TexasCHLforum.com

geekwagun wrote:Were only ladies allowed to use the range on that day or did the ladies get a 100% discount for using the range? If a club or group of people wanted to rent the range for the night for a private event and someone who was not part of the club came and wanted to shoot, would that be discrimination? I don't think so.

The range can cannot discrimate based on age, sex, religion, etc. etc. but they can give a discount to a group of people who have arranged in advance the use of the range for that group and the range set aside time for the "ladies group" to come in an shoot at the discounted rate. Where is the problem?

I don't see any problem with what the range did, the guy sueing is an idiot - IMHO

Flame away, but if the court agrees with this guy, then I would also see where businesses could possibly stop offering any type of discount for any reason to anyone or group.

C-dub wrote:

Teamless wrote:http://consumerist.com/2012/08/is-it-sw ... urant.html
Not trying to hijack the thread, but this is in the same lines as the range day

Maybe your server will be as smooth as this fella, who added in a few compliments by way of a $0.02 total discount on a customer's receipt for "Best Butt" and "Best Looking."

Is it not OK for this restaurant to give discounts based on appearances then?

I think it is,
Would I like to be one of the recipients of the discounts vs the full price payer, sure, but it is still THEIR BUSINESS to choose how they want manage it

As long as it does not result in excluding one of the protected classes I think it is an interesting and funny tactic. It doesn't appear to do that, so, no foul.

urnoodle wrote:There will always be an argument that a portion of the population is being treated unfairly and one can manipulate that group into a protected class. If as a country we achieve 100% equality, we did so by sacrificing the very freedoms this country was founded on. All frivolous lawsuits seem to accomplish is taking more of those freedoms away.

Teamless wrote:I guess someone needs to tell The Arms Room to stop their monthly ladies night as well, as all men are prohibited.
And I guess that no more bars can have ladies nights.

Someone call your congressman!

urnoodle wrote:

C-dub wrote:Good examples urnoodle. None of those excluded are protected classes except for those under 65. That would be age discrimination.

Disability is also a protected class and it would apply to the wounded warrior and terminally ill patrons.

Teamless wrote:

C-dub wrote: but if a pattern can be shown that you are only giving the larger scoop to women you could have a problem

Why would I have a problem?

Teamless wrote:

C-dub wrote:excluding one of the protected classes

What protected class is being excluded by the firing range or the bar who has a ladies night?

Teamless wrote:there is a sub shop in Seabrook, Texas, called Neptune Subs
They have a promotion (and have for many many years) called "Bald Mondays"
If you are bald, you come in for lunch and get a savings over someone with hair.
http://www.neptunesubs.com/index.php?pageID=6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HERE'S THE DEAL: THE BALDER, THE BETTER "THE MORE YOU SHINE THE CHEAPER YOU DINE!"

Right or Wrong? (legal or illegal?)

Teamless wrote: If I open an ice cream parlor, can i give someone a bigger scoop for the same price as I charge someone else for a smaller scoop?
Sure I can, why? Because I OWN THE PLACE!

Teamless wrote:http://consumerist.com/2012/08/is-it-sw ... urant.html
Not trying to hijack the thread, but this is in the same lines as the range day

Maybe your server will be as smooth as this fella, who added in a few compliments by way of a $0.02 total discount on a customer's receipt for "Best Butt" and "Best Looking."

Is it not OK for this restaurant to give discounts based on appearances then?

I think it is,
Would I like to be one of the recipients of the discounts vs the full price payer, sure, but it is still THEIR BUSINESS to choose how they want manage it

urnoodle wrote:I'm curious what the perception would have been if the owner of the privately owned range routinely allowed, one day when all of his family and friends were permitted to shoot there for free while the rest of the patrons had to pay. What if it was free for all active service people, wounded warriors, the over 65 or the terminally ill. I don't think he would have filed in those cases even though it still equated to someone getting in for free when he had to pay which appears to be his argument. Where does one draw the line? The best way to show the owner he didn't like what he's doing, was to not spend his money there and encourage other men to go somewhere else. Same as not supporting businesses with posted 30.06 signs. When the only patrons to the his range are women, I'm sure the owner will change its tactic.

Teamless wrote:

C-dub wrote:but that will also bring in a lot more men and they will spend their money

That is a business decision, still not a 'fairness' one,
so if

C-dub wrote:then it won't bring more men in like in a bar/club.

, well, that is still the businesses decision.
they are a PRIVATE entity

Much like Augusta National
Until this year, they would not allow women to join, I do believe they have been sued over the years, and have won every suit, because, they are PRIVATE.

The Government cannot (supposedly) give preferential treatment, but they do it on a daily basis, but that is "we the people", not "John who owns his own establishment"