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   *** ***