As I indicated upthread, in California, Ladies’ Nights are banned by operation of that state’s civil rights act, which protects against gender discrimination. So, if you have a gender discrimination statute, yes, technically such promotions can be violations of it.
The damages a person gets for being discriminated at a specific time of day is the same regardless of whether or not there are other times that that discrimination doesn’t exist. Ask yourself: would it be ok to have a “blacks only” showing or a “whites only” showing at 9 pm, just because the 8 pm and 10 pm showings aren’t restricted? When your answer to this becomes (as it should), “no”, then the fact that the restriction is gender-based rather than racially-based makes no difference.
In this specific instance, as with all other instances, the question of whether it’s moral or not is completely independent of whether it’s legal or not. So if you’re asking about morality, why bring up legality at all?
Yes, but isn’t the argument that women have special need for a women-only gym, in a way that does not apply to a “women need their own movie screening” case?
And even if so, Austin law may be stricter than California law; Austin Title 5 Article 2 Section 4 still says that a public accommodation may not “limit” on the basis of gender(even if men can watch 98% of all showings, and women can watch 100% of all showings, then that means the men were “limited.”) It also says that people must have “full and equal enjoyment” of the public accommodation - and, again, even if men can watch 98% of all showings, and women can watch 100% of all showings, then that means the men did not have “full and equal” access.
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.
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.
As I said, if it was a special showing! Not part of the regular schedule. It’s possible for the theater to be closed to the public and show a film for a specific group. Maybe the group has to pay or something, but this is a thing that is done.
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?
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.
The theater is either open or closed. Special showings don’t magically erase the its status as a public accommodation.
Now, if a group of local women had created a Facebook page called “Friends of Lynda” and that group had contacted the theater for a private showing, there would probably be no issue at all - whether the showing was part of the regular schedule or not. Same if the Klan wanted to buy out a showing. I remember church groups buying out theaters when Passion of the Christ came out. But in none of those circumstances is the theater dictating who may or may not attend the show.
Ticket resale laws vary by state. I have no idea how they would interact with discrimination stuff.
As Robot Arm and **Johnny Bravo **point out, there is still a difference.
If a woman buys out the entire auditorium on a private-event reservation, and then invites 100 of her friends (all women,) then this doesn’t break the law; it’s a private function. She is the one discriminating, not the business/theater itself.
But if the theater itself holds a women-only event, then it is breaking the law, because it is a public accommodation and the woman-only event is taking place under the auspices of the public accommodation.
I believe that the producing studio(s) do not, but the distributor (which may be WB Distribution (or whatever) in this case) does, at least to a certain extent.
