Pretty sure it’s illegal but why don’t they just have an additional, special showing before regular hours or after regular hours?
Ok, let’s break it down from the top:
-
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.
-
Does federal civil rights law preclude discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of gender? No. Race, color, religion, national origin, yes; gender no.
-
Does Texas state law ban it? No. Texas is one of only five states that have no law regarding discrimination by public accommodations.
-
Does Austin, TX ban such discrimination? Yes. Specifically, Title V, Article 2, Section 4 of the city’s code precludes a public accommodation from
- 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.
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.
It does per “All The Way”
Gender discrimination was thrown in with the Civil Rights bill.
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.)
Or offer a separate but equal showing just for men?
IANAL, but I would imagine that the relevant part of the ordinance would be
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.
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.
? :dubious: sorry, confused? 
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.
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.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-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”
You will, I hope, concede that, if it is illegal, it is not morally correct to do? :dubious:
That would be an extremely peculiar thing to concede. Plenty of things throughout history have been illegal but moral, or legal but immoral.
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…
But in this specific instance?
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.”
No it isn’t.