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”?
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.
I assume it was a reference to an island full of amazons in general, so it would fit any origin.
Right. Amazons - Wikipedia
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?
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.
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.
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 don’t think Curves admits men. 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
That pamphlet cites the following cases, some of which tackled membership limitations:
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. 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:
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?
In California that is specifically mentioned as discrimination:
From 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.
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.
Yep. Most bars I frequent offer free nonalcoholic swill to designated drivers.
I stand corrected!
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…
Don’t know about teenage boys, but one grown man is having a melt down.
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.
Oh, I doubt they’ll suffer either. I just found his rant amusing in a snowflake sort of way.
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.
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?