price of one, but only during the early evening. I guess they wanted to get us drunk early.

Considering that women are still usually paid a bit less compared to men, often even when doing the same job, maybe we should always get discounts in bars and in restaurants. I'll be surprised if our local sexist isn't here soon to talk about the injustices of allowing women to get cheap drinks on ladies nights. I probably had more men buy me a drink compared to any cheap drinks I was offered during the short time I was single between two marriages. From what I recall, the men seemed to love that the women were getting cheap drinks.

Let me finish by saying that after reading the article, this sounds more like greedy lawyers misusing an old law as a way to make money, not something that progressives necessarily care about. Or, it could be incels who resent not getting laid, so they take it out on women getting free or cheap drinks.

 

[thebeave]

Hopefully, the ladies night and the tradition of buying women drinks will die a merciful death. It just all sounds so strange in 2024 2025. Its like (paraphrased for truth), "Hey cutie, how about I buy you a date rape drug to impair your judgement, so we can go back to my house to shag." Oddly enough, an ex gf of mine thought that a man buying a lady a drink in the bar was a very classy thing to do. This was back in 1990 though.

But technically, yes, it is sexist and discriminatory. Imagine if they had "men's day" at the gas pumps, where men (only) could buy gas half off. Wouldn't fly. The "ladies night" lawsuit sounds like an abuse of a well intended law, though. We have had lawyers in my area who make a career out of going around suing businesses that are not in strict compliance with some, usually minor, aspect of the ADA law. Many small businesses can't easily comply with the requirements and have been driven out of business by these bastards. They ought to go to prison.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So is it to get women looser or men more hopeful? Or both?

 

[WAB]

I used to work in a bar. Ladies' night was always very busy. More ladies, more men, more money, more unwanted pregnancies, more DUIs... Good times all around!

 

[laughing dog]

The example in the OP has nothing to with progressiveness. It is the unintended result of good intentions driving poorly written law.

 

[robnisch]

This basically a happy hour thing. Which I think are a bad in general. Putting aside the sexist aspect, happy hours just encourage too much consumption. I worked at a place in the 90's that had a wine night. 50 cents a glass! All we got was construction workers and fisherman. Real bad idea!

 

[Swammerdami]

In a world teetering on the abyss of Christo-authoritarian fascism led by Donald Trump and his minions of MAGATs, it’s very important to focus on a few rare outlier examples of progressives overdoing it.

Utter crap -- whether it's "wokeist" or just "pseudo-wokeist" -- like the small restaurant being forced out of business, feeds right-wing propaganda and thus helped lead to the horrid electoral outcome in November.

Plus, the family's small business WAS forced to shut down. Where there's smoke there's fire, so we'll need a cite for your claim that such examples are "few" or "rare."

I suspect the are cases of lawyers (legal trolls, ambulance chasers, what have you) ginning up business for themselves by luring people to frivolously sue.

"Frivolously"? The money earned by such lawyers is enough for them to buy non-frivolous luxuries. And the Marquez family will be further saddened to learn they were driven out of business by mere "frivolity."

Most gender discrimination lawsuits against small businesses get settled outside of court, Nieman said. Restaurants and bars with their razor-thin margins simply cannot financially handle a lawsuit from beginning to end and fight it in court.

Even if most businesses don’t host a Ladies’ Night with malicious intent, “if we’re talking about California law and they were breaking it, unfortunately, they probably would lose in court,” Nieman said.

Does the article (or anyone) know how judges (or juries?) ruled on such cases? Did they uphold the letter of the law, however stupid? It sounds like most of these cases -- perhaps like much American "justice" -- is decided simply by which side runs out of money to feed its lawyers.

At least one recent post focused on the different utilities of Happiness and GDP per capita as metrics for the performance of a society. What percentage of U.S. GDP is "legal services and settlements"?

Earlier this year in California, the minor-league baseball team Fresno Grizzlies was sued over a promotional event for women.

But while the law was created to counter discrimination, the intentions of those who file such lawsuits have come under scrutiny, with some calling them opportunistic and exploitative. San Diego lawyer Alfred Rava has filed hundreds of lawsuits across California against women’s organizations and women-only events, from the Grizzlies’ promotion to female-led startups to Mother’s Day freebies, claiming they’re unfair to men.

I can’t believe the people who made these laws intended them to apply to things like “Ladies’ Night” promotions.

Are you accusing legislators of stupidity?


I'll not be surprised to be accused of right-wing ideas for this post. So let me add fuel to the fire. --
There is a non-zero difference between the sexes. In some respects, a female chimpanzee has more in common with a female bonobo than it has with a male chimp. The post-rational "wokeism" that insists on treating males and females identically can become a hindrance.

 

[Swammerdami]

Since thread title ("Progressiveness gone wild") implies that progressives could and should have directed their energy elsewhere, let me offer a suggestion.

It sounds like most of these cases -- perhaps like much American "justice" -- is decided simply by which side runs out of money to feed its lawyers.

A related problem is the HUGE number of people in jail awaiting trial who are faced with the following choice:
Either
* Plead guilty (even if innocent) and serve a short sentence or even get off for "time already served"
Or
* Plead not guilty (because they ARE not guilty) and remain in jail. And then perhaps be convicted because their public defender was overworked or incompetent.

I think many low-income families have had such experiences with their relatives, and are well aware of the problem I just described. They would be pleased by politicians who work to alleviate such inequities. Instead elite Democrats, with income to bail out their child and hire a top lawyer, are out of touch and get sidetracked by "wokeist" issues irrelevant to struggling citizens.

This mismatch between elite politicians and their needy constituents put America on the fast track to fascism.

 

[Derec]

For all the circumstances recognized by the Reasonable Person Standard, judges should exercise the same in such circumstances. Society has always treated the sexes different in social situations but when it comes to a promotion with some small monetary value, legal trolls start screaming bloody murder.

These says such different treatment is only considered ok when it benefits women, like giving them free stuff.

If I were on the bench, I would come to the decision that the tradeoff in value of a decreased price for ladies' drinks is the prospect of getting laid.

Only if you are good looking and "have game".
And this price discrimination is not just for "social situations" either. A quick lube place around here gives women half off on Wednesdays.
Despite its suggestive name, there is no "prospect of getting laid" at a quick lube place.

You don't like it, dude, then shave your legs, put on your face and go get your due. It's my understanding no one can tell you you're not a lady.

 

[pood]

And, right on cue …

 

[Derec]

I think many low-income families have had such experiences with their relatives, and are well aware of the problem I just described. They would be pleased by politicians who work to alleviate such inequities.

What you describe here is the motivation behind the "no bail" legislation in several states.
Unfortunately, but hardly surprisingly, these so-called "bail reforms" have been abused by criminals who get arrested for "no bail" crimes over and over again but are always release back into the community.

 

[pood]

I'll not be surprised to be accused of right-wing ideas for this post. So let me add fuel to the fire. --
There is a non-zero difference between the sexes. In some respects, a female chimpanzee has more in common with a female bonobo than it has with a male chimp. The post-rational "wokeism" that insists on treating males and females identically can become a hindrance.

Humans are not chimps or bonobos.

Anyway, I have no idea what “post-rational ‘wokeism’” is or aware that anyone argues that men and woman are identical, except of course that they should have identical rights under the law, as should everyone.

 

[Derec]

Considering that women are still usually paid a bit less compared to men, often even when doing the same job,

Women do not get paid less for the same job, when correcting for confounders such as hours worked or experience. That is a feminist canard that is unfortunately still explicitly believed.

maybe we should always get discounts in bars and in restaurants.

Well, female contraception is free, while male contraception isn't. And female hygiene products are tax-free in many places, nut male hygiene products are not. So women already get a lot of preferential treatment. Not to mention the sexist "selective service" registration.

I'll be surprised if our local sexist isn't here soon to talk about the injustices of allowing women to get cheap drinks on ladies nights.

Is anybody who disagrees with you on gender politics "a sexist"?

From what I recall, the men seemed to love that the women were getting cheap drinks.

Presumably the guys good-looking enough to pick up women at bars would. The policy of charging women's drinks less is still sexist though.

Or, it could be incels who resent not getting laid, so they take it out on women getting free or cheap drinks.

Another cheap insult. You are on a roll today.