Quote:
Originally Posted by DunlopFuzzy
I'd like to meet the lawyer that could argue that the casino, who can refuse an individual for any reason, unfairly refused service to an individual.
|
If there is a pattern where men, who play the "ladies" event, are being punished.... there is a STRONG case for discrimination.
The fact is, in our society, it has become socially acceptable to discriminate against men. For instance, look at sitcoms from the past (1970s) and compare them to today. Before, men were the foundation of the household and provided money, stability, and intelligence; more importantly, they counteracted the typical female who was frail, in constant need of guidance, and deeply concerned with trivial (but comical) things. Today's sitcoms are much different; Malcom in the middle, Modern Family, the Simpson, Family guy, etc... all shows where men are painted in a negative-light. The reason for this is simply because in comedies... you need the idiot, and misandrinistic attitudes are more socially acceptable than misogynistic attitudes (or racist attitudes that were commonplace in the 1950s media).
Thus, its not uncommon for people to be bewildered that the men would cry discrimination for anything (especially sexual harassment). But, federal laws are not ambiguous and they
clearly prohibit a public business from holding sex-only events (and a casino doesn't qualify for any of the exemptions). Trust me, businesses have lost millions simply by adopting the same apathetic attitude the public has against "male discrimination" by thinking the courts won't take their claims seriously.
Honestly, the fact that they are "threatening" actions and not simply implementing a ban highlights the fact that they are doing their best to discourage men from entering the event, knowing they can't actually enforce a ban.