# Legality of limiting a movie theater to one gender only **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 25, 2017, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439 "2017-05-25T20:27:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cayuga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Cayuga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cayuga)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/61 "2017-05-30T22:56:22Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > 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. I have no doubt that this event – especially with the charity tie-in – created much more goodwill than ill. Are you really suggesting that a teenage boy will say, “A couple of theaters in a couple of different cities held women-only showings of Wonder Woman, so I refuse to see the movie”? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/62 "2017-05-31T00:06:29Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I’m not sure that it does. If I want to rent a movie theater for a birthday party or something, and only invite my friends, that’s one thing. But if I rent a theater and then start selling tickets to the event, don’t I become a public accommodation (and subject to such laws) just as if the theater sold tickets directly? Probably depends a great deal on the specifics. For example, what if you rent out the theater and sell tickets only to your family and friends? Just to use an example that I know of - there’s a company called called The 7 Line that buys out sections both at Citifield and Mets away games. They then resell those tickets online as part of a package. They are a public accommodation, as they advertise and sell to to the general public. There are other groups that buy out sections and sell tickets only to those affiliated with the group - Scout groups or unions or Little Leagues. Those groups don’t become public accommodations because they are not advertising/selling to the general public. “Renting out the theater” can similarly go either way. - because I can’t see how it would work financially if it wasn’t some sort of bundle. The 7 Line sells tickets at face value and makes their money off the rest of the package. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/63 "2017-05-31T00:30:34Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > Which origin? Made from clay? The product of Hercules raping Hippolyta? I assume it was a reference to an island full of amazons in general, so it would fit any origin. ---
**Author:** ![JcWoman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jcwoman/32/2889_2.png) [@JcWoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JcWoman)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/64 "2017-05-31T13:13:48Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > I assume it was a reference to an island full of amazons in general, so it would fit any origin. Right. [Amazons - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons) > [@](#): > > In some versions of the myth, no men were permitted to have sexual encounters or reside in Amazon country; but once a year, in order to prevent their race from dying out, they visited the Gargareans, a neighbouring tribe.[17] > > Strabo, giving credits to Metrodorus of Scepsis and Hypsicrates, mentions that at his time the Amazons were believed to live on the borders of the Gargareans. There were two special months in the spring in which they would go up into the neighboring mountain which separates them and the Gargareans. The Gargareans also, in accordance with an ancient custom, would go there to offer sacrifice with the Amazons and also to have intercourse with them for the sake of begetting children. They did this in secrecy and darkness, any Gargareans at random with any Amazon, and after making them pregnant they would send them away. Any females that were born are retained by the Amazons themselves, but the males would be taken to the Gargareans to be brought up; ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/65 "2017-05-31T14:49:42Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > How do you figure? By that logic, a theater could contract its “regular” schedule and simply create a whole bunch of “extra showings” which it limits to women or men or white people or whatever else you might choose to imagine. It’s been years since I lived in an area in which movie theaters could be said to have a “regular” schedule. For example, today’s hours for the one closest to me has showings starting between 17:00 and 24:00, but there have been other non-holiday Wednesdays when the showings started at 15:00 - the difference is due to a lack of children’s titles in this week’s list (many local schools give W afternoon off). Which of the two would be considered their “regular” hours? ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/66 "2017-05-31T15:45:49Z")
Does this mean women have to be allowed to join G.R.O.S.S. (Get Rid Of Slimy girlS)? Of course their Chief Tiger may not mind. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/67 "2017-05-31T17:45:12Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > Ladies’ nights are legal in some states and not in others. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies%27_night) 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. It’s hard for me to understand how being forced to pay more for the same public accommodation doesn’t count as demonstrating damage, legally. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/68 "2017-05-31T18:59:29Z")
Men and women alike can sit in the bar for the same price, free (unless there’s a cover charge). They just can’t buy drinks for the same price. Is the price of drinks part of the “public accommodation”? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/69 "2017-05-31T19:32:28Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 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](http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=11927.0), CA. [I don’t think Curves admits men.](https://www.curves.com/faqs) They organize themselves as a private club and therefore are not a public accommodation. > [@](#): > > All of our \*\*clubs \*\*are independently owned and operated by people in your local community. (my bold) ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/70 "2017-05-31T19:59:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > [I don’t think Curves admits men.](https://www.curves.com/faqs) They organize themselves as a private club and therefore are not a public accommodation. > (my bold) California specifically lists “fitness clubs and gyms” as being Unruh Act protection: [https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/files/2016/09/UnruhActBrochure.pdf](https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/files/2016/09/UnruhActBrochure.pdf) That pamphlet cites the following cases, some of which tackled membership limitations: 1. Board of Directors v. Rotary Club of Duarte (1987) 481 U.S. 537. A non-profit club was a business establishment under the Unruh Act because it offered its members an inclusive membership, substantial commercial advantages, and business benefits. Membership in these kinds of organizations is a privilege under the Unruh Act. Thus, termination of membership based on sex is prohibited. 2. Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995) 10 Cal.4th 594. By offering the public access to its facilities, the Country Club became a business establishment under the Unruh Act and could not exclude women. 3. Ibister v. Boys’ Club of Santa Cruz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 72. A non-profit activities center for boys was a place of public accommodation, and excluding an entire class of patrons, such as women, was illegal. 4. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160. The night club violated the Unruh Act by charging its male patrons a higher price for admission. The patrons do not need to affirmatively request nondiscriminatory treatment, but rather, are entitled to it. The Unruh Act imposes a compulsory duty upon business establishments to serve all persons without arbitrary discrimination. 5. Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24. The Unruh Act broadly condemns any business establishment’s policy of gender-based price discounts. By the “private club” logic, anybody could form a business, require a token membership ($1/lifetime) and call it a private club, excluding men/whites/Muslims/immigrants. More discussion: [Wikipedia: Membership discrimination in California social clubs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membership_discrimination_in_California_social_clubs). Basically, the state and various cities have exerted legal power and persuasion over the decades to convince more and more limited clubs to open up their membership requirements to protected classes. They’ve used a variety of laws, shaming, and tax burdens to accomplish that objective, but there is still some gray area in certain very limited private clubs. I think the gray area here is with non-business, social-only (or almost only) clubs that do not attract or seek out public membership. A fitness club doesn’t fit that criteria, since the whole purpose of their existence is to seek out public members to pay dues to use their facilities. Fitness “clubs” are specifically mentioned: > [@](#): > > The following are examples of potential violations of the > Unruh Act. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and there > is other conduct that may violate the Act: > > - Maintaining “women only” or “men only” exercise > areas of a fitness club or gym and excluding or > deterring the opposite sex from those areas. > - Establishing a “women only” or “men only” business > establishment which would otherwise be completely > open to the public. If Curves was an invitation-only club meant to target some non-protected class, with a limited membership, and with limited commercial activities… there might be a gray area to explore there under each of those tests. But as it stands, they’re just a gym, and they can’t discriminate against men under California law. Overall… federal law does not prohibit sexual/gender-based discrimination in public accommodations, leaving it up to the states and then the cities. Enforcement is presumably lax, but enough outcry is made of it, localities could probably demand compliance. But really, who the hell is going to bother for a single promotional showing of Wonder Woman? ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/71 "2017-05-31T20:04:06Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Men and women alike can sit in the bar for the same price, free (unless there’s a cover charge). They just can’t buy drinks for the same price. Is the price of drinks part of the “public accommodation”? In California that is specifically mentioned as discrimination: > [@](#): > > The following are examples of potential violations of the > Unruh Act. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and there > is other conduct that may violate the Act: > > Charging men and women different prices of > comparable services, such as clothing alterations, > haircuts, dry cleaning, **or drinks at a restaurant or > bar**. From [https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/files/2016/09/UnruhActBrochure.pdf](https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/files/2016/09/UnruhActBrochure.pdf) That said, that’s just a brochure. I couldn’t find that specific wording in the actual act: [California Code, CIV 51](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=51). ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2017, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/72 "2017-05-31T22:29:50Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Men and women alike can sit in the bar for the same price, free (unless there’s a cover charge). They just can’t buy drinks for the same price. Is the price of drinks part of the “public accommodation”? I think so. If we’re going by how it is defined in the Civil Rights Act (which doesn’t cover gender/sex), it says “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation…” and then goes on to define what sorts of businesses constitute a public accommodation is (a bar would qualify). So by that standard, you are discriminated against if you are not provided full and equal enjoyment of all services, which would include drinks. Also, are there bars that let you sit there without buying anything? Just march in, claim a bar stool, and hang out? Also, I’m pretty sure that “Ladies Night” at bars generally _does_ relate to cover charges. Because it’s easy to charge people different prices to enter, but if you charge them different prices to buy drinks, you have set up an excellent arbitrage opportunity for women, and then have to police who is actually drinking the drinks that are purchased by women… But I guess none of that counts as damages, which is why you need a specific law to cover it. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/73 "2017-06-01T01:35:18Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Also, are there bars that let you sit there without buying anything? Just march in, claim a bar stool, and hang out? Yep. Most bars I frequent offer free nonalcoholic swill to designated drivers. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/74 "2017-06-01T02:53:35Z")
> [@Reply](#): > > California specifically lists “fitness clubs and gyms” as being Unruh Act protection: > [https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/files/2016/09/UnruhActBrochure.pdf](https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/files/2016/09/UnruhActBrochure.pdf) > > That pamphlet cites the following cases, some of which tackled membership limitations: I stand corrected! ---
**Author:** ![Reply](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/reply/32/15952_2.png) [@Reply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reply)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/75 "2017-06-01T03:13:24Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Yep. Most bars I frequent offer free nonalcoholic swill to designated drivers. Even if you’re not a DD, most would be happy to accommodate you if you just bought a soda and tipped the bartender a buck. It’s rude to go into a business and just use their services without buying _anything_ at all, unless you’re with a group of friends that are buying things. I doubt any would kick you out even if you didn’t (they probably wouldn’t even notice, especially on busy nights), but it’s just a lame thing to do… ---
**Author:** ![BeeGee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5a626/32.png) [@BeeGee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeeGee)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/76 "2017-06-01T18:01:03Z")
> [@Cayuga](#): > > I have no doubt that this event – especially with the charity tie-in – created much more goodwill than ill. > > Are you really suggesting that a teenage boy will say, “A couple of theaters in a couple of different cities held women-only showings of Wonder Woman, so I refuse to see the movie”? Don’t know about teenage boys, but one grown man is having a melt down. > **[Austin Mayor Responds Humorously to Critic of Women-Only ‘Wonder Woman’...](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/austin-mayor-wonder-woman-sexist-critic-1009343/)** > > "Please remedy your account's security right away, lest this person's uninformed and sexist rantings give you a bad name." ---
**Author:** ![Cayuga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Cayuga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cayuga)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/77 "2017-06-01T19:00:15Z")
So one man of such discriminating intellect that he’s blaming the city of Austin for the actions of a business within it says he’s never going to visit the city. Given that we don’t know a) if he would have visited Austin anyway, and b) if he would have seen the movie anyway, I stand by my statement that Warner Brothers will not suffer any economic damage from Alamo Ale House’s screenings. ---
**Author:** ![BeeGee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5a626/32.png) [@BeeGee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeeGee)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/78 "2017-06-02T18:01:01Z")
Oh, I doubt they’ll suffer either. I just found his rant amusing in a snowflake sort of way. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/79 "2017-06-02T21:44:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > [I don’t think Curves admits men.](https://www.curves.com/faqs) They organize themselves as a private club and therefore are not a public accommodation. > (my bold) California’s Supreme Court specifically rejected the concept that a “private club” which nonetheless acted as a business was exempt from the Unruh Act. As I recall, the case involved a private golf club in the Silicon Valley area, the membership to which a wife had either inherited or obtained via divorce. The club prohibited females from being members. The CA Sup Ct. decided that despite their claim of being a “private club” (exempt under the Act), they engaged in numerous practices that were identical to those of a business, including selling merchandise in the clubhouse. As a result, the golf club was held to be subject to the Act. Curves doesn’t advertise that a man can join in California (or any of the other states with similar rules); but they are barred by the Act from rejecting such a membership. I believe when I was doing the earlier research on this, I was relying upon the declaration of a group that monitored such things. And on looking at the pamphlet that **Reply** cited, it’s the _Warfield v Peninsula Country Club_ case I’m recalling. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439/80 "2017-06-03T18:47:16Z")
Somewhat off-topic: Noticed something odd about the law: _“Information produced during an informal proceeding may not be used as evidence in a later proceeding without the written consent of all parties.”_ Doesn’t this mean that a defendant would, just about every time, refuse to provide consent, so as to hinder any future legal proceeding? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legality-of-limiting-a-movie-theater-to-one-gender-only/787439.md?page=5)