BlogWonks

One can file this under, when you lose, sometimes you win.

 

The judgment of Judge Miriam Goldman Cederbaum came in on the issue of discriminatory pricing for NY nightclubs.

 

Roy Dan Hollander, who has been crusading against such practices, commented that her dismissal of his lawsuit was consistent with the discrimination against men in the legal system.

 

Basically, Hallander was making the argument that charging a man $25 dollars to walk in the door, while not charging women was sexual discrimination. The practice of free drinks for ladies also becomes suspect under this line of thinking.

 

True to form, Judge Cederbaum, invoked the mental process of oppressor and oppressed dialectics and decided that giving women free drink and not charging them entry was a completely legal and fair thing. The reason given though is key.

 

Judge Cedarbaum said nightclubs can price their products as they wish because they’re not acting as representatives of the state.

 

Judge tosses suit over ‘ladies’ nights’

NEW YORK — It’s closing time for a lawsuit alleging ladies’ nights at nightclubs discriminate against men.

Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum tossed the lawsuit out of federal court in Manhattan on Monday. She said nightclubs can price their products as they wish because they’re not acting as representatives of the state.

The lawsuit was brought by attorney Roy Den Hollander, who has crusaded against feminism and recently sued a university over its women’s studies program.

 

Hollander said ladies’ nights at Manhattan nightclubs discriminate against men by offering women free or discounted admission and drinks. He tried to link the state to the discounts because it licenses the sale of alcohol at nightclubs.

 

How does that translate to a condition of when you lose you win?

 

Easy. Mr Hollander is probably upset (and the article says as much), but he hasn’t seen the overwhelmingly positive outcome that this legal precedence makes.

 

Basically various businesses and clubs in NY have had a problem when it comes to running their business the way they want to. Just as in this nightclub case.

 

Various businesses have sought to have men’s only businesses, but the women’s groups will not let such discrimination stand. that its illegal and discriminatory to prevent a woman from participating in a mens only gym, because she is a woman.

 

Well this problem has now been fixed by Judge Cedarbaum, prices that are set by gender are not discriminatory, they are legal.

 

Now Gyms that wish to be mens only can have this not by forbidding women from entering, but by just charging them differently.

 

The ladies night in a club has the effect of promoting the attendance of women, while dispromoting the attendance of as many men. What this judge has in effect ruled is that one can set prices in ones own free market business that promotes one sex or gender over another, and that since the business is not a state entity, they are free to do this.

 

This means that no more lawsuits as to sex discrimination in business and clubs as it is fair for them to charge men $50 dollars a month membership fee to join the gym, and charge a woman $500 dollar fee.  

 

One may make the argument that the disparity in price might signal discrimination, but this is not so. if the clubs in NY charged a dollar for the women to enter, and charged the men $25 dollars then the difference would be established as 25 times the prices. at that disparity, the gym could charge $1,250 and be on exact parity with clubs.

 

However the club lets them in free… and free is less than a dollar, and so the amount of disparity is actually anything one wants to claim, especially the amounts above what a dollar would be fractional.

 

This means that every club in NY that wishes to disbar women from entry, need only set their prices. Judge Cedarbaum has ruled that such practices are perfectly legal and not considered discrimination.

 

Hollander can now proceed to fight on behalf of NY hair stylists. Years ago, they ruled that a hair stylist cant charge women more for a cut because the women have more complex hair styles, or longer hair.

 

Well, now that has been replaced by the new free market precident that business owners can charge what they want. Hair stylists are not acting as representatives of the state.

 

ALSO, this means that dry cleaners can also charge more for womens clothing, another lawsuit years ago made that illegal. Even though the explanation, like the hair above, is that women tend to wear finer clothes with lace and these items have to have more care.

 

Well now judge Cedarbaum has insured that such reasons are not needed. a business owner can charge whatever they want in an effort to promote or inhibit attendance by any group they wish, and its not discriminatory as long as they are not representatives of the state.

 

This means that one can also go back to the evil days of jim crow and have different prices based on race, since race and gender are legally equivalent in discriminatory law. And one can now charge the young more money and the elderly less, after all, that’s a social good too. Now atheists can charge Christians more, just so they don’t have to bother with them.

 

Judge Cedarbaum has insured that 40 years of democratic meddling in free business will now finally come to an end. Businesses are free to discriminate in pricing since such isnt discrimination unless the state does it, and they are free to succeed or fail based on that policy.

 

So in the case of nightclubs, they are free to do this, and we are free as patrons to decide whether we agree.  The same would be now true of any business over any reason like age, race, religion, or disability. They are free to succeed or fail on that policy and its outcomes in the market. have higher prices for African Americans, and that’s ok, if you can succeed doing that.

 

Whats more is that Judge Cedarbaum in her effort to be fairly unfair, and sock it to the guys has also gutted the disabilities laws. For if its ok for a club to charge differently at the door for different classes of people, then its ok for a business to charge a wheel chair bound person 100 times the price to cover custom service of moving them into the store without a ramp yet still grant access.  

 

Ah…  Judge Cedarbaum having decided that there is a double standard and its legal, has under the concept of equality under the law, made such double standards a legal goodness again.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all might pan out if these things are applied. Will then Judge Cedarbaum change her judgment, or would a higher court do so?  would the courts be forced to let it stand and therefore, have to grant the legality of these practices under freedom, even if we don’t like them?

 

I guess it depends on Hollander, and all the other businesses who wish to define how and why they do business with people.

 

After all, its now legal to charge higher rents for “undesirables”. An apartment is a business, its not owned by the state, and so the business is free to set prices any way it wants. So it can charge 10k a month for a minority and can charge 1 dollar a month for a favored group. Why? because judge Cedarbaum has said that it can.    

 

At the very least, she has potentially thrown all this prior law into contention.

 

Either its ok for businesses to set prices to promote or inhibit a mix of clients, or its considered discriminatory to do so.

 

The key is that the mechanism is prices, not rules forbidding attendance. That a group can be inhibited is now legal, it just can’t be prevented. Having a high price for one group, inhibits them, but does not prevent attendance. The argument that such disparity is not burdensome is specious when one then says it’s discrimination against the poor men who wish to go out with the women who wish the door cost was their to weed out poor men.

 

The argument that the same disparity that is absent from clubs and doors, is absent when one looks at the skin color, the age, or anything else, is just as specious.

 

 “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”

Sir Walter Scott.