I’ve seen discount pricing for various goods and services for students, veterans, and senior citizens. However, there’s a foo-foo pastry/bakery/candy store near me that offers a discount on all chocolate in the store to women. It’s not like an occasional “ladies night” at a bar; you just get chocolate cheaper if you have a vagina. Is this legal in the US? Is it legal for businesses to offer discounts to men, or members of certain ethnic, religious and racial groups?
In the past it’s been legal to have ladie’s nights and such if you could show it was a legitimate discount for producing business.
For instance, in a bar, the tendency is for there to be too many men and not enough women. If you’re promoting your bar as a single’s place, you know a place for men and women to meet, having an inbalance of men to women is going to be a bad thing.
So by giving away free drinks to women you bring them in and correct this balance. This is a legitimate reason for having a ladie’s night.
Another thing that has been allowed is celebrations of recognized days. For instance if the UN declares “International Day of The Blonde Woman.” You could make a strong case to give free discounts to Blonde Women on that particular day. This has been done in the past with various groups when the UN declared special days
But the idea is the UN is declaring it and not some yokel doing it.
Now that said, many places are specifically banning ladie’s nights and such. I believe there was a big fuss in Minnesota not too long ago when it was banned.
So basically if there is a prevailing interest in drawing in a specific group of people you may be able to get away with it.
The only way to know for sure is to try it and see if someone complains and it hold up.
Lastly before you get too upset, see if they really deny a man some candy discounts.
For example in most places it’s not legal to require a purchase to enter a contest. BUT the contest may put in huge letters – BUY THIS AND ENTER OUR CONTEST. Then in tiny print it says “No purchase necessary. See store to enter contest without purchase.”
But you’d never know about that unless you looked. You’d just assume you had to buy.
So the store might be offering discounts to woman but in reality will give it to anyone who asks for it.
FWIW I believe the reasoning behind that is that if you have to purchase something to enter the contest it becomes a lottery subject to local/state/federal gaming laws (which would include minors not being able to participate, not being able to use a credit card, needing the proper licenses and permits etc). By allowing people to enter the contest without making a purchase they are exempt from all of that.
But they do usually make it not worth your while to participate that way. For example when McDonalds puts the Monopoly pieces on their cups, you can get one for free, but you have to send a SASE to their office to request one.
Hey, why not complain about it and get it shut down, thus helping the flow of political correctness o’er the land
Minnesota Declares ‘Ladies’ Night’ Illegal - 11 June 2010
In 2004, a N.J. Adminstrative Decision determined that ladies night was unlawful discrimination under New Jersey law.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3412561&page=1
Discount prices solely on account of sex is discrimination. That it may be illegal discrimination may vary upon jurisdiction. One would think discounted chocolate prices for women would be illegal.
There’s definitely pricing discrimination abroad in the land - haircuts, dry cleaning, etc.
Let’s address it from the other side, and instead of offering women unequal incentives to go to bars, simply require them by law to do so, as well as that they buy their own drinks; with a 2-drink minimum (alcohol not mandatory)
If this seems an unfair imposition on their time and finances, we could limit male bar-patrons to those with active enrollment in the armed forces’ selective service. This would put the unfairness issue into some perspective, as well as eliminate the “creepy old guy” factor.
Is it discrimination when it can be proven (on average) that it takes longer to cut a woman’s hair vs. a man’s hair? And that women (on average) are much more particular about their hair vs. men?
Is it discrimination when it can be proven that the average price of woman’s garment submitted for dry-cleaning is greater than the average price of man’s garment?
Why yes, it is.
At the place I get my hair done, the have a sign posted saying that it is discrimination, and thus illegal, to have different prices for a man’s haircut vs. a woman’s haircut. This is in California. That being said, salons often charge extra for things that women are more likely to get (for example, a blow dry).
What exactly do you mean? Don’t let men who aren’t active duty military into bars? Or don’t let men who aren’t registered for the draft in (in which case since the vast majority of men are how would that eliminate the “creepy old guy factor”)? Or only men who are both registered and liable for conscription (ie 18-25 yr olds). Given that the drinking age is 21 that would mean that only men who are 21 or old and younger than 26 could dring in bars.
That’s right. Bars that opt into the program would be full of women who were fulfilling their weekly, 2-drink obligation, and healthy males aged 21-25 with no felony convictions or visible tattoos.
Think of it like Starship Troopers, with jello shots instead of bugs
Really?
So if I, with a large lawn, am quoted a price to cut it greater than that offered to my neighbor with a small lawn, that’s discrimination?
That’s not the same situation. It would be like if you were charged more because houses in your neighborhood tend to have large lawns regardless of the actual size of your lawn.
If you talk to people who cut hair, they seem consistent in saying that they spend substantially more time on a woman’s hair.
And I gotta believe that if a man went in and said he wanted exactly the treatment that the woman before him received, he would not get it for $12.
None of this seems to justify charging based on gender and not on the amount of time it takes to cut an individual’s hair.
Hi! I’m new. You can all just call me Lou.
Perhaps I have a different view because I was a small business owner.
If I own a pub and chose to risk my money by lowering or eliminating the price women pay for drinks in the hope that more women will come and attract more men, why can’t I take that risk in my own business with my own money?
Who am I discriminating against? The women who get cheap drinks? The guys who have more women around to admire and/or hit on?
We are living under a capitalist system, no? If my idea stinks and people get upset they can sue me, boycott me, rail against me in letters to editors.
And if that happens my business will fail and that’s fair. But democracy and capitolism should vouchsafe my opportunity to at least try out my bussines plan.
Regards,
Lou
You are discriminating against the men (which is a protected class) who do not receive the discounts.
Imagine a very slightly different situation in which a drink costs $5.00 but White/Black (which ever you are trying to attract) only pay $1.
You’re discriminating against the men who have to pay more for the same product/service. Cheers.
Edit: Joey beat me.
Can we use your basement? Come on, man. We really like this place.
Please let us keep it, Lou, PLEASE!!!
Thanks, Lou. See you next week.