 |
June 7 - If alcohol were not involved, would women ever sleep with men? Our entire nation was, again, given a chance to ponder this vital question last week when New Jersey's Division of Civil Rights ruled that "Ladies' Night" bar promotions violate the state's anti-discrimination law.
advertisement |
A quick review of the case, however, will explain New Jersey's thinking. The facts are not in dispute. On June 17, 1998, the Coastline Restaurant in Cherry Hill, N.J., was having its weekly Ladies' Night. David Gillespie (whom court papers identified as COMPLAINANT, but whom I'll identify as WEIRDO) was charged a $5 cover to enter the restaurant (RESPONDENT) and charged "regular prices for beverages (i.e., $3.00 to $5.00)." At the same time, women were being admitted for free and charged "reduced prices for beverages (i.e. $1.50)." WEIRDO responded as any weirdo would: Five days after suffering the indignity of being charged normal prices for normal drinks while women on either side of him gradually lost control of the common sense that usually prevents them from sleeping with weirdos, WEIRDO filed a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights (DIVISION) alleging sex discrimination (he probably should be complaining that women are too discriminating when it comes to having sex, but that's another story).
Last week, the DIVISION agreed with WEIRDO. (I know the world has been a busy place for a few years, but did DIVISION really need six years to verify WEIRDO's complaint? WEIRDO, RESPONDENT and I--henceforth, NEUROTIC--could have settled this whole thing over a beer.)
The ruling is, of course, right on the law: New Jersey's law against discrimination is pretty clear that it doesn't want groups of people being treated differently--even if one group is unharmed because it is paying the same prices for booze that it would always pay. "A proprietor ... must treat all members of the public alike," DIVISION ruled. "RESPONDENT has not demonstrated any important public interest that would except its 'Ladies' Night' promotion" from the law. (It hasn't? What about the very valuable public interest in preventing men from behaving like complete jerks because women are around?)
The DIVISION also rejected REPONDENT's argument that Ladies' Night is okay because the restaurant offers similar discounts to men on other nights. After all, discrimination can't be justified by more discrimination. If so, what would prevent racist bar owners from having "White Night" six times a week and only holding "Black Night" on Tuesdays (when there isn't even football to watch)?
International reaction to the New Jersey ruling ran the full gamut from ridicule to mockery. The derision prompted New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey to defend the ruling--sort of. You don't need to be fluent in Bureaucratese to know that Harvey was uncomfortable with the DIVISION verdict: "This case is a very small portion of the Division's work, and does not represent a key priority." (Way to defend your department, Pete!)
Like gay marriage, there's no unanimity in how states administer Ladies' Nights. (President Bush is pushing for a Constitutional amendment to declare that marriage is "a union of a man and a woman"; well, how about amending the Constitution to define "Ladies' Night" as "between a man, woman and the steady stream of cheap booze that gets that union going"?)
At the same time, other states were upholding the practice of Ladies' Night. An Illinois court ruled that no violation occurred because "sex-based pricing was intended to encourage female patronage, not discourage male patronage." (Finally, a court that recognizes the state imperative to encourage female drunkenness. Without it, women would simply never sleep with men, thereby preventing the births of millions of kids who will, someday, support us in our retirement).
As you can imagine, NEUROTIC is quite conflicted about Ladies' Night promotions. As a liberal, NEUROTIC thinks it's reprehensible that one group of people (men) would be treated less fairly than another group of people (ladies). But as a man who remembers what it was like to be single and alone, NEUROTIC thinks it is just as reprehensible that the government would want to deny me my God-given right to go into my favorite bar--which is usually filled with the same losers watching the Yankee game and complaining that the Bombers scored "only" 12 runs--and finally find it filled to the rafters with increasingly inebriated females, females who, given additional circumstances such as poor lighting and loud music, might have actually found a guy like NEUROTIC attractive.
But perhaps male attitudes towards taking advantage of drunk women in bars have changed (after all, when NEUROTIC was a kid, college students were liberals!). Clearly, it was time for another of my all-expenses-paid, fact-finding missions into the modern Ladies' Night. I first stopped at a bar called Third and Long, which, as any lady knows, is a reference to basketball. When you own a bar named after a sports term, and every single TV is tuned to a baseball game, you really have to go the extra yard for women customers. But even on Ladies' Night, the accumulation of losers at this bar approximated a "TekWar" convention. If any of these guys is going to score with a woman, it wouldn't merely need to be Ladies' Night, but Christmas, Hanukkah, Eid al-Fitr, Easter, Thanksgiving and Purim all rolled into one. The music was so loud that I couldn't even talk to the ladies, but a woman named Jenny eventually told me, "There are no quality men at a Ladies' Night. They just want to have sex!" (As we Jews say, Why should Ladies' Night be different from all other nights?)
I went uptown to a place called Brother Jimmy's Bait Shack, which, again, was almost entirely devoid of women, despite the Ladies' Night promotion of $1 frozen margaritas, $1 drafts and outstanding ribs. Heather, an off-duty bartender, said Ladies' Night is not sexist. "The guys love it! We've married thousands of people because of Ladies' Night." (That should have been RESPONDENT's Exhibit A, given the State's compelling interest in male-female copulation.) Heather's friend Sam said he had no problem paying $4 more for the exact same bottle of Bud Light. As a cheap guy, NEUROTIC was bothered by that, but Sam had an answer for that. "I go to bars for other reasons than drinking, you know," he said. And he and Heather disappeared. Man, that $1 Bud Light is a wonderful thing, ain't it?
Gersh Kuntzman is also a reporter for The New York Post. His website is at http://www.gersh.tv
|
|
|
|
| Try MSN Internet Software for FREE! |
| © 2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Advertise TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement GetNetWise Anti-Spam Policy |