No, because there is no “protected class” in those cases. It is not against any law to discriminate on the basis of being in college (or any education level) being a minor, or being under the age of 55. It IS against many federal and state laws to discriminate on the basis of gender.
The issue in haircuts is not exactly whether a man who wants a blowdry, perm, etc. will be charged a higher price. It’s whether a woman who DOESN’T want those services will be charged a lower “man cut” price. She won’t, generally. She will pay the higher “female” price regardless of service rendered. In NYC a study found over half of salons charged more for women than men who received the same service. (the practice is now illegal in NYC).
I have seen salons that have a long hair/short hair price distinction, or have a pay structure that itemizes specific services. ($X for haircut; $XX for hair cut, shamppo & blowdry, etc). Both these systems strike me as more than fair, and don’t discriminate on the basis of gender.
Those signs are commonly misunderstood. They don’t mean “we reserve the right to deny service to a person for any reason.” They mean “we reserve the right to deny service to a person for no reason.”
They are not carte blanche to break the law. If you are excluding people based on sex or color or religion or any other protected status in your municipality, then you are still liable.
It’s a stupid argument anyway. I don`t think I pay even $2 to have my shirts laundered and if I got one back with wrinkles I’d demand they do their job right, not assume I deserve it for paying the man rate. If some men walk around rumpled and wrinkled it’s not because their dry cleaner is giving them the lousy male level of service.
When I was a kid, half the barber shops had signs that said, “Free crew cuts for women.” It was a joke but I don’t know if a woman ever actually got one.
In all seriousness, are you actually getting your shirts dry cleaned? Because I get mine laundered for around US$1.25. But dry cleaning costs much more.
I will add that I have heard from women that if their husband takes the wife’s shirt in to be laundered, they charge the men’s price for the shirt just because they assume it’s a “men’s shirt” and not otherwise distinguishable.
There are two sides to that coin, and it never occurred to me before. Are bars with Ladies’ Nights deluged with large numbers of lesbians? Seems like the ideal situation–cheap drinks and all the women you can meet.
Geez. I know those discounts aren’t illegal. You can’t throw a rock without hitting one of those discount signs. Of course they’re not illegal.
What I said was that they are discriminatory – and they are. If a college kid can pay 20% less for a meal than a high school kid how is that not discrimination in every way except legally?
My point is that I don’t think the government should not be constraining business owners with this type of legislation.
The business owner has a family to feed and bills to pay like everyone else – he should be able to use his best judgment.
But this isn’t Great Debates and we’re not talking about whether business owners should have the freedom to discriminate but whether discount pricing on the basis of gender is discrimination and whether it’s legal.
Do you mean “up” to the level of the least common denominator? Or down to the level of the highest common factor? The least common denominator of any two or more numbers is always equal to or greater than the largest.
Picky. :rolleyes: That’s a common colloquial expression that is not a direct analog to the literal math meaning. Usually people using it in the figurative sense say “lowest common denominator” to emphasize the connotations of “lowest” and “common” without regard to the relative ordinality of actual numbers.
I think they’re trying to fill up the bar with low common denominators so the numerators that are regular patrons can get on with making fractions as the night progresses…
“Kids get in free” is typically seen in hotels, where the net additional cost of a kid staying with the adult is zero. Also, everybody used to be a kid, so it’s not discriminatory - we all get the discount for a little while.
“Children under 12 eat for half-price!” is, again, based on cost. Children under 12 eat less.
Children are not a protected class under discrimination laws. You’re allowed to have adults-only apartment complexes, stores and restaurants that don’t allow kids, and refuse to sell them certain items. Heck, you’re required to refuse to sell them certain items (e.g., cigars and booze). Throw 'em a bone once in a while with some cheap food.
As for the college students, that’s a choice people make, and I don’t see a problem with basing bonuses on it. You want the 15% discount? Sign up for the college! Others will, I’m sure, disagree with me on the basis that it’s discriminating against people without the money and/or ability to get into the college. Also, my own test above (would it be okay to charge college students 15% more?) says that one is no good. But who says I have to be consistent?
I know senior citizens’ communities are allowed to reguire residents to be over 55, but I was under the impression that it was illegal for a landlord to refuse to rent an apartment to a family with children. In the past (ie before the '60s) it was quite common for leases to have no-children clause, but I don’t think that’s legal anymore.
I heard some of your arguments back in the Fifties when there were Jim Crow Laws. I didn’t like them then either.
I’d rather pay full price for a drink and not feel like I’m being used to get men in your bar. Of course, most of them would be on the Serious Last Call List anyway.
)
