Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxn!gadfly From: gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Ladies' Night Illegal in California Message-ID: <1244@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 13:24:30 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxn.1244 Posted: Mon Nov 4 13:24:30 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 23:18:31 EST References: <696@rtech.UUCP> <12507@rochester.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 27 -- > The California Supreme Court just ruled that ladies' nights in bars > and other businesses are illegal because they discriminate on the > basis of gender. No kidding, this is for real. I just heard it on > the 11:00 news. Of course it's for real. There's been a lot of comment about how silly this decision is, with occasional reference to our oppressive government having nothing better to do, etc. And way off the mark, by the way, since it's a judicial ruling, *not* another law. Last I heard, even libertarians believed in both equal rights and justice. Or claimed to. It's a proper decision. If "ladies' night" is acceptable, how about "Blacks' night", or "Jews' night"? Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Think about it, you male Reaganoid knee-jerkers--do you think it's fair that you have to pay a surcharge for your drinks (which is what "ladies' night" differentials amount to)? I'm surprised it wasn't one of you who brought suit on the basis of "reverse discrimination". -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 04 Nov 85 [14 Brumaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***