The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:27 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Legality of limiting a movie theater to one gender only

Given that this is a legal question I suppose the mods may move it to IMHO soon, but it is still more GQ in nature:

So today there has been this big kerfuffle here in Austin, Texas on social media whereby Alamo Drafthouse (a movie theater) is going to have a showing of Wonder Woman that is limited to female patrons only; no men allowed. This isn't so much a question of the fairness/politics of it (although I suppose the thread will head in that direction inevitably sooner or later,) but rather, the legality of it.

Texas on the whole is conservative but Austin is its most liberal pocket, so I suppose there is likely a clause covering gender issues - but wanted to know, generally speaking, when businesses can or cannot discriminate on the basis of patron's gender, is this a federal, state, or city thing? For instance, with those stories about bakeries being sued for not providing gay wedding cakes - is that a matter of federal or state or city law?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:30 PM
JcWoman JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,552
I think it's a bit different. Alamo is doing ONE women-only showing but other showings were anyone can come. Using your bakery example, the bakery would have a "straight customers only" day of selling cakes, while they normally sell cakes to anyone. In terms of legalities, I think this kind of thing falls into standard business operations. Namely that businesses are allowed to have marketing promotions to special interests.

Last edited by JcWoman; 05-25-2017 at 03:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:33 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Right, but is this a "public accommodation" issue? The relevant city ordinance seems to be this - one cannot discriminate in a public accommodation on the basis of gender, etc.:


I am not lawyer, so does "public accommodation" mean things like public restrooms, or more like, a private showing of a movie in which tickets are still being sold?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:35 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
I think it's a bit different. Alamo is doing ONE women-only showing but other showings were anyone can come. Using your bakery example, the bakery would have a "straight customers only" day of selling cakes, while they normally sell cakes to anyone. In terms of legalities, I think this kind of thing falls into standard business operations. Namely that businesses are allowed to have marketing promotions to special interests.
Even this sounds illegal though. If a restaurant had 10 tables, and one was "white-only," they have run afoul of the law haven't they, even though a black customer technically still had 9 other tables he could have sat at?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:37 PM
Enginerd Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Texas on the whole is conservative but Austin is its most liberal pocket, so I suppose there is likely a clause covering gender issues - but wanted to know, generally speaking, when businesses can or cannot discriminate on the basis of patron's gender, is this a federal, state, or city thing? For instance, with those stories about bakeries being sued for not providing gay wedding cakes - is that a matter of federal or state or city law?
IANAL, but here's my understanding of those two questions:
  1. Sexual orientation isn't covered by federal discrimination law. Bakeries that have been successfully sued for discrimination have generally run afoul of state or local laws.
  2. Gender is a protected class under federal discrimination law, so any lawsuit over these showings could proceed as a federal case. I'm sure there are also state and local laws that would govern it as well.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:40 PM
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 69,460
I think that they'd be allowed to do "ladies half price", or the like (at least, bars often seem to get away with that), but not "no men allowed".
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:43 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Right - ISTM that the whole issue boils down to whether a private movie theater like Alamo Drafthouse is a "public accommodation" or not. Even if not, though, weren't all those private bakeries still banned from discrimination under some particular federal code - in other words, "we're a private business" is no cop out?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:45 PM
ZonexandScout ZonexandScout is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I think that they'd be allowed to do "ladies half price", or the like (at least, bars often seem to get away with that), but not "no men allowed".
This doesn't sound right to me either. IANAL, but I would question whether a store could advertise "50% off for white males."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-25-2017, 03:47 PM
enipla enipla is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 11,125
There are woman only gyms, aren't there?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-25-2017, 04:24 PM
electronbee electronbee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Right, but is this a "public accommodation" issue? The relevant city ordinance seems to be this - one cannot discriminate in a public accommodation on the basis of gender, etc.:


I am not lawyer, so does "public accommodation" mean things like public restrooms, or more like, a private showing of a movie in which tickets are still being sold?
Specifically:

https://www.municode.com/library/tx/...RI_CH5-2DIPUAC

Quote:
5-2-1 - DECLARATION OF POLICY.
(A)
It is the policy of the City to bring about through fair, orderly and lawful procedures, the opportunity of each person to obtain goods and services in a public accommodation without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability.
(B)
This policy is established upon a recognition of the inalienable rights of each individual to obtain goods and services in a public accommodation without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age or; and further that the denial of such rights through considerations based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, age, or disability is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the City and constitutes an unjust denial or deprivation of these inalienable rights within the power and the proper responsibility of government to prevent.
Source: 1992 Code Section 7-2-1; Ord. 031106-12; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. 040610-7.
So, what a guy could do, is show up, be refused entry, call the non-emergency police number to wait for a LEO, have them write a citation, then use said citation as evidence in court. Whatever.

I did not read the original link that pertains to this movie theater. An organization could probably rent out the whole place, and then make it a women only event. Then it's not on the movie theater.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-25-2017, 04:35 PM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Now that I think about, I'd gladly play along with the uterocracy on this if I could be the token male at the screening, even if it meant being a sycophant and quisling. The movie-going experience has gotten irritating enough - I anticipate men at a showing of Wonder Woman will be driven by Y-chromosome herd instinct to competitive levels of hooting.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-25-2017, 04:37 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
<nitpick>
Quote:
5-2-5 - COMPLAINT PROCEDURES.

(C) - When a person alleging an unlawful public accommodation practice files a charge with the Equal Employment/Fair Housing Office (charging party), the director shall, not later than the 10th day after the charge is received, send notice of the charge to the owner, operator, or lessee of the public accommodation (respondent). Notice under this section shall include the date, place, and specific circumstances of the alleged unlawful public accommodation practice.
It's not a crime, so the police won't want to get involved ... </nitpick>

... and if no one makes a complaint ... it's not a problem ... but I agree by the letter of the ordinances the "women only" night is a violation of men's civil rights ... just the same if the movie theater said "whites only" night ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 05-25-2017 at 04:37 PM.. Reason: How's it feel, guys ... hahahahahaha ...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-25-2017, 04:38 PM
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 69,460
Quote:
Quoth Zonexandscout:

This doesn't sound right to me either. IANAL, but I would question whether a store could advertise "50% off for white males."
I would question that, too, but gender is at a lower level of scrutiny than race, so it's still possible. I don't know what the legal theory is that supports "ladies' nights" at bars; I just know that it happens, and it's hard to believe that it's never been tested in court.

Last edited by Chronos; 05-25-2017 at 04:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-25-2017, 04:48 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I would question that, too, but gender is at a lower level of scrutiny than race, so it's still possible. I don't know what the legal theory is that supports "ladies' nights" at bars; I just know that it happens, and it's hard to believe that it's never been tested in court.
"Ladies night" at a bar doesn't prohibit men from enjoying the public accommodation ... it's a bit of a grey area and note that theoretically the men also enjoy the benefit half-price drinks for the ladies when they're buying ... not to mention the benefit of having a bar full of drunk women ...

Does the Federal guidance provide a lower scrutiny in public accommodations for sex? ... because I can assure you all protected classes get equal protection under Fair Housing Laws ... a sign in the rental unit saying "no children allowed" is treated the same as "no blacks allowed" ... a landlord just can't do that ...

There's an explicit exception in our State law that allows "55 and older" facilities, which includes the "no children" rule ... I don't know if the Feds have that as well ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 05-25-2017 at 04:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-25-2017, 04:53 PM
kanicbird kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I think that they'd be allowed to do "ladies half price", or the like (at least, bars often seem to get away with that), but not "no men allowed".
And to add how far can this go. Is ladies night pay 1/2,000,000 price on drinks that are $2,000,000 each that night , effectively excluding men except a few from oil rich countries.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-25-2017, 05:45 PM
TroutMan TroutMan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Ladies' nights are legal in some states and not in others. Wikipedia has a decent summary. In states where it is allowed, the argument typically is that the goal is to increase the number of women rather than decrease the number of men, or that men cannot demonstrate damage to themselves. There is no mention of any rulings in Texas.

This would seem to be a different situation anyway, since the goal is obviously to decrease the number of men and a man could demonstrate damage.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-25-2017, 06:11 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutMan View Post
Ladies' nights are legal in some states and not in others. Wikipedia has a decent summary. In states where it is allowed, the argument typically is that the goal is to increase the number of women rather than decrease the number of men, or that men cannot demonstrate damage to themselves. There is no mention of any rulings in Texas.

This would seem to be a different situation anyway, since the goal is obviously to decrease the number of men and a man could demonstrate damage.
If I understand you correctly, "Demonstrate damage" means that a man is being banned from that particular movie showing, whereas Ladies Nights were upheld as legal as long as the men were still allowed to participate, albeit not getting the discount that women get?

In other words it's OK to give a positive benefit to a race/gender/etc. but not OK to give a negative effect/harm to a race/gender.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-25-2017, 07:00 PM
TroutMan TroutMan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If I understand you correctly, "Demonstrate damage" means that a man is being banned from that particular movie showing, whereas Ladies Nights were upheld as legal as long as the men were still allowed to participate, albeit not getting the discount that women get?

In other words it's OK to give a positive benefit to a race/gender/etc. but not OK to give a negative effect/harm to a race/gender.
As noted, several states ruled that ladies' nights are unlawful, so I wouldn't make the blanket statement that it's OK.

In the two cases from that Wiki article that allowed them, for Illinois it states "the court determined that the discount was intended to encourage women to attend the bar in greater numbers, rather than to discourage attendance by males." For Washington, it sounds much narrower:
Quote:
In part, the court emphasized in its ruling evidence presented in the trial court that "women do not manifest the same interest in basketball that men do," and that the discount was only one of many discounts and promotions, the others available regardless of gender.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-25-2017, 07:03 PM
Johanna Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,379
Oh, for Hera's sake, Velocity! It's called a promotional gimmick. This sort of thing has a long history in motion pictures. Here, the concept is to recreate the island of Themiscyra for a day. What's the harm? It's integral to the WW legend.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-25-2017, 07:12 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
Oh, for Hera's sake, Velocity! It's called a promotional gimmick. This sort of thing has a long history in motion pictures. Here, the concept is to recreate the island of Themiscyra for a day. What's the harm? It's integral to the WW legend.
Again, this thread isn't asking about the societal culture/politics/moral fairness of it, but rather, the legality of the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-25-2017, 07:52 PM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,298
Pretty sure it's illegal but why don't they just have an additional, special showing before regular hours or after regular hours?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-25-2017, 09:27 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 11,808
Ok, let's break it down from the top:

1) Is a theater a "public accommodation"? Yes. See for example Sec. 201 (b) (3) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the federal law that specifically includes theaters.

2) Does federal civil rights law preclude discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of gender? No. Race, color, religion, national origin, yes; gender no.

3) Does Texas state law ban it? No. Texas is one of only five states that have no law regarding discrimination by public accommodations.

4) Does Austin, TX ban such discrimination? Yes. Specifically, Title V, Article 2, Section 4 of the city's code precludes a public accommodation from
Quote:
may not directly or indirectly exclude, segregate, limit, refuse or deny a person the accommodations, advantages, facilities, benefits, privileges, services, or goods of the public accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, national origin, age, or disability.
5) How are violations handled? Code section 5-2-7 stipulates that the city is to first attempt an informal resolution of the situation. If that fails, the matter is referred to the city's attorney for action. I don't know what penalties are available, if any, or if the only thing the city can do is force the violator not to continue violating the code section.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-25-2017, 11:33 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Ok, let's break it down from the top:

1) Is a theater a "public accommodation"? Yes. See for example Sec. 201 (b) (3) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the federal law that specifically includes theaters.

2) Does federal civil rights law preclude discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of gender? No. Race, color, religion, national origin, yes; gender no.

3) Does Texas state law ban it? No. Texas is one of only five states that have no law regarding discrimination by public accommodations.

4) Does Austin, TX ban such discrimination? Yes. Specifically, Title V, Article 2, Section 4 of the city's code precludes a public accommodation from

5) How are violations handled? Code section 5-2-7 stipulates that the city is to first attempt an informal resolution of the situation. If that fails, the matter is referred to the city's attorney for action. I don't know what penalties are available, if any, or if the only thing the city can do is force the violator not to continue violating the code section.
Thanks. Makes perfect sense. I am surprised that federal law doesn't cover gender, though, and wonder why.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-26-2017, 01:02 AM
Johanna Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 12,379
I just remembered that when Mira Nair premiered Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love in India in 1996, she insisted on women-only showings, but in this case it wasn't a promotional gimmick. She knew that many Indian women would be too reticent to attend it when men were around, and if she didn't arrange woman-only showings, they wouldn't get to see it. And since she made it especially for the cause of women's sexual liberation, it was important to her to get them in the door. Obviously that situation was completely different from this one. I don't suppose India has laws against single-gender events, because so many things there are sex-segregated already.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-26-2017, 02:38 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Thanks. Makes perfect sense. I am surprised that federal law doesn't cover gender, though, and wonder why.
It does per "All The Way"

Gender discrimination was thrown in with the Civil Rights bill.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-26-2017, 06:27 AM
ZonexandScout ZonexandScout is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I would question that, too, but gender is at a lower level of scrutiny than race, so it's still possible. I don't know what the legal theory is that supports "ladies' nights" at bars; I just know that it happens, and it's hard to believe that it's never been tested in court.
I believe that gender and race are similarly protected and roughly equivalent as far as civil rights legislation. That's why I made my example a "double whammy." What's the difference (legally) between offering special discounts to either a preferred or protected class?

I can't begin to imagine the response to a store posting "Attention: Prices are doubled for black women."

While I understand "ladies nights" at bars and their intended purpose, it's always seemed strange to me that this type of promotion is permitted. It seems a bit like an effort at affirmative action based on the idea that we don't have enough female alcoholics. (In fact, I have no idea if this is true.)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-26-2017, 06:51 AM
kayaker kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayT View Post
Pretty sure it's illegal but why don't they just have an additional, special showing before regular hours or after regular hours?
Or offer a separate but equal showing just for men?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-26-2017, 07:03 AM
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Even this sounds illegal though. If a restaurant had 10 tables, and one was "white-only," they have run afoul of the law haven't they, even though a black customer technically still had 9 other tables he could have sat at?
IANAL, but I would imagine that the relevant part of the ordinance would be
Quote:
. . . constitutes an unjust denial or deprivation of these inalienable rights within the power and the proper responsibility of government to prevent.
My emphasis.

While one can get really anal about it and claim that despite all other of the showings for all of the days the movie is in that one particular theater, men were excluded from -- oh my god -- that one showing so it's discrimination! However, it's pretty obvious that this is just another example of misogynists throwing a hissy fit.

Ongoing discrimination is a separate matter of course.

I would imagine that the reverse would also not result in legal action. If a private business wanted to exclude women for a single, inconsequential event where there were many other opportunities to women to attend, then it wouldn't run into legal problems. Really bad RP, perhaps.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-26-2017, 07:31 AM
Johnny Bravo Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
5) How are violations handled? Code section 5-2-7 stipulates that the city is to first attempt an informal resolution of the situation. If that fails, the matter is referred to the city's attorney for action. I don't know what penalties are available, if any, or if the only thing the city can do is force the violator not to continue violating the code section.
So the city will most likely drag its heels and the "informal resolution" step won't actually happen prior to the event. Since it's only one showing, the matter resolves itself. If the theater decided to have a "women only" night for every single movie, the city wouldn't be able to avoid things.

I don't see how the theater isn't clearly violating Austin's discrimination law. Ongoing or not, the theater is limiting (not denying) the usage of a public facility based on gender identification.

It's a great law. Very comprehensive. And because it's a comprehensive law, the theater doesn't have much wiggle room. That's a good thing, because while they mean well, the next business might not, and they won't be able to point to this instance as precedence.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-26-2017, 09:15 AM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
It does per "All The Way"

Gender discrimination was thrown in with the Civil Rights bill.
? sorry, confused?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-26-2017, 10:02 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 11,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
It does per "All The Way"

Gender discrimination was thrown in with the Civil Rights bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonexandScout View Post
I believe that gender and race are similarly protected and roughly equivalent as far as civil rights legislation. That's why I made my example a "double whammy." What's the difference (legally) between offering special discounts to either a preferred or protected class?

I can't begin to imagine the response to a store posting "Attention: Prices are doubled for black women."

While I understand "ladies nights" at bars and their intended purpose, it's always seemed strange to me that this type of promotion is permitted. It seems a bit like an effort at affirmative action based on the idea that we don't have enough female alcoholics. (In fact, I have no idea if this is true.)
Ok, first of all, gender is NOT protected federally by the Civil Rights legislation. Some gender protections do exist federally (see, for example, Title IX of the 1972 Education rights bill), but gender is NOT protected like race, etc., in the public accommodations laws.

Secondly, as regards federal constitutional law on gender discrimination, that's covered by "intermediate" scrutiny, while racial, etc. discrimination is covered by "strict" scrutiny. Laws which discriminate against gender must only show that they are a reasonably related to an important governmental concern. And, of course, that doesn't apply here, because Austin actually protects gender at a higher level.

As for "Ladies Nights", it's telling that California, which has a very strict law on discrimination in public accommodations (the Unruh Act, Civil Code Section 51), advised bars and the like decades ago that they could not have such nights, because they improperly discriminate against men with their pricing.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-26-2017, 10:11 AM
JcWoman JcWoman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,552
Okay, I just saw the promotion for this for my local Alamo here in Virginia, so it's not an Austin-only event. What they're doing is sort of a charity-promotion for the movie. A percentage of the revenues from the women-only viewing are going to a women's charity called Christy's Shoes. I checked their calendar and this is also the very last showing of the movie, so all the men can see it to their heart's content before this event happens.

I'm avoiding the issue of whether it's legal, but I don't see any ethical problem with what they're doing.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-26-2017, 11:59 AM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
Ok, first of all, gender is NOT protected federally by the Civil Rights legislation. Some gender protections do exist federally (see, for example, Title IX of the 1972 Education rights bill), but gender is NOT protected like race, etc., in the public accommodations laws.

Secondly, as regards federal constitutional law on gender discrimination, that's covered by "intermediate" scrutiny, while racial, etc. discrimination is covered by "strict" scrutiny. Laws which discriminate against gender must only show that they are a reasonably related to an important governmental concern. And, of course, that doesn't apply here, because Austin actually protects gender at a higher level.

As for "Ladies Nights", it's telling that California, which has a very strict law on discrimination in public accommodations (the Unruh Act, Civil Code Section 51), advised bars and the like decades ago that they could not have such nights, because they improperly discriminate against men with their pricing.
https://www.archives.gov/education/l...vil-rights-act

"In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing. "

You're right it doesn't say anything about public accomodation. I was confused by the dialogue in "All the Way" in that it goes directly from the Southern congressman trying to prevent racial equality in public accomodations to saying "Well then I propose we not discriminate based on sex"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-26-2017, 02:49 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 11,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by JcWoman View Post
Okay, I just saw the promotion for this for my local Alamo here in Virginia, so it's not an Austin-only event. What they're doing is sort of a charity-promotion for the movie. A percentage of the revenues from the women-only viewing are going to a women's charity called Christy's Shoes. I checked their calendar and this is also the very last showing of the movie, so all the men can see it to their heart's content before this event happens.

I'm avoiding the issue of whether it's legal, but I don't see any ethical problem with what they're doing.
You will, I hope, concede that, if it is illegal, it is not morally correct to do?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-26-2017, 03:27 PM
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 69,460
That would be an extremely peculiar thing to concede. Plenty of things throughout history have been illegal but moral, or legal but immoral.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-26-2017, 09:11 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 27,084
Boyoboy, Woody Guthrie would have a perplexing night these days; leading the audience in a rousing performance of This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land. He'd come to the part where he shouted out "Just the girls this time!" and out would come a pack of MRAs with a lawyer and injunction...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-26-2017, 10:28 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 11,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
That would be an extremely peculiar thing to concede. Plenty of things throughout history have been illegal but moral, or legal but immoral.
But in this specific instance?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-26-2017, 11:05 PM
Ranger Jeff Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Right, but is this a "public accommodation" issue? The relevant city ordinance seems to be this - one cannot discriminate in a public accommodation on the basis of gender, etc.:


I am not lawyer, so does "public accommodation" mean things like public restrooms, or more like, a private showing of a movie in which tickets are still being sold?
Don't bars have "Ladies' Nights"? Discrimination or marketing.

What sort of damages is a guy going to endure because he can't get into Thursday nights 9 pm showing of Wonder Woman anyway? There's probably 8 and 10 pm showings for all genders in the 2nd viewing room down the way anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-26-2017, 11:45 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger Jeff View Post
Don't bars have "Ladies' Nights"? Discrimination or marketing.

What sort of damages is a guy going to endure because he can't get into Thursday nights 9 pm showing of Wonder Woman anyway? There's probably 8 and 10 pm showings for all genders in the 2nd viewing room down the way anyway.
Again, this is like saying, "If a restaurant has 10 tables, and one is "white-only," a black customer still has 9 other tables he can sit at."
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-27-2017, 12:23 AM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, this is like saying, "If a restaurant has 10 tables, and one is "white-only," a black customer still has 9 other tables he can sit at."
No it isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-27-2017, 06:14 AM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 11,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger Jeff View Post
Don't bars have "Ladies' Nights"? Discrimination or marketing.

What sort of damages is a guy going to endure because he can't get into Thursday nights 9 pm showing of Wonder Woman anyway? There's probably 8 and 10 pm showings for all genders in the 2nd viewing room down the way anyway.
As I indicated upthread, in California, Ladies' Nights are banned by operation of that state's civil rights act, which protects against gender discrimination. So, if you have a gender discrimination statute, yes, technically such promotions can be violations of it.

The damages a person gets for being discriminated at a specific time of day is the same regardless of whether or not there are other times that that discrimination doesn't exist. Ask yourself: would it be ok to have a "blacks only" showing or a "whites only" showing at 9 pm, just because the 8 pm and 10 pm showings aren't restricted? When your answer to this becomes (as it should), "no", then the fact that the restriction is gender-based rather than racially-based makes no difference.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-27-2017, 08:43 AM
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 69,460
Quote:
Quoth DSYoungEsq:

But in this specific instance?
In this specific instance, as with all other instances, the question of whether it's moral or not is completely independent of whether it's legal or not. So if you're asking about morality, why bring up legality at all?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-27-2017, 12:15 PM
Gary T Gary T is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: KCMO
Posts: 10,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
... it's a bit of a grey area and note that theoretically the men also enjoy the benefit half-price drinks for the ladies when they're buying ...
Somehow I don't think the privilege of buying drinks for someone else, even at a reduced price, would stand up as a benefit in a court case.
Quote:
... not to mention the benefit of having a bar full of drunk women ...
But I would love to see a court rule on the legal benefit suggested here.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-27-2017, 01:02 PM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
As I indicated upthread, in California, Ladies' Nights are banned by operation of that state's civil rights act, which protects against gender discrimination. So, if you have a gender discrimination statute, yes, technically such promotions can be violations of it.

The damages a person gets for being discriminated at a specific time of day is the same regardless of whether or not there are other times that that discrimination doesn't exist. Ask yourself: would it be ok to have a "blacks only" showing or a "whites only" showing at 9 pm, just because the 8 pm and 10 pm showings aren't restricted? When your answer to this becomes (as it should), "no", then the fact that the restriction is gender-based rather than racially-based makes no difference.
Yet in California, ladies only gyms are perfectly ok. "Curves" franchises are everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-27-2017, 02:03 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Yet in California, ladies only gyms are perfectly ok. "Curves" franchises are everywhere.
Yes, but isn't the argument that women have special need for a women-only gym, in a way that does not apply to a "women need their own movie screening" case?


And even if so, Austin law may be stricter than California law; Austin Title 5 Article 2 Section 4 still says that a public accommodation may not "limit" on the basis of gender(even if men can watch 98% of all showings, and women can watch 100% of all showings, then that means the men were "limited.") It also says that people must have "full and equal enjoyment" of the public accommodation - and, again, even if men can watch 98% of all showings, and women can watch 100% of all showings, then that means the men did not have "full and equal" access.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-27-2017, 08:41 PM
DSYoungEsq DSYoungEsq is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Indian Land, S Carolina
Posts: 11,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by suranyi View Post
Yet in California, ladies only gyms are perfectly ok. "Curves" franchises are everywhere.
No, in California, they are not only not "ok", they violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. As a result, Curves admits men to their gyms in California, and in other states where their business model would violate anti-discrimination laws. Several states have passed specific exemptions from gender-discrimination laws to allow gyms to be limited to women-only.

See for example the discussion here after a ruling against a women-only gym in Santa Rosa, CA.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-27-2017, 08:45 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 27,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
As I indicated upthread, in California, Ladies' Nights are banned by operation of that state's civil rights act, which protects against gender discrimination. So, if you have a gender discrimination statute, yes, technically such promotions can be violations of it.

The damages a person gets for being discriminated at a specific time of day is the same regardless of whether or not there are other times that that discrimination doesn't exist. Ask yourself: would it be ok to have a "blacks only" showing or a "whites only" showing at 9 pm, just because the 8 pm and 10 pm showings aren't restricted? When your answer to this becomes (as it should), "no", then the fact that the restriction is gender-based rather than racially-based makes no difference.
I first learned of this over forty years ago, when it was explained to me why car washes had stopped running "Ladies' Days" promotions.

ETA: usually on Wednesdays, IIRC...

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 05-27-2017 at 08:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-27-2017, 11:27 PM
Dale Sams Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
WB should tell Alamo it won't be allowed to....you know...its too late now. WB should have clamped down immediatly. IMHO this is going to hurt sales in a certain demo.

And if not...well i certainly don't think its helped.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-28-2017, 02:38 PM
Velocity Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
WB should tell Alamo it won't be allowed to....you know...its too late now. WB should have clamped down immediatly. IMHO this is going to hurt sales in a certain demo.

And if not...well i certainly don't think its helped.
Does a movie producer still have control over how a theater may show its movie?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-29-2017, 12:47 AM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
No, in California, they are not only not "ok", they violate the Unruh Civil Rights Act. As a result, Curves admits men to their gyms in California, and in other states where their business model would violate anti-discrimination laws. Several states have passed specific exemptions from gender-discrimination laws to allow gyms to be limited to women-only.

See for example the discussion here after a ruling against a women-only gym in Santa Rosa, CA.
Huh, that's news to me. Ignorance fought.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.