Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterLOOKING IN ON: GAMING:
Ruling on gyms to have big effect on nightclubs, too
Monday, Nov. 10, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Todd Phillips, a pale, slender and soft-spoken man who wears glasses, doesn’t look like a much of a tough guy.
And yet his persistence in pursuing a discrimination complaint he filed against a chain of local gyms — resulting in a public hearing by the Nevada Equal Rights Commission’s board Friday and a court order forcing the gyms to comply with a ruling in Phillips’ favor — is almost sure to shake up the lucrative nightclub industry in Las Vegas casinos, while establishing Phillips as an unlikely symbol of civil rights.
With a 3-1 vote Friday, the commission ruled that a Las Vegas Athletic Club promotion offering free memberships to women is discriminatory.
Las Vegas nightclubs typically offer free admission to women while men pay steep fees to get in — a policy that has been virtually stamped out in other states because of lawsuits like Phillips’.
Yet Friday was mostly an embarrassment for the Las Vegas Athletic Club, which was asked how the promotion could be reconciled with other forms of discrimination.
Phillips questioned whether a soul food restaurant should be able to offer discounts to attract white customers. Board members piled on, asking whether it would be appropriate for the gym to offer free memberships for, say, Catholics.
When the gyms’ owner said the promotion was intended to encourage women to patronize gyms in part because men accumulate more bad debts, a deputy attorney general asked whether the company had done similar studies on black versus white customers.
At the hearing, an attorney for the Nevada Resort Association, which represents major casinos, complained that the decision would have ramifications for businesses unable to make their cases.
Too bad, the board said — casinos weren’t party to the complaint.
•••
Rebecca Cooper has 25 years of experience as a massage therapist. But you won’t find her in a health club or chiropractor’s office.
She’s a full-time employee of El Cortez casino downtown, offering free chair massages to winners of $200-plus jackpots a step away from the blackjack pit. Those who don’t win a jackpot can pay $15 for a 10-minute massage.
The massage is one of the atypical promotions offered by El Cortez, which offers gamblers gas cards and retailer gift cards. The offers began at the Plaza casino and migrated to El Cortez.
El Cortez was formerly owned by Jackie Gaughan, who recently sold his interest in the casino after having sold the rest of his downtown casino empire in 2004.
The Plaza was one of the first casinos in Nevada to offer gamblers gift cards for gas stations and retailers in addition to run-of-the-mill hotel stays, meals and casino-branded clothes.
“Some people were taking home 60 jackets at the end of the month,” El Cortez General Manager Mike Nolan said. “That didn’t make sense.”
What also seems to make sense at El Cortez are random food giveaways, such as White Castle burgers and, more recently, strawberry pie.
•••
Gamblers tend to have little trouble quitting when they’re ahead, but they have difficulty folding when they’re losing, a new study has found.
Stanford University marketing professor Sridhar Narayanan and University of Michigan marketing professor Puneet Manchanda studied 2,000 people who gambled at an undisclosed casino in the Southwest during 2004 and 2005 and were members of the casino’s loyalty card program.
The professors received no compensation from the casino or any outside sponsorship for the study, which is believed to be the first research of its kind to analyze individual gambling behavior for the purpose of educating policymakers and the public.
About 8 percent of the gamblers showed evidence of gambling addiction and were more inclined to gamble when offered incentives such as free drinks, meals and rooms.
For more than 95 percent of the gamblers who won on their last play, the probability of playing again decreased, researchers found. The more times gamblers lost, the more they continued to bet — as long as losses were small. Once their losses exceeded a certain amount, they stopped playing.
Manchanda has conducted other studies based on corporate data that’s usually kept confidential.
“Companies are curious about what their own data say,” he said.
Discussion: 83 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Miguel Cotto turns up heat readying for Manny Pacquiao
- Joe Perry: Steven Tyler has quit Aerosmith
- Phil Hellmuth breaks down Main Event final table
- Metro officer’s fatal shooting of teen ruled justified
- New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU
- MGM Mirage following Harrah’s lead on marketing conventions
- Judge dismisses suits blaming Las Vegas Sands for stock drop
- Success: UNLV hits mark of $500 million in cash and pledges
- UNLV hoopsters ready for some unfamiliar faces
- Airport officials hope rivals will pick up US Airways’ flight cuts
Blogs
Miech Again
On the road to Long Beach, UNLV hoops style (13 Comments)
The Kats Report
Vocal strain prompts Wayne Brady to call off 'Making It Up' until 2010
The Greene Room
New Mexico soccer player goes MMA on BYU (13 Comments)
Elsewhere
Fontainebleau suit takes aim at Soffer empire (5 Comments)
Mono puts date for Lesnar title defense in question
The Kats Report
Got a question for Wayne Newton? Or a favorite story? Send it over (5 Comments)
Now and Then
Rollie's team beats Isiah's team (4 Comments)
Calendar »
- 7 Sat
- 8 Sun
- 9 Mon
- 10 Tue
- 11 Wed
-
Everclear at the Hard Rock Cafe on the Strip
Hard Rock Cafe on Strip | 9 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
UNLV Rebels vs. Colorado State at Sam Boyd Stadium
Sam Boyd Stadium | 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Eric Burdon and The Animals at Ovation
Ovation | 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.
-
Anjelah Nicole Johnson at The House of Blues
House of Blues | 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
2009 PBR World Finals at The Thomas and Mack Center
The Thomas & Mack Center
-
Roy Clark at The South Point Showroom
South Point Showroom
-
Dennis Blair at the V Theater
V Theatre inside Miracle Mile Shops
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
He should have sued LVAC for saying their "special ends soon".
They've been saying it since 1995.
The owner's excuse for the discrimination - "women have less bad debts", was pathetic.
I'm surprised nothing was said about there being a separate section of the gym just for women when no such area exists for men.
"Any woman who asks for equality deserves the demotion." Oscar Wilde
Any attempt to tell a business who it can market to (offers and coupons)interferes with a free market enterprise. Restricting a business and who it is allowed to market to will destroy it.
What has not been looked at here are the many ways in which women are gouged everyday (she pays $8 to dry clean a "women's blouse" while a man pays $3 to have his "men's shirt" hang next to the blouse in the same machine).
I agree there should be equality, yet to win from this platform has ramifications beyond what this whiny individual can see.
He was NOT discriminated against in joining the gym, just at the time, a coupon was offered to women. He had the choice to say no, and take his business somewhere else. When denied access because he is male, that IS discrimination based on sex.
If this goes forward, it means that companies will no longer be able to market to a demographic (target) audience involving race, gender, religion, etc....ramifications people!
Totally agree with you EveSerene. The guy wasn't denied access to the gym, just didn't qualify for the "coupon".
This boils down to simple marketing to specific demographic segments that's all. What LVAC should do to cover their buts is simply come up with unique creative promotions to attract men, that way they cover all sides. But the heads of this company are obviously simple minded by their argument that "women have less bad debts" to justify their promotion. Dumb.
They should have just said that a big part of their company's brand position is to have their clubs be woman friendly (i.e. women joining free and the women only area) They would just need to clearly state that message in all their marketing and communications etc...
on a side note it will suck if this judgment extends to the nightclub industry. I personally don't mind that my lady gets in free. More money for us to spend on drinks etc... Besides the clubs that let ladies in free are the clubs that have more attractive women in them.
EveSerene- your premise could not be more incorrect. NO business has a right to discriminate towards any race, religion, sex, age, creed, etc. It has NEVER been a right for any business to do as such.
The issue is not whether he was denied access to the club, it was/is that he was denied FAIR access to the club.
I will ask you the same questions the LVAC guys could not answer in the NERC meeting on Friday - would it be okay to offer lower sign-up fees to a certain race i.e. Hispanics? Or how about allowing Mormons free sign-up while Christians have to pay $10? See where this leads? They stumbled all over themselves and came up with the lame excuse of men being more of a bad credit risk (LOL) than females.
It seems as if you have a selective disposition on which demographics are okay to discriminate against i.e. men. How would you feel if LVAC were offering discounts based on racial profiling or religious affiliation? My guess is that like most people, you would not agree with it. That being said, the rule needs to be applied evenly across the board, no matter how frivolous the case may seem.
I agree JahReb. The more incendiary version of your question is, what if they offered deals to whites only. I would even expand your questions to sexuality. What if they said hetero people get $10 off?
Another question that muddies these waters is what about the non-cut-and-dry genders? What do you consider as a woman? Only biologically born females? Post op? Pre op? I get the idea, but common...
LVAC just got caught with a hand in the cookie jar. There are better ways to do this. Offer promos only women would want, ie pink shirts. For clubs/bars make it a night where Smirnoff Ices or Cosmos are 2 for 1.
RedFerret, exactly. Just like everything else, there are gray areas and ways to circumnavigate those gray areas...you just can't be so blatant about it. Like you said, hide it behind a promotion that gives all of your customers a choice in participating, knowing that only a certain segment or demographic is going to respond i.e. 2 for 1 Cosmos - not very many men are going to flock to the bar for that promotion. And they would have no legal grounds for complaint, the choice was the same for everyone.
LVAC's excuses to justify their promotion were a total joke, borderline insulting. LVAC is a 'big box' chain that signs up thousands of new members each month...do the math - (avg.)2,000 new male memberships/month x $10 = $20k lost revenue per month = $240k annually. Oh but we want to go out of our way and pamper our female clients...lol, yeah, whatever.
Additionally LVAC already caters to the female crowd by giving them separate facilities. While men do get their own steam room, they don't get a private workout area for men only.
As said, to encourage women give out sweatpants with LVAC on the butt, sequined flipflops, or pink ...whatever. It could even blend in with breast cancer awareness.
Sigh, sometimes I feel like I must be high or taking more than prescribed doses of stupid pills.
Comment removed by staff.
Hey JahReb-- Right on! You are correct!
The point is that "exclusion" discrimination, i.e., blacks not allowed, is just as illegal as "price" discrimination, i.e., ladies get in free.
Todd Phillips responds:
Hey RedFerret, right on!
The sex-segregated facilities we'll tackle next!
This does not spell the end of promotions. How about price discounts for anybody wearing a green shirt? The point is, the discount must be founded on a condition that any patron can satisfy. How about free admission for anyone with an LVAC bumper sticker? The promotion CANNOT be based on race, creed, color, gender, or gender orientation.
price discrimination should be allowed. period. This is private property and the government needs to start respecting it. If the owner wants to take lower profits by offering free memberships to women then fine (they don't, men are willing to pay to see women sweat working out and women get a free membership in exchange for being "glanced" at by 30 men).
All this will do is drive up membership in women only gyms which are, thankfully, still legal...but not for long with moronic anti property right rulings like this.
JahReb,
The answer to your questions is YES. Private property owners should be allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, religion.
The government should not. Segregation and discrimination thus far have been government programs aimed at subsidizing the discrimination and racism of a few people.
If private enterprise is allowed to discriminate racists and sexists would have to pay for their racism and sexism in the form of higher prices (you exclude a viable portion of the economy from being customers and laborers thus making your consumer base and labor force smaller driving up prices and lowering your profit margin).
Most likely racists will choose profits over excluding blacks just because they are black.
In fact, that is exactly why we had segregation. Private rail car companies in the south found they made more profit having desegregated cars. Some southerners protested on how corporations could put "profits before people" and got the government to codify their racist preferences into law.
there's nothing wrong with a female only gym, but there is something wrong with saying women only can have the discount. So by your logic KDR there should be a white's only membership? Oh they'll just take a hit on profits, right...
Or hetero only...
Your insistence that business be left alone belongs in the time of robber barons, not global 21st century.
The policy of preferential pricing put out blatantly is ham fisted. These people were moronic. As said above by like 3 other people, offer something only women would want. Join LVAC and get half price and a pink tote. Boom, men aren't going to be saying man I want to rock a pink tote (well some might). However many women would. Or join LVAC and get a free spa treatment or mani/pedi. Most men would not line up for that. Their efforts in sum are sophmoric at best. Get with the times.
KDR81 - you're absolutely correct - government needs to butt out - keep its' nose out of private businesses. Don't they more important things to contend with - you know, like how we watch tv - digital vs analog? And when, as it's now being discovered, those little 'black boxes' don't do the whole magical trick converting the signal, who is going to help the senior citizens pay someone to get on their roof to install an outside antenna?
Red,
THe free market "Robber Baron" stuff is all a myth. Its a scary story that socialists tell to their young children.
Government regulations that came along tended to create the robber barons and solidify power by regulating competition out of existance.
Businesses should be allowed to set their own prices, hire whatever person they want, and accept any customer they want.
Your solution, while creative, only solidifies the governments power to tell us who must associate with and why. That is wrong. And there is nothing wrong to a company offering discounts to some and none to others. Don't like it, shop somewhere else. YOu have that power.
Furthermore, such powers tend to do more harm to the group supposidly being protected.
FOr instance, laws regarding age discrimination have the effect of making old people more expensive to hire (companies now have to document every little thing about the old people they hire to protect themselves from lawsuits if they fire the person. That and the lawsuit makes hiring old people expensive so many companies are starting to say, F old people and just won't hire them in the first place).
KDR81 -
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think what you are confusing is private vs. public. LVAC is not a private club, it is a club open to the public. We have seen the private club thing shake out for the last decade or so via the whites/males only golf-country clubs. LVAC is not in that category, it is a club open to the public, and thus, must allow equal and fair access to everyone.
The laissez-faire capitalist system you openly yearn for was thought by many to be responsible for leading this country into the Great Depression. It doesn't work.
If you still think that a private business has a right to discriminate at will, as long as it's under the premise of marketing to their desired client base, perhaps you should re-read Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...most states' laws work off that model.
The more I hear the more you sound like a social darwinist. Old people have a right to work. Denying them a job based solely on their age and not on their ability to do work is discrimination. Same kind of discrimination as don't hire that person, he/she's too young. You hire someone based on how well they do their job. Therefore you support discrimination.
And no the robber barons were stopped BY regulation. Ever hear of anti-trust acts. You have blinders on about business. Business will hurt the consumer if business is left to its own devices.
And government isn't telling us with whom to associate with. Your fantasies of Big Brother just underline your bankrupt libertarian ideology. When again has a serious libertarian ever been elected to anything? The logic of help business first and screw everyone else is bass-ackwards.
An interesting observation by a woman who visited but didn't join LVAC: They may have a gym specifically designated for women but I thought it was particularly interesting that it was all glass-enclosed. Hmmm...
Ohh yeah, you are not surrounded by men, but you are watched. LOL. I think my wife said it was for women who didn't want to feel self-conscious or get ogled. Oh well.
Segregating members by gender inside of the club is a perfectly acceptable and legal practice. You can get into gray areas there too (i.e. is it okay for a whites-only workout area?), but by and large the courts have acknowledged the need to segregate by gender in specific applications, such as a health club or any other venue in which it's not ideal to have uni-sex facilities i.e. locker-rooms.
Comment removed by staff.
Todd Phillips to NativeNewYorker:
Good observation. I brought up exactly the same point.
Not only is the ladies' workout room glass enclosed, which means everyone can see the ho's, but LVAC also has cameras throughout that room! So much for the ladies' privacy!
By contrast, there are no cameras in the showers or locker rooms.
Todd,
There are no cameras in the showers or locker rooms... That you know of bwahahahahaha.
Seriously though, that's probably to make sure people aren't doing what they aren't supposed to. What precisely that means I'm not sure. I'm sure there's cameras all over the gym floor.
Hey, whaddup RedFerret?
The fact that there are cameras in the "ladies' only" workout room defeats any privacy notions.
Some people believe that the ladies should be able to work out in private ("I didn't wear make-up," or "my ass is too big"). But there is no privacy interest in that room (a) because of the cameras, and (b) because everyone can see through the glass enclosure, i.e., it's really NOT a "private" workout room.
It's really just a showcase for the ho's who wanna sling it.
By contrast, the showers and lock rooms are truly private; and, of course, there are no cameras in those areas. Rock on!
Jah Reb,
I disagree, the government has mischaracterized private property as public simply if the private property offers a good or service.
This was considered an affront to our founding fathers. This change occurred during the WWII eras when the government sought legal compliance with its rationing laws. The change stuck.
SO yes, the gym is private property and thus a private club. Today "private club" (sadly) only refers to clubs in which you pay a membership (and only in some instances apparently).
No, laissez faire capitalism did not lead to the great depression. That is a myth. Here is one of many many articles on the subject:http://npri.org/publications/old-myths-about-the-new-deal
Here is another that shows government intervention prolonged the depression by 7 years: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR...
The Civil Rights Act unfortunately gives very broad and sweeping powers to the federal government which is why we are at this impasse that private property is not private.
To be logically consistent with liberty and the concepts of private property you have to accept things you may not like. Such as private segregation (you would rather be logically inconsistent by arbitrarily assuming race segregation is bad but sex segregation is good).
I also pointed out the market function of segregation is to raise costs for those desering the segregation. Thus you have to pay to be a racist and sexist. The market would encourage better and more equal behavior (it has already shown to do this) and people would eventually not give a rats hoot about the color of someone's skin...especially since they're the best at X or Y or Z and your neighbor and your cook at your favorite resturant etc etc etc.
Racial preferencing only creates artificial friendliness and equality, it keeps us separated through codification in the laws, and generates animosity between the haves and have nots and the protected and the unprotected.
Comment removed by staff.
And as I said earlier the anti discrimination laws do the following things:
1) promote people who are less productive therby destroying wealth and reducing our chances of eliminating poverty
2) Does not solve the root cause of racial minority troubles (which is public education)
3) creates very large compliance costs as businesses are under constant threat of suit for percieved discrimination. SO yes, companies will say F hiring that black person or that old person, becuase it costs so much to hire them.
The anti discrimination laws actually increase discrimination, contribute to a worsening economy, and do not address the root cause of racial problems in this country.
Its a bandaid. You feel good about yourself for supporting it and you turn a blind eye to any solution that might come along and fix our problems.
Again, all KDR does is hate on government as Big Brother and think that business is innocent. I utterly fail to see the logic that businesses that discriminate will end discrimination through infighting for jobs.
It didn't work in 1870s through the 1980s for blacks, and it wouldn't work now for others. People underpay minorities or don't hire them, because of discrimination (ie they find them to be inferior). They won't then infight about getting those same people they discriminate against to get more of them. Additionally your characterization of hiring underpaid women increases profits as a good thing makes you sound like an amoral business thug. The preference of hiring people at lower prices, reduces others' pay, and puts lots of other people out of work.
You are taking one issue, turning into 100 different issues and trying to argue the other 99. How you just twisted the anti-discrimination laws into being responsible for racism, inequality in education, and poverty is beyond me. I actually agree with some of what your points there, and I agree that sometimes the laws have been overextended to the detriment of free enterprise at times. But you need to take like 20 steps back and look at this in a vacuum, not in such broad themes.
The bottom line is this - it is not legal for a business to discriminate against anyone based on race, color, creed, religion, gender, etc. Which is basically what the Civil Act in 1964 said in broad terms. NERC just agreed with that. The state courts agree with that. The federal courts agree with that.
but but but... JahReb, business is private and should be able to do anything it wants and let the consumer decide. BLETCH.
I totally agree with you. Certain laws get overextended and abused. They then need to be trimmed. The simple fact remains that barring common sense segregation (ie bathrooms, but oddly they recently have been partially desegregated through "family" restrooms), segregation shouldn't exist period. Sorry, but Americans/this generation don't have the time for that fabled "Invisible Hand of the Marketplace" to work its magic. As a matter of fact, the more I hear that phrase from republicans/libertarians, the more it sounds like some old guy wearing a robe and sandals up in the sky.
So Todd, is there actually a court order to comply, or is this nonbinding? Searching the web, I can find the initial NERC ruling in August, and news stories about the public hearing on Friday, but I don't see anything about a court order.
This is an important distinction because of the confusion over whether the "against public policy" phrasing in NRS 233 means illegal. Businesses are currently happy to trot out NRS 651 and claim gender discrimination is perfectly legal in Nevada, and I'm curious whether that has been definitively shot down yet or not.
Comment removed by staff.
Todd Phillips to AlanJ:
Regarding the court order, NERC will issue, in the next few days, a written cease-and-desist order that requires LVAC to comply by Dec. 1st. If LVAC continues with "ladies' join free" after Dec. 1st, they could lose their business license.
AlanJ, you are quite sharp. NRS 651 was written in 1965. NRS 651 does not mention "sex" because nobody thought of sex discrimination at that time. Sex discrimination did not enter the public consciousness until the ERA hit in the early 70's.
NRS 233, on the other hand, was enacted in 2005. It specifically includes "sex" and "sexual orientation." There is no conflict between NRS 651 and 233.
Against "public policy" is a synonym for "illegal." They mean the same thing. On Friday, LVAC was "definitively" shot down. It was a big victory for Nevada civil rights.
And now, blessed be, Nevada is a Blue state !!!
Todd Phillips to RedFerret:
"the more I hear that phrase from republicans/libertarians, the more it sounds like some old guy wearing a robe and sandals up in the sky."
LOL, LOL !!
Comment removed by staff.
What is the "site staff" all about? I'm surprised that the "thought police" would actually remove comments.
In my opinion, public discourse debate should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.
What juicy comments did PatriciaLV post that got removed? Now I'm curious.
Hey, we all have thick skin up in here. Sorry if I offended anyone, but let the barbs fly, I say.
Anyone who thinks private businesses do not have the ability to market to and attract whomever they want as customers -- albeit in an indirect manner -- is ignorant of the realities of business ownership and operations. There are ways to offer any promotion you want if you are smart about it. Governments (and other entities and individuals who have never owned a business, so have no idea about it) need to keep their noses out of it, but even if they don't, business will still get those customers they want and keep the rest away, like it or not.
Todd Phillips to RPJ:
Hey RPJ-- you really confuse me. What on earth are you saying? You gravely misunderstand and misuse the term "private." Las Vegas Athletic Club is not "private." The only thing "private" about LVAC is the corporate profits.
In truth, LVAC is a "place of public accommodations" because they open their doors to the general public. My home, by contrast, is "private" because I DO NOT open my doors to the general public; consequently, I can exclude anyone I wish, Asians, Catholics, or lesbians.
Any entity that invites the general public onto its premises is NOT, repeat is NOT, private. Stop misusing the word "private."
ToddPhillips:
I simply told you that you might want to consider dropping the "YOU'RE AN IDIOT" nonsense because name-calling is a no-no on these boards.
Beats me why they removed my post but completely understandable why they removed yours.
Flying barbs are one thing; calling someone, e.g. an idiot doesn't (IMHO) fall into that category.
So glad you seem to have won your "cause", ToddPhillips. I'm sure you feel much, MUCH better.
Now, when can we expect your "cause" to encompass, e.g., women still making approximately 75% of what men make for doing exactly the same job?
This is all about "equality of the sexes", right? I mean, it wasn't just a selfish act on your part because you couldn't join for free, right?
Let me know because I'll be right beside you on that one.
One last thing ..... how long will you be signing for ... one year? five years? lifetime? Why do I have a feeling you never intended to join the club in the first place? If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I just don't think I am.
Wow, Sun staffers are a bit sensitive. I didn't have a single swear word and they blocked my post because I gave an economic explanation for why markets would eliminate most private segregation.
JahReb,
I have said that the government mis uses the term "public" today.
Public once meant two things. The people. and Government property.
Government was allowed to regulated who did what and why and when in government property.
Government was not allowed to do the same, to a large extent on someone's private property.
The gym is a company that owns that property. The government does not own it a company does. That is private property.
The club is open to the public meaning to the people.
Just as I could open my home up to the public, but that does not make it public property.
The government screwed this all up in the 1940s when it was trying to enforce ration coupons during World War II. A persons private company was no longer considered private but public.
The only thing the government did was stop short of taking your profits and nationalizing your business.
Tod, Ja, et al.
I am not misusing the term "private" I am using the correct and original definition. You are using our governments current abusive definition.
A definition that was created to rob people of their individualism, right to self determination, and the right to pursue their own happiness.
You are talking about government discrimination. GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED SEGREGATION!!!!!
Are business always innocent? Are they always going to do the right thing?
NO, but they are subject to market forces and the market is the people. It is our immediate whims and our long term goals. Its us moving with our feet and voting with our dollars.
The government is not accountable to us except for a brief period every four years. It does not have to worry about supplying our wants with good service at a low price. It is not subject to market forces.
So despite its faults, the private sector and free market are MUCH better than government control.
So yes, I hate government. For good reasons. You all seem to think government does great things all the time (except when Republicans are in office).
"I actually agree with some of what your points there, and I agree that sometimes the laws have been overextended to the detriment of free enterprise at times. But you need to take like 20 steps back and look at this in a vacuum, not in such broad theme"
THat is the problem. You are looking at the immediate picture. The one group disenfranchised at this point in time. You are not looking at the bigger picture. I'm trying to connect all the dots. I can't explain how it all goes together in 500 words, It would take a 500 page book.
When the government starts paying theses businesses bills each month then and only then should they have the right to tell them what they can and can't do........Until then I still contend that government needs to BUTT OUT of peoples business.
I think most guys wouldn't complain anyway about the women getting free membership - it's obvious what it's really all about - the businesses want to attract a lot of good looking women for the guys to oogle thus beefing up the paying memberships - it must be that the guys who are doing all the crying about it just aren't that into women LOL
azsk8fan - So your view is that "Whites Only" businesses are fine? Like "Whites Only" airlines, hotels, athletic clubs, casinos, grocery stores, and so on?
Seems pretty indefensible to me.
Todd Phillips to Patricia--
There's nothing I can do about the fact that you only earn 75% of what I do. Nevertheless, if you have actual evidence that you suffer discrimination on the job, file a complaint with NERC. That's what I did.
I believed that it was unfair that I was asked to pay $10 to enroll, when women enroll for free. I should not be punished for even one penny, let alone $10 bucks, just by the accident of birth.
You should thank me. The only reason you earn 3/4ths of what I do is because of the prevailing ignorant mindset of those who perpetrate discrimination. It's a long, slow battle, but my cause is just one more step in the right direction. Don't be hating on me just because I won.
Be the change you wish to see in the world-- don't criticize it.
Todd Phillips to JohnVegas:
"Right on!"
Todd Phillips to assk8fan:
Riddle me this: Why do you assume that "ladies' night" pricing only attracts hot chicks?
LVAC makes guys like you think you'll find hot chicks in the club, but then when you get there, the women are all hidden away in the ladies' only workout room!!
It's ironic that LVAC tries to pull in women just to hide them away ... what sense does this make?
Todd Phillips to All:
Okay sports fans-- what are the odds? Do you think that LVAC will obey the cease-and-desist order? Or, will they continue with their discriminatory "ladies-join-free" policy? Whaddya think?
Todd,
You and the government think a private establishment (meaning it is owned by private individuals) is public once other private citizens are allowed to enter (aka the public).
This is neither the correct definition of the public or the original definition.
The government (and yourself) has redefined it, so it can commit abuses and regulate the internal workings of private establishments.
Open to the public means its open to private individuals. It does not mean it is owned by the government or owned by the public (the people).
A public park is a park owned by government.
McDonalds is a private restaurant owned by a company that lets private citizens in to eat.
It doesn't get any easier than this. You support an abusive, property right violating definition so you can see the type of social engineering you desire.
Todd Phillips is just another example of how these stupid anti-discrimination laws turn people into petty tyrants if they don't get their own way.
Next Todd is going to be suing Hooters so he can get a job wearing orange short shorts and hose serving young men hotwings in a tight t-shirt.
Thanks for helping to destroy private enterprise, ruin everyone's fun, and force everyoen to be and think just like you.
If it hides the women, I still have to ask what your problem is?
You're just a mean spirited person. If a company wants to take a loss (if they hide the women away in a corner and no one sees them, then there is no benefit to letting them in free its just a loss of profit) then its that companies perogative.
Do you own a gym or something? Are you losing business because of this? What do you do for a living?
Todd Phillips to KDR81:
I couldn't disagree with you more. For 16 years, I have practiced law in both state and federal court. I'm quite certain that Las Vegas Athletic Club is a "place of public accommodations" under both Nevada and federal law.
You suggest that there exists some earlier definition (from the founding farmers) for the terms "public" and "private," and these terms have somehow been bastardized by liberal like myself.
Why don't you just cite for us the "original" definitions to which you refer. Please enlighten us as to the real meaning for "public" and "private"--and then cite the source.
And please place your bet on whether LVAC will continue discriminating against men...
I hope they resist. All freedom loving people should resist when they can. Smoke in the bars, let the girls in free. Whatever.
Stop these stupid tyrants.
First KDR your insistence on saying public/private means certain things is spurious. Newsflash, words change meanings. If you really want to get in the thick of it, your definition is not true to the original dichotomy between public and private as espoused by the Greeks/Romans. A great example of how words change is: GAY. I could spout rhetoric that the homosexual community has appropriated and abused a word and warped its original meaning, or I could get with the times and understand that words change.
Next you aren't comparing apples to apples. Hooters is a heterosexual restaurant that primarily seeks male clients. LVAC is open to everyone, but they want to exclude men from a deal due to a fig leaf idea that men have more bad debt. As said they can do promotions that target women, but to make a promotion exclusive to women is wrong.
BTW, quit sending emails to people about your arguments. I check this board often enough that if I feel like deigning to respond to your posts, I will.
Todd Phillips to KDR81:
C'mon, this is a cop out ... Candidly, your ramblings make absolutely no sense. You may not agree with my position, but I am articulate in explaining it. By contrast, you say rather puzzling things like: "Open to the public means its (sic) open to private individuals." WTF?
The world awaits your scholarly definition for the words, "public" and "private." Don't disappoint us.
Well, ToddPhillips, how do you know I haven't tried to do something about it? You don't.
But (as I surmised) you missed the point entirely. Was your claim about gender bias or were you just irked that you had to pay $10? You gave your petty little answer.
And as I further suspected, this was nothing more than a selfish stunt. You have done NOTHING that I or anyone else should thank you for.
Beware Karma, ToddPhillips. She's not as nice as the courts.
Oh yes I almost forgot, ToddPhillips: For what period of time is your membership? One year? Five years? Lifetime?
Get back to us on that if you don't mind. It's kind of relevant to the "cause".
Todd Phillips to KDR81:
I GOT A GREAT IDEA!
Why don't you just walk into Las Vegas Athletic Club and just pull down your pants. Just stand their naked until you're arrested. When you're charged with indecent "public" exposure, you can explain to the judge that the police violated your Fourth Amendment rights because you were never in a "public" arena in the first place.
C'mon-- I double-dog dare ya !!
Todd Phillips to PatriciaLV:
I'm glad you're standing up for your civil rights. If I knew that a co-worker, or like intelligence, age, education and experience was paid more just because of gender, I would pursue the matter-- good for you. Rock on.
Brutal and hilarious Phillips. Totally forgot about that angle.
Todd Phillips to Patricia LV:
How long is my membership? ZERO!! You wanna know why I went after LVAC? I'll tell you:
I wasn't really bugged about the $10. In fact, I wasn't even that bugged about the sex discrimination. When this went down in May 2007, I knew that Nevada was a backward-ass Red state, and so I expected backward sexist attitudes. (Note: Since Nov.4th, we've gone Blue. Hooray!)
Anyways, I asked the salesman how they justify a ladies-join-free policy, and I asked them whether they pay their women on par with the men. Their response? They terminated my membership and threatened that if I ever came back, I would be trespassing.
LVAC is a bunch of bad apples. Not only do they openly discriminate against men, but when questioned about it, they retaliate against you. 99% of my gripe is because they canceled my membership. Then, to make matters worse, they later they lied about it in Court, saying I asked to be canceled. I have no problem pursuing a legal claim against the likes of LVAC-- they're a bunch of bad apples.
So, tell me Patty, do you think LVAC will now obey the cease-and-desist order? Or, will they continue on with their discriminatory ways? Tell me what ya think?
My favorite Swingers Club allows women in free, though couples and single men pay. Can't wait to see if somebody sues them. It would probably the best publicity they've ever gotten.
Todd Phillips to JohnnyVegas:
Hey, John! You should file a claim with the Nevada Equal Rights Commission. 702-486-7161.
And, yes, how right you are. The Las Vegas Athletic Club should thank me for all the publicity. Bela Lugosi said there's no such thing as bad publicity ...
I'm not doing that Todd. Discrimination or not, I understand the policy. Totally! :)
Todd Phillips to johnvegas:
Hey John!
C'mon. Why should women get into the Swingers Club for free? I mean, really. If you knew that single women paid the same as you, would you be any less willing to go swing?
And, if the single women knew they had to pay, would they refuse to go swing?
Dig it.
"Why should women get into the Swingers Club for free?"
Go there, hang around for an hour or two, then ask me that question again. :) Contact me directly if you need the info.
I honestly don't care if they paid anything or not. The money is not what's on my mind then. Or later for that matter.
Going to the Green Door johne? My sis in law goes/went there all the time. And yes you are right. That policy is in place to simply get women to go there. There's enough pervy and non-pervy men there for a few swingers clubs. ahmm, or so I've been told.
I have not been there, though I have a friend who likes the place. I like the Rooster myself. Run by the couple the opened it a quarter century ago. Best party in town IMHO. Free dinner on Friday and Saturday nights too. Hard to beat, um, so to speak.
A reasonable request. I will look that up later, the material I have at my desk only mentions US v. Carolene Products and Nebbia v. New York (cases in which the idea of property rights have been eroded by the government) but they are not the case that finally switched the definition of what is private and what is public.
I'm sorry my statements confuse you, but they are rather simple.
I don't dispute what the current law says is a public establishment. This is the definition you use. I'm saying this definition should be done away with and we should go back to the original (which I will try and find those court cases).
Today a public establishment is anything that lets private persons (aka what you call the public) in for business. This was not how public was once used.
As far as LVAC doing what you want. Forget about it, they have the law on their side and you won't be able to prove that there is no legitimate reason why LVAC can't charge different fees than women. Remember, women are a special protected class so whatever laws are around to protect women get different treatment than men.
If the court finds that LVAC waves the fee for women because women are less likely to join with membership fees the court will find that reason perfectly ok.
You are a white man and not protected by the same laws (if you ever want to fight these laws and court logic, I will happily join you).
Red,
Words have meanings and if we can change those meanings then words are useless. But changing the meaning of a word, when backed by law, can have considerable power
Take Welfare for example. Once the "Welfare of the People" mean the happiness and by that the founders meant, you could do whatever you thoutht was best for yourself (with the caveat that you can't go and murder or rob etc).
Welfare thus was a negative right.
Today we've redifined welfare to be a positive right, meaning your welfare is something government will ensure happens (a living wage for example).
The constitution says..."provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure" and that has been now taken to mean "promote wealth transfers" by some.
I hope that makes sense and I hope you understand why I will argue words.
And the LVAC will justly continue the price discrimination as they should be allowed to do and the courts will end up agreeing with them.
I also bet that you will also be logically inconsistent and insist on hate crime laws, racial preference laws, and the courts giving different treatment to laws regarding races and sexes...rational basis to strict scrutiny"doesn't matter so long as society is socially engineered the way you want it.
Todd Phillips to KDR81:
NOTE: Women are NOT a protected class; rather, gender is a protected class.
Todd Phillips to KDR81:
You write:
"If the court finds that LVAC waves [sic] the fee for women because women are less likely to join with membership fees the court will find that reason perfectly ok."
Actually, no. LVAC gave precisely this excuse. The NERC investigator disagreed, the Nevada Attorney General disagreed, and ultimately, the Board of Commissioners disagreed. As a result, a cease-and-desist order was issued.
Todd Phillips to KDR81:
I haven't been to law school for many years, but Carolene Products has to do with "rational review" scrutiny and the Commerce Clause. I do not believe the case adjudicates private property rights.
As for Nebbia v. New York, that case concerns price regulation. I do not believe the case adjudicates private property rights.
Neither case dealt with sex discrimination because the concept had not been invented. I believe both cases are Depression-era cases.
How'd I do on the pop quiz !!
ToddPhillips: The name is Patricia, not Patty. I'll thank you to stick to that please.
And now that you've told the full story, much of this makes sense and I do owe you an apology.
I moved here in early 2000 and pretty much the first thing I noticed was that women's rights seemed to have bypassed this town at least. I felt as if I was in the 1950s on so many levels, including pay scale. I can't say it wasn't the same in NYC, but I can say if there, it wasn't as blatant or as disparate.
To answer your question, I don't really know. I'm sure THEIR lawyers are working as we speak on a loophole.
FYI ... I have in fact been discriminated against vis a vis salary since I've been here. I'd rather not go into details; suffice it to say I changed nothing for myself. I can only hope it will be better for future employees.
Does anyone have any information on Ms. Legal Eagle? She runs a blog entitled:
"WILD WILD LAW: LEGAL ANTICS AND JURISPRUDENCE IN NEVADA."
You can e-mail me privately ...
Good, the cases did exactly what you say but they also had the effect of regulating property rights to second tier constitutional rights, thus recieving a lower protection by the courts.
I still can't find the WWII case that pretty much wipped out the old meaning of private property and made every private business a "public" establishment.