Looking around our lovely little culture that has done away with choosing your employee based on race, age, and sex, I see a lot that I have a problem with...go to your local bar and more likely than not they have a "Ladies Night" and if you look through a newspaper you will undoubtedly find several advertisements that offer a senior citizen's discount. So why is it ok that these exist? Don't these show discrimination/preferential treatment? I don't see the difference between this and hiring based on sex or age. So enlighten me if you please, why do we allow these things to happen? and rather why is it legal?

It's a smart business move. Ladies go for free drinks, and men go to find the ladies which brings in the money. A men's free drink night would bring no women, and probably lead to a net loss.

I would assume that any other business would offer a senior's discount for the same reason. There are children's discounts, too. I would be more likely to go somewhere if my child cost less money than another adult. I don't see the government forcing everyone to pay the higher fee, and the government can't (or certainly shouldn't) force a business to give discounts either.

What about student and military discounts? Family discounts? Free food for kids?

Yep, good business. What the businesses are doing is competing for limited dollars. The ladies' night thing is obvious and Mrs. P explained it well.


Limpubus, you might be able to find reverse sexism and ageism in this society, but the examples you gave don't make it.

Private businesses should be free to offer discounts/pricing to whoever they choose. There is no anti-old people lobby or anti-women lobby out there to attack these policies.

However, if I offered a "white" discount or even a "Man's night" I bet certain groups like the ACLU would be all over me.

A double standard does apply, but some groups are offended easily and some are not.

Yes, its "good business sense", but it is also sexism and/or ageism. If "good business sense" is sufficient justification to discriminate in these cases, then what would to be done when an employer in the heart of a ethnic district (say, Korean) were to refuse to hire a Japanese fellow because it would offend his customers? A gay bookstore in P-town refuses to hire a straight Christian, because it would offend his customers? What if a movie theater in Fargo had a "Multicultural special, Asians accompanied by a Negro get in for free" A theater in Compton does the reverse, "Brothers or Sisters, bring your honky friends and they'll get in free"?

Good business sense? Or discrimination? Nobody has justified how the one form of discrimination is LEGALLY acceptable, but the other isn't.

Perhaps none of these business practices are truly "legal." Perhaps a successful challenge really could be mounted in Court that discrimination against a semi-protected class is taking place, involving age, sex, etc.

But the practical reality of the situation is that no one is going to do that. It isn't likely a group of angry men will sue a tavern over "ladies night," or a group of townfolk will rise up and do something about those unfair senior citizen discounts.

Ultimately, these business practices are pretty much accepted in our society - they're seen as beneficial or positive, rather than discrimination.



Is it really not okay that they exist? If anyone feels that way, they could look into litigation and seek a remedy. Hardly seems worth it though.

I don't see the relationship, BikerDad. No one is being refused service, which would be the equivalent for your analogy. Per your theater scenario, I don't see why that would be illegal. Any theater (to my knowledge) can choose to allow free entry to anyone they prefer. Such a system would probably detract customers, however, and not be very lucrative.

On that note, and to Bikerdad, what do we do about strip clubs? Solitary or a group of women are not allowed, only if accompanied by a man.

No bar, except strip clubs, wants the place filled with mostly men everynight or soon they have no business, basically, no women, no long term interest in returning. I could turn this around and call it exploitation, but that would be silly wouldnt it? Since its only pure capitalism and noone forces anyone to go into any place they dont want to be.

I would have to defend senior and student discounts based on lower earnings and inflation (seniors). Also childrens discounts and menus, or a family of four of middle income could hardly afford to leave the house. These are good things. They help people out and are good for business.

the post wa not started to debate why people give discounts like these, but rather to discuss why this is tolerated when other forms of preferential treatment occur.

I think it is tolerated because no one cares enough to bring a legal challenge nor does anyone care enough to lobby their legislators enough to outlaw it.

Other forms of illegal discrimination WERE tolerated until someone brought a challenge in the courts or the legislature saw fit to act.

Does anyone here feel that society shouldn't tolerate business discounts for selected groups such as senior citizens? If you feel strongly about it, what is it about the issue that holds you back from investigating court action or lobbying your congressman?

This is so nitpicky. Employment discrimination is one issue, OBVIOUSLY!
After that, lets get really stupid and go on and write your Congressman about the injustice of Ladies nights in bars or senior citizens getting bus and buffet discounts. Maybe kids should pay full price at Disney World! Right on, lets be the most riduculous and idiotic nation the world has ever seen and supremely waste tax dollars on the most ludicrous of premises. Only in America! Soon our legislators will be wasting their time deciding if circus clowns should be outlawed. What the hell is going on around here? IS there no end to the lunacy?

Not only are we losing our sense of humor, but good will and humanitarianism. Sure, lobby your Congressman to cut senior discounts, that will set everything just right, and if and when you get there and a bus ticket is $10 and you have to go to the doctor, remember your good deeds and above all, lack of discrimination.

I hadn't read this thread yet, and quite frankly, I'm surprised at people arguing that businesses providing senior or children's discounts or ladies' night drink prices are discriminatory!

Do they have separate but not equal drinking fountains? Do they refuse to serve someone for other than being underage say, at the bar? Do they make one group of people of one type stand to the side and wait while another, preferred group goes into the establishment first?

If not, it doesn't sound like grounds for a discrimination suit!

And as my conservative buddies here typically say in other threads, It's a free country. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere. A business has a right to market the way it pleases.

I look forward to seeing someone commit political suicide by trying to take away 10%discounts at Denny's for the elderly.

No, really, I totally sympathize with the observation that equality is far from what we have created. Two far more offensive forms of this hypocrisy are all black and all gay schools. Seems we have gone so far to create "equality" that we've actually managed to revert back to segregation.

Incidentally, as food for thought, there is a preacher at a formerly all-black church who actually pays whites $5 each to attend. Story at MSNBC.com, CNN.com.

"Since everyone is different, to treat them all equally, you must treat them all differently." Sam Wyche

I believe this is called a strawman. No all black or all gay schools exist...to my knowledge. I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Some have brought up race, but this all has to do with sexism and ageism from the original question.

Everyone has a sex and everyone gets old. Ladies night has been pointed out as catering to both sexes, just for different reasons. Discounts for the elderly are universal (as long as you live long enough).

But bringing race into the debate is telling. Isn't this argument just a failed attempt at justifying racisim?

Anyway, all the attempts at arguing that our society tolerates one form of discrimination but not another hasn't held water before and doesn't now.

So I'll happily take my AARP discount, thank you very much. Once you get this old, you get a break too. Maybe not a job, but a little break.

No, a theater cannot choose to allow free entry to one class of persons and refuse free entry to another, at least not in most states. The question isn't simply one of being "refused service", its whether or not one party of an economic transaction is discriminating the other party (or potential party) based on "prohibited categories." In Maryland, for example, Article 49B of the Maryland Code, which is Maryland's anti-discrimination law, prohibits discrimination in public accommodations. The Human Relations Commission, which is responsible for enforcing this law, considers gender-based pricing a form of discrimination. I'm sure that you will agree that theaters qualify as 'public accomodations.'

NOW seems to think that "gender-based pricing" is objectionable as well.
Barbershop Bigotry

So, why is it permissible to discriminate against men at nightclubs and against young adults at Denny's, but not permissible to discriminate against women at the hair cutter or drycleaners? Kiss Ladie's Night Goodbye Okay, so maybe it isn't LEGALLY permissible (at least in California and a batch of other states), but why the difference SOCIALLY?

Maybe where you live, but there's no restrictions on women in strip clubs around here!

Why would it be silly? Because its men who are being exploited, and therefore its "silly" to raise the issue?

Its not pure capitalism, because in pure capitalism, the nightclub owner would also be able to hire anybody he darn well pleased, and decline to hire anybody he wanted to, for any reason. He'd be able to refuse service to anybody he wanted to, for any reason. And the market would reward or punish him accordingly, not the gov't.

Oh, a fine class conscious justification. Too bad its essentially flawed. Student's have more discretionary funds than most non-students, and seniors control most of the wealth in this country. What's the sense in giving a senior discount to Warren Buffet, 'cause he has "lower earnings" than some 24 year old truck driver on account of his age? sheesh... At least try to look at the whole picture.

How is employment discrimination any different!?! Nobody has a right to a job! There's a obvious double standard in play, and that is what is so offensive. The principle is "you can't discriminate based on gender." Now, either that principle categorically trumps free association and property rights, or its *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***. We won't even address the subject of "minority preferences" (including women) in gov't contracting, which is an egregious example of the double standard.

Now, for the record, I don't have any personal objection to Ladie's Night, kids discounts, heck, even senior discounts I can tolerate (that's my envy speaking, 'cause all them rich ol' bastiches are sucking up the deals!), because I believe that owners and workers both have the natural right to decide how they conduct their economic activity.

There is no gender (or racial) based pricing, if there is no price is there? Why wouldn't my children be able to get into a museum free until the age of five? Should a child be required to pay full price for all public services throughout Maryland?

I don't know how much you pay for a haircut, but everytime I get mine cut, it's 40 dollars. My husband's cuts cost 8 dollars. There is a difference in style, expertise, and viola! The price goes up accordingly. I could go to Supercuts where there is no "gender price discrimination", but I would probably be unsatisfied with the results.

Using your logic about job- based gender discrimination...what about a job which requires a child, or man, or woman ? Should we show adults running around in Pampers on commercials? Clearly, there is a point at which age and gender based 'discrimination' is permissable, under certain conditions. Usually those conditions revolve around marketing and promotional techniques for private businesses.

It would appear that nightclub owners DO hire anyone they want, for reasons of obtaining more business. I have never seen an obese cocktail waitress or entertainer.

Actually this is female exploitation based on the idea that if you get women into a bar men will come. Its based on MEAT MARKET economics which is insulting, but is very accepted within our society.
Hey darlin, Im all for the matriarchy. Men can spend most of their disposable income trying to look good, get all buffed up, we can have 'mens night' and we can have wet jeans contests instead of wet T shirt contests, because I too am sick to death of female value being placed on body parts, females used as animal draw, and I am a hot looking female, so more so, am I so completely over it.

I have seen the discrepancies you are talking about my whole life, the difference is that I was a hated feminist for bringing them up, a man hater. Now, oh so suddenly, some men think female exploitation is not serving them and are placing blame? On Who? Get a grip.

The rest has been dicussed by others such as Mrs P.

And as far as senior and childrens discounts, Im all for it with no links or commentary, just because its the right thing to do. If you dont think so, well, write your Congressman, just one more nutcase in the many. I guess I fail to see' the whole picture' as you suggest. I suppose your 'picture' is rich seniors running wild with excess funds, what did you say, Seniors control the wealth of the country? Sure, thats why they bus to Mexico and Canada only to get cheaper meds. What world do you live in?

Because there is a price. If a museum let whites in for free, but charged blacks for admission, then it would be obvious that the museum was discriminating.

Hey, I agree, I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of "no discrimination, ever" knuckleheads AND the hypocrisy of those who fight some forms of discrimination with absolutist rhetoric, but then ignore discrimination against men and/or non-senior citizen adults. Do a Google for "senior discounts" and "ageism", its hilarious how many sites will come up that complain about the latter yet advocate the former!

"Ageism" = "You're too old, you're fired."
"Senior Discount" = "You're too young, you have to pay more."

Female exploitation? Its impossible for you to consider that maybe the men are being exploited? Drawn like moths to the flame? Their wallets emptied by those evil corporate bartenders? The women are exploiting the bartender's desire for wealth simply to get some free booze. Exploitation, exploitation everywhere!
Gee, I'll just chalk it up to free choice and association, 'cause everybody knows what the game is, and everybody has a choice as to whether they play.



The most recent Federal Reserve wealth survey confirms the large increase in family net worth that has occurred in the past three years, and shows that the biggest winners have been families headed by persons over age 65. Stock holdings have increased markedly overall, with the percentage of families owning stock either directly or indirectly increasing to nearly 50 percent in 1998 from just over 30 percent in 1989. AARP - Old folks talkin'

They're headin' to Mexico and Canada to get cheaper meds cuz they ain't stupid, they're just old.

Yes, the market did such a wonderful job of this, that blacks, women, and people over 50 had to get these kinds of laws put on the books in the 60s and 70s. Because we all know that no one was discriminating against them before that.




You are saying that you have the right to hire only white males, from the age of 20 to 40, regardless of their qualifications, because it's your business and your right to associate with whom you please?

That's why these laws were enacted in the first place. Because businesses refused to hire qualified people to positions because of their gender, race or age. People that were often far more qualified than "the good 'ol boys" that businesses were hiring, simply because of blind predjudice.

To deny a qualified person a job just because you don't like the fact that they are older, or of the opposite sex, or a different race is just flat out wrong. If you think you can justify it though, go right ahead and try.

Edited to fix quotes - quark

Outdated information and your very quote makes the information null as stock holdings increases were across the board. Everyone, except the very wealthy lost their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** in the stock market in the last years, and owning stocks does not mean actual wealth. Dot com.'ers for example, and everyone at Enron and Worldcom who lost their entire pension, including previous employees who were of retirement age. Rising property taxes especially hit retired home owners, who may have to pay up to 3 months of their pension income to meet the increases, on homes they own outright for many years.
Rich people dont take buses, BTW, nor need to.
IMO anyone who can make the idea of a senior discount discriminatory (public buses, buffets, movies?) has much more to worry about in their future if they desire to pick off a few dollars more from the elderly. An entirely pathetic state of being to say the least.



This particularily makes me laugh, as if men being drawn like moths to a flame was someone elses fault besides their own. ( Im a victim of my own desires? Tell it to the judge)
First, free booze has been outlawed, it doesnt exist. What does happen is ladies get in free. Im not sure if in different states they may get half price drinks.
Anyway, its the owners who set the promos, bartenders and clientele have nothing to do with it. Its a meat market that works because of the dynamics of this society. If womens bodies in a bar bring men, and the men play the game, who is to blame? Lets say, filling a bar with women on any given night didnt bring in a lot of men too, would we have ladies nights, NO. Its the male that sets this precedent. It works, so, if you have a cmplaint, try to change the male mindset on looking at women as sex objects and possible one night lays, and Ladies nights will disappear. Good Luck. For bar owners, try,"men get in free night' and ladies have to pay, empty bar. You know why? Think about it.

I saw a quote the other day that said: Booze, lowering womens judgement and expectations for generations.
Half the losers in the world would never get laid if it werent for Ladies nights, probobly for both sides of the gender coin.

You were saying? The quote itself does say that increases were across the board, then it says the biggest winners have been families headed by persons over age 65.

As for the age of the information invalidating it, and everybody being "wiped out", well, it just ain't so... The info isn't that old, and yes, some people were "wiped out", but then, people get wiped out even during bull markets. If, however, you have more recent information that shows the rampant poverty among the elderly, with more elderly living on the streets than children, more elderly on food stamps than young adults, etc, have at it. Remember, my point is that the elderly, as a group, have far more wealth than any other age group.

Mixing things up to obscure the issue, eh? Dotcom'rs aren't exactly known for being the bluehair set, are they? As for the Enron and Worlcom debacles, I'd like to point out, rather annoyingly, that the folks who theoretically pocketed all that money are, by and large, oldsters themselves!

And how much of those rising property taxes are being funnelled into programs for the elderly? A significant chunk. How much is due to out of control social spending? (Don't blame this on the Fed's or the Bush admin, because property taxes are purely at the local and state levels.)

From personal experience, I have to inform you that you are wrong. Not only do "rich (old) people" (using the definition of "the rich" that is in vogue with Democrats) use the bus, but they use it as their own personal taxi service to go to bingo. I worked for a time scheduling rides for a paratransit system, which, in the wisdom of the politicos, was available to all senior citizens. I scheduled a lot of rides from "adult living" new home developments to gambling houses, including some rides from one gambling house to another.

ooohhh, I'm stricken to the core. You're simply unable to come to grips with your chosen discriminatory preferences. Me, I don't have any personal problem with senior discounts, kids discounts, ladies night, women only fitness clubs, etc. I just find the hypocrisy of those who cry discrimination at the drop of a hat yet don't blink an eye at these cases pathetic. It is discrimination. If discrimination is bad, then these practices are bad.

And, of course, the women who go to Ladies Night are being exploited, they aren't responsible.


In what fantasy universe? Some facts are so simple to ascertain that only a hardcore ideologue doesn't bother to do so.

Ladies Drink Free - Nevada
Ladies Drink Free - Colorado
Ladies Drink Free - Florida
Ladies Drink Free - Louisiana

That doesn't even begin to address the issue of free drinks in casinos across the country. You're so far off base on this, something so easy to verify, that one can only shake one's head in amazement. Some people play fast and loose with the facts. You, on the other hand, simply play fast and loose, "we don't need no stinkin' facts."

It is so refreshing to be in the presence of somebody with such a high regard for humanity.

Bikerdad- let's avoid making this personal, please.

Are men being discriminated against? Are women? Kids? elders? Fors sure.
We all have advantages/disadvantages based on gender, age, etc. As a woman,
I wish I could go to a mechanic and get a fair deal. But, in this imperfect
world, that probably won't happen. do I cry about it? No. I send my husband
to have my car serviced. There are so many things that are not right with
the world. BUT, if you look at any given situation you can usually find a way to come out ahead - in other words, there is more than one way to skin a cat. People take life sooo seriously. Complaining and groaning about all the injustices. Lighten up, and find a way to beat the odds.

In a lot of these kinds of situations, the question often asked is "Where does it end?" It ends with senior citizens, otherwise, you get into all kinds of -isms that are simply stupid!

Bikerdad is absolutely correct. The problem is you can't comment on discrimination if your a white male or else your labeled a racist, or a sexist. Should senior citizens have a discount at Denny's? Most definitely. Should bars be able to have a ladies night? Yes. Should an employer have the opportunity to hire the most qualified person for the job, be it a woman, a minority, or a white male? Absolutely.

Can anybody justify senior discounts? 80% of the seniors I know have more money than I do, drive nice new cars, eat out 6 days a week, and nothing but free time. I live in a community that doubles in size during the winter when we get a lot of elderly people who flee the cold in their RV's and 'bless' us with their presence for 4 months. Why do these people deserve discounts on meals, movie tickets, or anything else? IMHO, when dealing with luxuries such as theaters, restaurants, etc., any policy that punishes or rewards based on age, race, gender, religious beliefs, physical condition, etc. is immoral if not illegal. And guess what? When these discounts are in place, the people who pay for it are the ones who are not eligible for it. The business is not going to give a discount to certain people without making that money up somewhere else!

You speak as if the women are just being herded in like sheep for men to pick over when it's the ladies' choice to go to ladies' night. How are women being exploited when they are getting in for free? Are they so easy to fool that they could be lured unsuspecting into a bar to be ogled by dozens of men with nothing but free admission? Honestly, I resent both the characterization of women and of men in the picture you paint.

Besides, the question is not who is to blame? It's isn't charging admission for one gender and not the other discrimination? Simply put, yes it is.

Maybe 80% of the seniors you know have tons of money, but
I'm assuming you are talking about the "snow birds" who flock
to Florida or Arizona to avoid harsh winter conditions..
Not every senior citizen is living on "easy street"..

I say, lighten up. Hopefully one day you'll make it to the
milestone of "senior citizen". Then you can get the 10% off too.
(the discounts really don't amount to a whole lot anyway)...

It really isn't that simple though, is it? Should a three year old be required to pay the same rate as an adult for a ticket into a museum? Group rates or special tours for groups would also be discriminatory in many cases by that standard. Any special or different treatment for any person or group is inherently discriminatory. Where do you draw the line, or is it acceptable to draw any line at all?

Somewhere there's a subtle mental distinction between barring all Irish from a restaurant, for example, and allowing women to drink free on certain nights. Some might not allow the distinction at ladies' night and make it something else...children for free, or somesuch. Some people would allow no distinctions at all, but I believe most would prefer special rates for some. Certainly I would be less inclined to go out to museums if my baby and toddler paid full price, or there was no kiddie plate on the restaurant menu.

Those distinctions are pretty fuzzy, and delve into a philosophical matter of morality and individual definitions of right and wrong. To me, it's okay for a senior citizen to have a discount. Most of us will probably receive that discount eventually and it's nice for them to be able to go out at an age when they might have a bit more free time than those younger. I think child rates are fine, and ladies night doesn't bother me (though I've never gone to a ladies night as far as I remember, certainly no more than one in my entire life if that).

Why should people who pay $10 to go to a movie or museum have to put up with a 2 or 3 year old crying or running around, disrupting the experience? Especially if that child was allowed in for a discounted price, or in many instances free? As for seniors, a vast majority are not as hard up as it may seem. Many of the elderly here, and no not just snowbirds, are financially stable. The discounts don't allow the truly strapped seniors to enjoy the luxuries anyway, so why should well off seniors enjoy the discounts while using the less fortunate of their age group as the excuse?

Before you write to your congressman to complain about Senior Citizen Discounts, please understand that Unions and Legislatures have long shared a common sentiment, "The longer you're here, the more sense the seniority system makes." Your typical legislator is going to be aware of something that you may have overlooked, AARP members are a large voting bloc. As an AARP member, I can assure you, I've been here long enough that it feels good to know that I can flash my card and get my free cup of coffee at Burger King, or 10% off at Holiday Inn. (Or I can call AAA, give them my membership number, and have them book the Holiday Inn reservation, negotiate the price, and send me a map in the mail that tells me how to get there.)


And most of them are willing to tell you how long (and hard) they worked to earn that privilege! Do you have the time to listen???

Actually, I have been known to eat out seven days a week. That is why I like to look for the best deal that I can get. When I find it, I am not surprised to find large groups of "regulars" who dine there on a daily basis. I remember when I first came to Muskegon, stopping at a restaurant to have breakfast on my way to work. The waitress told me I could sit anywhere, and I did. My second day there however, a couple of the customers told me differently. I was sitting at a table they had used for over forty years, seven days a week. If I was going to be a regular, I would have to sit where they assigned me. They spent half an hour interviewing me over breakfast before they assigned me a seat!

A "Senior Discount" may be two pancakes and two strips of bacon instead of three, or 1 egg instead of 2, for 25% off the regular price, or it may be every thirteenth cup of coffee is free. If you're dining at the same restaurant 6 or 7 days a week, ask if you can get the "discount." If they are providing a discount for seniors by providing smaller servings, (similar to a "children's discount") the restaurant may be very willing to extend you the same courtesy. The profit margin on their "Senior menu" is frequently higher than on a regular menu item. At the same time, I'm apt to linger over breakfast until I have read my entire morning paper and worked the crossword puzzle. (When I do, I usually leave a tip that reflects the time I have spent there, as well as the quality of service.)

My first wife did not believe in breakfast. If I wanted breakfast, I had to eat it in a restaurant. As that usually meant eating on my way to work or on my way home from work, I long ago established a relationship with any waitress I had a long term relationship with. If I had to take time to read a menu and place an order, I tipped at about 1/2 to 2/3 of what I tipped, if they just fed me when I came in. ("If I'm rushed when I have to leave, 10% is an easy number to compute." I would tell them.) At one restaurant, the waitresses understood that very well. Theirs was the second restaurant I would pass on my way home from work in the morning. If they saw me walking down the street; they would open the front door, wave me in with that morning's Detroit Free Press, take me to a table where the cream was already in my coffee, and two muffins waiting on the table. "Your omelet will be right out." would be the first words they spoke to me. Guess which restaurant was worth walking an extra 200 feet in the morning.

I had a supervisor once who lived in a house he built himself. By the time he and his wife were ready to install kitchen cabinets, appliances, etc.; they had formed a pattern of eating every meal at a restaurant. They looked at the estimate for a finished kitchen, and realized they could take out a mortgage and have a kitchen, or continue to eat out on a daily basis. "I never had to decide on a china pattern or a silverware pattern either." he would joke whenever he discussed this. When I last spoke to him, they had lived forty years in a house with no kitchen.

Restaurants stay in business, not because some people eat out once a month, but because some people eat out once a day, or more often. As the owner of a restaurant, are you going to drive away a customer that eats there seven days a week, or try to attract their friends? Theirs is a service business, and they survive because customers like the service they get there. If service includes the illusion of a "discount," they're usually happy to provide one. And the parking lot full of cars draws in new customers as well.

This post approved by Spell Check

Edited to add:
They shouldn't. Do yourself and the rest of the audience a favor, by complaining to a theater employee. Our local theater makes if very clear that such behavior is neither tolerable nor tolerated.

Understood, but that really is a different matter than offering a discount to everybody over or under a certain age. I talk to regular customers at great length at work, because you get to know them. I treat all customers with respect and courtesy, but you are right that regulars get more attention and bonuses. Frequent shopper discounts don't discriminate, they reward loyalty, and that is another matter in my opinion. If a meal is offered at a lower rate, but offers different amounts of the dish, then obviously that is simply another item, not really a discount. But why should an elderly gentleman pay $3 less than I have to for a seat right next mine to enjoy the same movie? I don't begrudge the elderly for enjoying this, but I question the logic behind a business offering it. By the logic that it breeds loyalty to the business, then wouldn't a lower price offered to everyone breed that same loyalty in everyone?

I am not sure that ladies night would survive the scrutiny of the Supreme Court but I think age based discounts would. We all have a reasonably equal opportunity to be five or under or 50 or older at some time in our life, On the other hand I will not become a member of a different race or gender barring some type of very expensive treatment or surgery in the future.

Let me ask you this, then....should a business be required to hire all genders for employment? Adult gentlemen clubs should be forced to hire males strippers? Hooters should be forced to hire male waiters, ect? What is the difference between barring all minorities from working at Abercrombie and barring all males from the wait staff at hooters?

Some forms of discrimination are acceptable to the majority of people, and some aren't. I might just as well say that a business which does not have special rates for children is discriminating against parents, because they cannot go into such places without paying three times the amount a non-parent would. The answer, for some, would be 'Don't go into those places', but that's the same answer to anyone bothered by ladies' night.

Is a steakhouse which doesn't offer any vegetarian meals discriminating against vegetarians? Perhaps, but somewhere there's a line drawn.

Edited to add: IMO, the line should probably be drawn at the point which offers the most advantage to everyone, as well as very little disadvantage to anyone. For example, ladies drink night brings in more women, and the men like to come in because of the women. If the absence of ladies' night would result in much fewer and/or less attractive women frequenting the establishment, it would be a hollow victory at best for the newly undiscriminated against men.

Mrs. P you are definitely hard to gauge on this issue. I thought we basically posted the same sentiments. (This is from your previous post on this thread.

And then I got challenged on Hooter's wait staff. What I was trying to say is that ladies night probably would get shot down in the highest court in the land. I believe Hooter's has lost in court as well. I have no gripe with that. Come eat food and get served by a sexy young woman is a age/sex/appearance double whammy of discrimination.

When you tell someone that you will not hire them for a certain job because of their gender or appearance I think you are getting into trouble.

I was simply trying to communicate the fact that we all will be a certain age at one time of another in our lives depending on how young we are when we die. So age based specials are arguably less discriminatory. But I do not have a very good chance of becoming asian, or hungarian, or female in my lifetime. So specials based on gender, ethnicity, or race are probably against federal law in my opinion. Then is just comes down to (forgive the cliche) if someone wants to make a federal case out of ladies night or similar business practices.

Years ago I lost the lead role in "Wonder Woman" to Lynda Carter, simply because I was unattractive and male. I mean seriously, people are hired all the time based on being attractive and/or a specific gender. I would say it is only discrimination when attractiveness and gender are not an asset to the position.

There is only one legitimate reason for senior citizens discount, kids eat free, or ladies night that is to increase profits. I doubt if many businesses are doing it for any other reason. Let me tell you one thing I learned from personal experience, never have a "Nickle Beer for Rednecks night".

LOL! Actually, I'm not trying to argue your point. I'm trying to demonstrate that inconsistencies and discrimination are actually standards we often agree to live by, under certain conditions. I think we do agree, for the most part.

So, if someone wants to charge those age 50 and older more money, is that okay? I don't think that would stand up in court! If some places offer a senior discount to encourage the elderly to frequent the establishment, why can't others punish them with higher costs to discourage them from coming there?

So if a group of people make up a large group of voters, it's okay to discriminate in their favor? I'm glad to see you supporting lobbying in this manner. That makes it okay for the oil companies to ruin our planet and trappers to wipe out endangered species, right?!?

Why does it matter how long they worked? I would have worked just as long if I were born when they were, and I don't think that means I deserve special rates and offers that aren't given to others simply because they are younger than me!

What, exactly, would stand up in court? Apparently, even hiring exclusively waitresses at a restaurant whose image requires it wouldn't stand up in court. I had friends in college who were very attractive. The clubs would allow them to enter for free when business was down because they would dance on the bar and drum up business. That probably wouldn't stand up in court either, as others had to pay entry fees.

The point is, there is discrimination everywhere which wouldn't stand up in court if anyone decided to make an issue of it. Any business which hires exclusively one gender for a certain type of employment is discriminating, any business which hires attractive people over less attractive, advertisers should have to use rotund models to sell their products, ect. Even dress codes which require a coat and tie to dine at a restaurant are discriminatory. We allow this because that is the image which the establishment is trying to sell.

There are children's places that allow adults to go in for free. They do this because the adults are not entertained by the blocks and legos, but the establishment has an interest in maintaining as much adult supervision as possible for the children.

In my opinion, an establishment should be able to charge seniors more if they choose. That would probably be a bad business move and detract costumers. Businesses give seniors discounts to draw them to the establishment, so charging them more would eliminate that market. On the other hand, it would bother me if a business charged and group of people more because they wanted to draw them away. The bottom line is, there are no hard fast rules here. It all comes down to subjective opinion, much like morality. Is this okay? Maybe. Is it discriminatory? Yes.

It could be argued that some forms of discrimination are beneficial, although the word doesn't have a pleasant connotation. I really don't want to see ugly people trying to sell me a beauty product, or a man serving me wings in small orange shorts and a cropped top. I like living in a world that gives children and the elderly a bit of privilege. But I wouldn't want to live in a country that allowed restaurants to bar certain ethnicities simply because they are that ethnicity. That's me. Your opinion might be different, but if anyone chose to actively pursue any matter of different treatment to any group of people in court, it would probably not stand up to legal scrutiny. Like Eeyore said, Hooters lost their suit, so they should be required to hite male wait staff which completely violates the concept of their business. Perhaps a steakhouse should be required to sell other items because not everyone likes steak? Should they require special meals for the lactos intolerant, allergies, ect.? Should public relations firms be required to hire persons with turrets syndrome who shout obscenities at the clintele but are able to perform their tasks otherwise? If someone took the businesses to court on those grounds, they might win. I believe that society is litigious enough, so the bottom line is...what do we stand to gain from a lawsuit, and what is to be lost.

Therefore, once again....my opinion is that free drinks to women bring in the women, and probably a more attractive variety than would go to the bar without the complimentary beverage. If that were eliminated (and it could be, because it is discriminatory just like Hooters), the men would have less access to as many women. They can choose not to go on those nights, but most seem to favor the odds on lady's drink night. Businesses could be forced to stop that, but it wouldn't benefit anyone.

Seniors tend to go out more and have more free time, therefore it is in the interest of the business to give them a special rate, similar to a group rate (which is also discriminatory). That's just my opinion. Group rates are also discriminatory, inherently, why should a school bus full of children receive a better entrance fee than I with my two children? It doesn't bother me in the least, and is obviously a smart business move on their part, so I would never make a case out of it.

The only real age discrimination business issue I have realized is that being in retirement communities. 55 year olds and older are allowed in these neighborhoods. These people (seniors) are statisically the highest percentage of voters & contributors and have lobbied to have the privilege to a age segregated living atmosphere.

If more young people start voting should that give them a right to live in a "loud music only" neighborhood or whatever atmosphere they can think of privlege?

Sure, why not?

There are hotels that exclude children because their target clientele would complain about the noise and general mayhem that occurs when Mom and Dad bring the kids.

There is an elite country club (in Augusta, GA) that excludes women from membership and participation in their tournament. (This one obviously addresses sexism.)

There are casinos that have definite perks for the high rollers who stay in their hotels. Obviously, if you're just playing the slots, you're nobody special.

If you have the money, you get benefits that others don't get.

But for all of the seniors who live in gracious retirement communities that exclude younger residents, there are a whole bunch of elderly who struggle to afford their medicines and food at the same time, who don't live under idyllic conditions.

So who are we to deny them a lousy discount on coffee or a meal (that has smaller portions anyway)?

Sorry to reply so late, Mrs. P, but you're right it's not as simple as "yes it's discrimination" or "no it's not discrimination."

As far as the ladies' night thing goes (and Hooters as well), I think it's a shame and a disgrace to my gender that men can be so easily manipulated by jiggling breasts and tight clothing on a woman who may or may not necessarily be beautiful. It's their own fault, but the biggest point I wanted to make in that post is that it the ladies who come to ladies night are hardly being exploited just as the men aren't either. They both make a conscious choice to go into a club knowing the other will be there. The situation bothers me as I'm sure it bothers Artemise, but it's not exploitation.

Letting a woman into a bar for being pretty is not right IMO. You can say it's good for business, but so are pools and bait and switch advertising. Charging admission for one gender and not the other is inethical because as Eeyore puts it, barring surgery, a man will never be a woman.

Senior discounts and free admission for kids, don't bother me in the least. Are they discrimination? Yes. Who cares? Everybody benefits from them at some point in their life.

Pretty interesting article, the whole thing is available here for anyone interested.

Slim,

I can see by your "quotes" that you have a sense of humor...
How's about lightening up on the seniors????

A big problem in this country is the way we regard our elders..
We treat them very poorly, on the whole, and it's wrong!!!

Those seniors are the reason you and I are alive today!!

I'm all for giving kids and seniors special discounts. I was once a kid,
and God willing, I'll be a senior one day too.. What goes around comes
around!

And as far as the oil companies/trappers analogy goes,
give it a rest....

You're blowing the whole thing out of proportion.....

Grumble, grumble, grumble,,,, What's with these young whippersnappers anyway... A person spends a lifetime working, raising a family (or more), paying for a home (or more), planning for retirement, putting a little bit of money aside... Well don't say I didn't warn you... grumble, grumble, grumble...

I reached a point where my employer said to all the union members: "You can sit down at your computer and estimate...
Plan A: The pension you'll get if you accept a bonus equal to 1.5 weeks pay for each year of service, and quit or retire by the end of the month.
Plan B: The raises you hope you'll get, if you work until you planned to retire, and it will estimate what your pension will be under the new pension plan."

The substantial differences between Plan A and Plan B were:
Under plan A, I would be guaranteed continued health coverage for life, a company paid retirement party, and receive a year's pay as a bonus.

Under plan B, if I worked an additional ten years, had no strikes, continued to work 40 hours per week, and averaged 3% annual raises in pay; my pension would finally climb back to what I am currently drawing, and the minimum total pension that would be paid to my family if I died young increased by 10 cents. There was no guarantee beyond the end of the current labor contract as to either wages or benefits.

Plan A, I retire early and walk away with an extra years salary. Plan B, I work an extra ten years to "guarantee" my family perhaps an extra 10 cents if I die young.



It wasn't really the hardest decision I ever made. I'm retired! I wasn't able to find and keep another job. That leaves me with a lot of spare time. It's actually quite enjoyable.

If you're lucky, you may live long enough to retire someday too. If you're young now, prepare for it! Surprisingly few people drop out of high school to accept jobs as CEO's of major corporations before they are 18 years old. Amazingly though, most retirees have been on one side or the other of a negotiating table to determine wages, benefits, a car purchase, a mortgage, etc. by the time they retire. They've learned how to say, "Look, I come in here every day. I don't have the appetite for a farmer's breakfast that I had when I was 20 years old and earning my living sweating under a hot sun..." We can order 1 egg, a slice of toast, and a cup of coffee for 2/3 the price of 2 eggs, 2 slices of toast, and a cup of coffee because other people before us have negotiated these "discounts." Seniors who drive a new car most likely do it the same way that other people who drive new cars do it. They pay for them! Some of us spend too much on drugs each month to afford such luxury. "Fixed income" in my case means I won't be getting an annual raise in pay from my ex employer. They told my union in 1974, "Retirees can stay on strike as long as they please, we have no plans to ever rehire them anyway."

I'm retired! I worked toward that goal for a long time. Now if you really want me to tell you how hard I worked... I own a slide rule, an abacus, a pad of paper, a pencil, a typewriter.. ... and I know how to use them all! I can remember when all the banks in a large city shared time on a common computer... Have you ever seen a Friden calculator at work? Why I... Grumble... grumble... grumble... Young whippersnappers just don't know how easy they have it... Do you want me to tell you how my parents drove across the country in a Model T Ford? (I'm sure I can find the time...)

Well, like I said before, I don't begrudge the elderly, I merely question the policy. As for how easy we 'whippersnappers' have it, that's a bit untrue. Just because we have computers instead of slide rules doesn't mean we have things easier. I work 50+ hours a week, haven't had a raise in over a year, and can not afford vacations or even eating out very often. I know a lot of people in the same situation at my age. My mother was born in 1937, and I have heard many of the stories of growing up poor, travelling from place to place picking fruit and vegetables. I have lived in run down trailer parks, single room apartments, and even in a car. Don't talk down to me just because I am young, I have seen and been through a lot, too! Now, the question was if you look through a newspaper you will undoubtedly find several advertisements that offer a senior citizen's discount. So why is it ok that these exist? Don't these show discrimination/preferential treatment? The answer, whether you like it or not, is yes. It is not opinion, it is a fact. To discriminate is to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit. Clearly, these policies are discriminatory in nature.

Furthermore, take a look at these figures:


Link

This page shows a number of interesting facts that dispute the point that seniors are 'hard up' and need discounts to survive. Again, I merely question the policies that reward a group claiming poverty that has an income per capita that is 26% higher than the national average. Same Site

I found an article that regarding "ladies night" and discrimination: 'Ladies Night' lands nightclub $500 fine (The Honolulu Advertiser).



I even got lucky and found a copy of the citation given to the bar mentioned in the article: Blue Tropix Restaurant and Nightclub/Bikini’s Sportsbar & Grill Citation, for those of you who don't feel like scrolling:

I'm curious if the bar owners will appeal. My hunch is they will not since they didn't make the hearing and the fine was a default judgment. Too bad, it could make for an interesting case.

In a local alt-newspaper in my city at the back, they always advertise "Ladies' Night" with ads of scantily clad, magazine-cover women -- proof enough for me that Ladies' Night has just as much (and probably more) to do with catering to men than to women. It's also the same with singles chat lines -- the ads show model-gorgeous women and advertise that women can chat for free. It's a supply and demand issue, not a discrimination one.



As for the all-gay high school, there was one that recently opened up in New York, called the Harvey Milk School, info here

http://www.hmi.org/Youth/HarveyMilkSchool/default.aspx .

My understanding of the school is that anyone may attend, but the idea behind the school was to give gay kids a place where they weren't outcasts. If anyone can apply to attend, it doesn't seem like discrimination to me.

That IS discrimination. Remove women and replace that word with blacks, christians, gays, young, old, or the disabled. Sounds like discrimination to me! Just because nobody has taken the time to challenge it in court yet doesn't make it legal.