Acceptable Housing and Business Discrimination

Factual Questions
1

In this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1520563#post1520563 KentP brought up the subject of senior discounts, which got me thinking about a couple of issues that really chap my hide.

Why are certain types of discrimination deemed acceptable? Here, I’m particularly talking about reverse age and gender discrimination.

I cannot understand the acceptability and legal justification of “senior communities”. I’m not talking about nursing homes here, I mean entire subdivisions and apartment complexes that have a minimum age for all residents. Here in the Phoenix area, we have several of these. Some of them are so strict that if a resident plans to have a guest (grandchild, etc.) stay for more than 2 weeks, they have to get a permit from the association.

Is this not discrimination? Granted, there probably aren’t a lot of 30 year olds looking to buy their first home that would want a neighborhood with an average resident age of 70, but if someone does, how is it justifiable to prevent them from buying that home based solely on their age?

I understand certain seniors not wanting hordes of screaming 13 year olds blazing up and down the street on their scooters. Hey, I don’t want that either. However, I can’t see any legal or moral justification for barring people from moving into a community based on their demographic data.

If I developed a subdivision and set a maximum age of 60, AARP would have me in court before the ink dried on the first zoning permit. What’s the rationale for making the converse acceptable?

Another thing that galls me is a fitness center chain called Naturally Women. As I understand it, it’s a traditional gym a la Bally’s, but they only accept female members. I work out at home; so their policy doesn’t really impact me, but how can they engage in such blatant gender discrimination and not be called on it? I understand women don’t like to be gawked at by guys in the gym, but how can the owners justify barring men access to a commercial facility?

If I tried to open an all male gym, NOW would have me in court before I could even sign the lease on the building and also make certain I was vilified in the court of public opinion. Yet, an all female gym is apparently okay?

Have we not progressed to the point in American society where all people are supposed to have equal opportunities? Can anyone give me a reasonable justification for this kind of discrimination?

2

I’m no lawyer, so there will probably be gaping holes in my response. My apologies in advance. My first thought was of signs the say, “We reserve the right to refuse service to…” and “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” Businesses, especially those that are privately owned, have the right to refuse to serve anyone they find objectionable. If a would-be patron doesn’t meet the dress code, acts inapproprately, etc., the business can and probably will decline service.

Age discrimination: programs that allow lower prices for seniors, or students, are generally offered out of respect for those who are on a fixed income or otherwise traditionally on a low budget. In a perfect world, all adults would be able to afford the same things, but that’s obviously not the case. Lowering prices for people who are identifiably on a (usually) lower- or fixed-income budget is a gesture of courtesy and often results in customer loyalty. When it comes to communities, a minimum age may be linked to the expectation of providing care, or simply keeping things quiet for those who have put in their time in louder places. If people don’t want to live around kids, why should they? There is ample housing available for people who do want to live near (or at least don’t mind) kids. I don’t see any reason for objecting to the reverse of that. I’m not aware of housing that sets a maximum age, but I also think it’s unlikely since you’d lose patrons after gaining them, rather than maintaining the ones you have.

Gender discrimination: alive and well. Schools are not required to be co-ed. What makes you think businesses are or should be? There are certainly male-only businesses out there, just as there are some for women only. Some businesses (and government schools) have voluntarily gone co-ed, and others have been forced to, after public protest. Any business that chooses to cater to a certain set to the exclusion of others sets itself up to be criticized by those it exludes. Some survive that, some don’t.

The only problems that arise with any of these are when there are no alternatives for the people excluded. Men can work out at a men-only or co-ed gym. Thirtysomethings, with kids or without, can live in a young or mixed-age neighborhood. While I’m at it, my honeymoon was aboard a cruise that had a minimum age of 21 for guests, and it was heaven. No shrill whining (insert obvious joke here) from small children. No ungodly shrieks at all hours from teens. No embarrassing drunken antics from those newly initiated to lower drinking ages. The whole thing had a very adult, classy feel to it, and I’d gladly pay for that experience again. Obviously I’m not alone. The company offering the cruise saw a niche, filled it, everyone’s happy. People with kids, and high-school grads off for their senior year trip can easily book with someone else, or even with the same company on a different ship.

In short, age- and gender discrimination are, I think, acceptable as long as those business practices do not replace all other options. Let the niches be filled!