Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
A federal court has ruled that “Ladies Night” is all right. The Manhattan-based Second Court of Appeals rejected a claim by Den Hollander, a self-proclaimed "Men's Rights" lawyer, who insisted that “Ladies Night” promotions such as half-price drinks and cheaper admission were unconstitutional, a result of “40 years of lobbying and intimidation, [by] the special interest group called ‘Feminism.’ "
Hollander insisted that because nightclubs are licensed by the state, the special deals required them to adhere to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Without court intervention, Hollander claimed “none other than what’s left of the Wall Street moguls” will be able to afford to attend nightclubs. [...] According to the New York Daily News, Hollander is planning to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. -- NBC Los Angeles
I would not lose sleep over this one. First off, there is no appeal to the United States Supreme Court as of right. Only a petition for certiorari, which in this case will be denied. The simple ground is indeed that bars are not, last I looked, state actors, even if they are political watering holes. And the price discrimination system works because it is an illustration of what is sometimes called a two-sided market. You won't get men at most bars unless you have women, and ditto. But the intensity of the preferences differ, so that ladies night, by offering lower rates, equalizes the numbers and thus induces both men and women to come.
If you start with a built-in bias that says all forms of discrimination are bad, you will have no incentive to figure out what is happening on the ground. So there is a rational defense to be made of the practice, wholly apart from the constitutional state action doctrine. And this last point could be critical if the state decided as a legislative matter to ban Ladies NIghts at bars. But that just illustrates the more general proposition that limitations on freedom of contract in competitive markets hurt those who are "protected" along with everyone else.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
Wow, that is one impressively thick guy. "Ladies Nights" a result of feminism? Not a result of men liking women and women liking bars less than men? Gosh!
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
The suit shows how nutty the equality of the sexes, combined with the expansion of the empire of the courts, has become, even though some federal judges refused to intervene. Under the "state action" doctrine, courts have required actors that are not formally part of the government, but have some kind of link to the state, must follow constitutional requirements. But no one is quite sure which one is a state actor, and which one is not. Most notoriously, the Supreme Court once said that parking garages were state actors. So even though it seems ridiculous to anyone with common sense, the Men's Rights' claim that bars were state actors, because they were licensed by New York, had a chance. Of course, under this logic, every deli and maybe every business would be a state actor too. [1/2]
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
The case shows the perversity of the logic of equality of outcomes. As Richard says, Ladies' Night actually helps men too -- they want to go to places where they can meet members of the opposite sex. But the equality of outcome forces don't want either gender to receive anything different, positive or negative. I suppose that means that men should be able to complain that stores offer better selection of clothes in a more appealing variety of colors for women. Maybe Hollander can sue the Women's Entertainment network next for more male-oriented programming. I've always thought the WE channel could use some more re-runs of the Terminator movies instead of Golden Girls. [2/2]
May '10
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
Agreed that it all sounds "nutty" and "perverse", but consider what courts have done with Title 9 and the allocation of college athletic funding. As you said, John, the equality of outcome forces employ a perverse sort of logic, and it sometimes succeeds.
Jul '10
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
So long as Hooters waitresses remain, um, you know, waitresses, I'm OK.
Jul '10
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
Mr. Yoo, you mention "WE," let's not forget BET. Can We insist more "Seinfeld[?]"
Aug '10
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
Richard Epstein
Apparently, Mr. Hollander hasn't quite realized that he is a feminist himself. At bottom, feminism is about abolishing gender distinctions, and it sounds like he's the only one doing that here.
Aug '10
Re: Ladies Night Rightly Ruled Constitutional
All your points are well taken by me; but tell me, do you not think the nuttiness factor might have worked had the tables been turned by a reversal of which sex was aggrieved in this case? I still want men-only clubs where I can sit in crunchy leather chairs awaiting dinner, sipping a scotch, reading the WSJ (scratch that) old Ricochet blogs, smoking a cigar, and talking about running the world with a bunch or crusty, old, brainy guys. Come on, how else can I come up with that extra $7 every time I want to enter a dance club, especially when we learned last week, that the mean salaries of the goyls is now higher than that of the average man? Vive la différence! and now let’s get serious about reversing the oppression of males via affirmative action, etc.
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 6:33pm