No Chicks Allowed!

[Gonzo]

Already happen gundam40. Sports staduims have already been sucessfully sued because women did not want to wait in a line and wanted to use the mens room instead.

[trunks2k]

Already happen gundam40. Sports staduims have already been sucessfully sued because women did not want to wait in a line and wanted to use the mens room instead.

Again, I have the position of why the hell do we care? I think the concept of mens/womens restrooms is pretty dumb. I can understand the concern over urinals, but then just put a door around them. Rather than having two seperate bathrooms for men and women, wouldn't it be more efficient to have bathrooms for both sexes? I really have a tough time understanding why we get so hung up over these things.

[gundam40]

OMG Gonzo, I was just joking

That's some crazy stuff....

Trunks, that's the problem, the point of urinals is that they save space, and speed up the process. If you start putting doors on them, they take as much space as normal stalls, so there's really no point to have urinals... But I guess if it's a unisex washroom, they wouldn't have urinals anyway?

[trunks2k]

OMG Gonzo, I was just joking

That's some crazy stuff....

Trunks, that's the problem, the point of urinals is that they save space, and speed up the process. If you start putting doors on them, they take as much space as normal stalls, so there's really no point to have urinals... But I guess if it's a unisex washroom, they wouldn't have urinals anyway?

No, I meant a section of urinals with a door to the section. This leaves the urinals for men to quickly do their business, and opens up the unused stalls for women who need to use them.

[kibbles]

I'm a woman, and IMO this is such a stupid and frivilous (spelling?) law suit. If the place wanted to be kept as men's only, then it should be allowed IMO. Because as was stated here before, they may be wary of some sex harrassment suit if someone gets oh so offended by a raunchy joke. And it does happen.

So, yeah I'm a women, but I think this women is wasting the courts time with this junk.

[One-Fang]

That sounds like a troublemaker to me, as lostmymind pointed out. She well knew that the place served men only, but she went there anyway, for the purpose of causing trouble.

Yeah, she went there for five years, just waiting for that opportunity to cause trouble.

wagegoth, apparently you've never seen the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service."

Based on legal discriminatory practices. You may refuse service to the unclothed, the dirty, the rude, the aggressive, the theives, the constant complainers. But you may not refuse service to the Jews, the Blacks, the Asians, gays, women or men. These discriminations are illegal. A 'right to refuse service' sign will NOT release you from this restriction.

It is just a simple case of services provided. The services provided are not for women.

It's hair cutting. The cut is exactly the same whether the head the hair is attached to likes boobs or willies. I can easily see a barber shop refusing to do "hair styles" like a hairdressers, and more power to them there. That is a distinction in service. But to refuse one person exactly the same service that you provide to another, purely because of gender, is illegal.

If a said buisness can be sued for saying no women allowed, but another can't for no men isn't that a little hypocritical?

If both businesses are public access, yes. But what you're comparing is a private members-only business, and a public service. As others have pointed out, yes there is a difference there.

I'm a woman, and IMO this is such a stupid and frivilous (spelling?) law suit. If the place wanted to be kept as men's only, then it should be allowed IMO.

You're entitled to your opinion that the law should be changed, but as it stands now, the actions were illegal. What you should rally against is a change in the law, not a denial of redress under the law.

Personally, I've always been against "positive discrimination". For f's sake, we have a MAORI RUGBY TEAM. Imagine a "whites only rugby team". Yeah, that'd last two nanoseconds. But I'm against any forms of discrimination - positive or no. This was illegal discrimination.

No, I wouldn't want to go there again after the suit myself. She probably won't. But the fact remains, the actions were illegal, and she has the right of redress, no matter how fruitless the consequences of her suit will be to her personally.

[Greenday]

I honestly think this is a waste of the court's time. If you don't receive funding from the government or the state, and you are completely privately funded, you can set your own standards as to who you want to be in your store. Yea, that opens the door for stuff other than being sexist, like being racist, but why should the government have the right to tell their people what they must think? Why should everyone HAVE to follow the exact standards that certain leaders believe in, despite the fact that they might be wrong to other people? That takes away the idea of being a democracy, governments where freedom of choice is supposed to be allowed. Kinda reminds me of Communist Russia or Hitler's Germany. Their governments told everyone exactly who was and wasn't allowed in their stores, whether or not the government helps fund the place. I'm not saying that forcing a store to accept certain customers, this case being females, is the same as governments that commit genocides making stores accept certain people and not others, but is it not following the same type of guidelines, telling people what they HAVE to do?

A barbershop almost always a privately owned place. They can choose who they want in their shop and who they don't. Saying that they have to allow women in the shop is like a government saying you have no right to refuse entry to anybody into your own house. My family bought my house. Not the government. They cannot tell us who we can allow into our house and who we can't. Why is a privately owned store any different?

Do I believe it is alright for someone to refuse service to someone because of race, nationality, or sex? No. I think it is completely moronic.
Do I believe people should have the right to choose who they want on their privately owned land and/or building? Yes. Unless the government is funding that place, why should they be able to say what a private owner can do with his own property?

[One-Fang]

Because, unlike your home, a privately owned store wishes to engage in public market trading and therefore must abide by the laws of the land. Be that paying their taxes, not selling alcohol to minors, or not being able to say "I don't serve kooks".

[Greenday]

Because, unlike your home, a privately owned store wishes to engage in public market trading and therefore must abide by the laws of the land. Be that paying their taxes, not selling alcohol to minors, or not being able to say "I don't serve kooks".

I understand what you are saying, as I am split with both sides. While I believe that people should be able to do what they want on their own land, I don't think bigotry is alright. But just because I believe bigotry is wrong, I shouldn't be able to force my opinions on someone else.

This situation sucks for both sides. Either it allows racism and sexism, or it takes away the freedom of choice. It's a lose-lose situation.

[Ree]

Just another reminder that CS is not a debate forum.

I think this is a discussion that will go nowhere.

Nobody is going to convince anyone else of the merits of their argument vs. another's.

I think it's probably time to close this.