• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Derrick Hunter sues Maryland Small Arms Range over 'Ladies' Day" promotion

swinokur

Activist Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
917
Location
Montgomery County, MD
Having the Govt tell you how you decide how and under what conditions can serve people is no different than the Govt. telling you how and under what conditions people come in your house.

I thought this had been decided in 1776.

If it wasn't so far, I'd drive there and shoot. You can always vote with your wallet (or pocketbook) :D
 

mwaterous

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
197
Location
New Mexico
No, thats far different then "You dont meet the criteria" aka breasts / vagina.

which makes it sexual discrimination. Have to remember Sexual Discrimination works both ways.

It's not discrimination, it's a promotion, and people having a hissy fit over this is why nothing important ever gets done; people are too busy whining about little things that do not make an ounce of difference to anybody but themselves. As was suggested earlier, would it still be discrimination if it was free entry for wearing lipstick? Should we maybe start boycotting places that provide disabled friendly ramps? After all, I want to climb stairs for my health, and these ramps and elevators offend me.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Yes Bars have been doing this for eons, but imho it is very sexist. Men are the source of income, Men should at times get the freebies. Its just like the radio... Radio stations wonder why men are a declining customer base... I can tell you why... Stop giving away Purses or shoes. Give away something that is gender neutral and male customers will rise.

in fact, Ladies nights should be banned. If going to be free cover both sexes need to have free cover, not one or the other. If i were a man I would feel discrimination that I was being charged simply for being EWAP (Equipped With a Penis)

If the cover is 15$, Men and Women need to be charged. Want to have a special, then Free of Charge to both sexes if you want to drum up customer base.
:shocker::shocker::shocker::shocker: just a wee bit ironic.

I can't believe PPM missed this little tidbit.

Chicks with guns is cool.....and hot. Some hotter than others obviously.
 

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
:shocker::shocker::shocker::shocker: just a wee bit ironic.

I can't believe PPM missed this little tidbit.

Chicks with guns is cool.....and hot. Some hotter than others obviously.

The setting, which is the bar... Men are the source of income. Women are the "bait"

Ladies Night = Free Cover. Bring troves of women into bar... Men know ladies night... they come and spend money to possibly meet / talk to ladies.
 

moriar

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
88
Location
Alexandria, VA
It's not discrimination, it's a promotion, and people having a hissy fit over this is why nothing important ever gets done; people are too busy whining about little things that do not make an ounce of difference to anybody but themselves. As was suggested earlier, would it still be discrimination if it was free entry for wearing lipstick? Should we maybe start boycotting places that provide disabled friendly ramps? After all, I want to climb stairs for my health, and these ramps and elevators offend me.

If entry was to wear lipstick, then would be fair.

But, if its "you dont have breasts" then it is sexual discrimination.

Never hear of a "Guys Night".

Women would scream bloody murder if they were told for "Dont have a penis".
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
:shocker::shocker::shocker::shocker: just a wee bit ironic.

I can't believe PPM missed this little tidbit.

Chicks with guns is cool.....and hot. Some hotter than others obviously.

OCing chicks are the best!
539204_342972785789316_1496732783_n.jpg


Photo from www.facebook.com/opencarry
If you're on facebook make sure you "like" opencarry
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
:shocker::shocker::shocker::shocker: just a wee bit ironic.

I can't believe PPM missed this little tidbit.

Chicks with guns is cool.....and hot. Some hotter than others obviously.

I did catch it, but forgot to spear him for his hypocritical sexism. Can't believe I did that, but I've had a few other things on the brain lately.

The setting, which is the bar... Men are the source of income. Women are the "bait"

Ladies Night = Free Cover. Bring troves of women into bar... Men know ladies night... they come and spend money to possibly meet / talk to ladies.

You could just always get a sex change, since, y'know, life isn't fair and you're being discriminated against by private property owners for being EQWP (equipped with penis). :rolleyes:

If entry was to wear lipstick, then would be fair.

But, if its "you dont have breasts" then it is sexual discrimination.

Never hear of a "Guys Night".

Women would scream bloody murder if they were told for "Dont have a penis".

So if I'm not invited to guy's night out, am I being sexually discriminated against? If I'm not allowed to join an all male professional sports team; is that sexual discrimination? If seniors get a discount and I don't, is that age discrimination? If I don't get into an Ivy League school; was that more discrimination? Hmm, I didn't get the job I applied for; musta been discrimination of some sort! You probably agree with the case of alleged "anti-religious discrimination" an atheist filed against a restaurant that gave discounts to patrons with a church bulletin.

TLDR: Life ain't fair, sugar. Buck up. Most men know the purpose of ladies night, and since they still go, they don't seem to have a big enough of a problem with it to stop going or warrant government regulation against it.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
You could just always get a sex change, since, y'know, life isn't fair and you're being discriminated against by private property owners for being EQWP (equipped with penis). :rolleyes:

I bet if just wore a dress and smiled real pretty he'd be good to go. :banana:
 
Last edited:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
PistolPackingMomma said:
Whether or not it is right or wrong for the owner to give discounts at his discretion, it is still his business, and his decision about how he wants to run it.
...The important factor here is that this is a private business, not a public service.
It is a "place of public accomodation", hence subject to equal rights laws.
If the range had one night that was happy hour for women, another for men, another for elders, another for teens, another for skin-color minorities, etc., I think that would be fair (& legal).
But other than the teens, all of those are protected groups, so to say a person couldn't come into your business (or probably even could enter for free, while others pay) would be (IMO) illegal.

the majority of women I know and have shot with strongly dislike shooting with lots of men.
Any idea why? (I don't fall into that category, so I honestly don't understand it.)
Aside from the general male-female behavioural differences (which are most apparent when there's a group entirely of one sex or the other & probably largely cultural) the only thing I can think of is that men might assume that a woman needs help, & give advice when it's unwelcome or un-needed.
BTDT (on the receiving end of the stereotype, that is; I was moderately amused at their reactions when my shooting buddy corrected their misconception) :rolleyes:

...it's fair for women to be able to shoot with other women... as it puts them more on equal footing with each other, rather than competing with men 2 feet taller that have been shooting for twice as long.
Huh?? Shooting is one of the few sports where it matters very little what your plumbing is.
(Having a lower center of gravity, women are slightly more stable when standing, but men generally have better upper-body strength, which is helpful when holding a heavy long gun up or holding a pistol at arm's length for an extended period.)

moriar said:
If entry was to wear lipstick, then would be fair.
But, if its "you don't have breasts" then it is sexual discrimination.
Men have breasts.
They don't work right, but men have breasts.
(Same exact tissue, without the hormones to make it work.)
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
It is a "place of public accomodation", hence subject to equal rights laws.
If the range had one night that was happy hour for women, another for men, another for elders, another for teens, another for skin-color minorities, etc., I think that would be fair (& legal).
But other than the teens, all of those are protected groups, so to say a person couldn't come into your business (or probably even could enter for free, while others pay) would be (IMO) illegal.


Any idea why? (I don't fall into that category, so I honestly don't understand it.)
Aside from the general male-female behavioural differences (which are most apparent when there's a group entirely of one sex or the other & probably largely cultural) the only thing I can think of is that men might assume that a woman needs help, & give advice when it's unwelcome or un-needed.
BTDT (on the receiving end of the stereotype, that is; I was moderately amused at their reactions when my shooting buddy corrected their misconception) :rolleyes:


Huh?? Shooting is one of the few sports where it matters very little what your plumbing is.
(Having a lower center of gravity, women are slightly more stable when standing, but men generally have better upper-body strength, which is helpful when holding a heavy long gun up or holding a pistol at arm's length for an extended period.)


Men have breasts.
They don't work right, but men have breasts.
(Same exact tissue, without the hormones to make it work.)


I'm pissed that I can't join "curves" gym!
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
In a way, I hope this schmuck wins this lawsuit.

MSM is a scumbag range anyway. It's regular clientelle are some of the most thug-life dirtballs I've ever seen at a commercial range. It's staff are snooty, elitist misogynist a$$hats, and they are rude to anyone who isn't part of their little "insiders club". If they get forced out of business because of this suit, it would be, IMO, a great service to the shooting sports in MD.

Plus, it would give us precedent to file suit against EVERY range in the state that doesn't charge LEOs to shoot, and winning THAT lawsuit would be triple-sweet...

Just sayin'...
 

oldbanger

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
475
Location
beckofbeyond - Idaho
So you support a lawsuit and potential government regulations that tells an owner how he can run his private business? :uhoh: Or you just think he shouldn't be allowed to run his business the way he wants?

This isn't a public library we're talking about; this is a privately owned establishment, and if he chooses to give black people free pass and charge white people, then the solution for the white people would be find a different range and deprive him of that income, not automatically file a lawsuit; which seems a lot less like redress of grievances and a lot more like vindictive tattling.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
It is a "place of public accomodation", hence subject to equal rights laws.
If the range had one night that was happy hour for women, another for men, another for elders, another for teens, another for skin-color minorities, etc., I think that would be fair (& legal).
But other than the teens, all of those are protected groups, so to say a person couldn't come into your business (or probably even could enter for free, while others pay) would be (IMO) illegal.

If that's the legalese, then I'll concede, but still opt to disagree. I think all rights should be equal in value, not just the ones government wants to protect, and I disagree that government should enforce businesses to respect those rights. We are supposed to have a free market; you find a place that won't serve blacks, then you refuse to patronize that place and tell everyone who will listen not to patronize it either. Eventually that business will only be serving like minded folks, and will most likely collapse under the weight of its own bigotry.

Any idea why? (I don't fall into that category, so I honestly don't understand it.)
Aside from the general male-female behavioural differences (which are most apparent when there's a group entirely of one sex or the other & probably largely cultural) the only thing I can think of is that men might assume that a woman needs help, & give advice when it's unwelcome or un-needed.
BTDT (on the receiving end of the stereotype, that is; I was moderately amused at their reactions when my shooting buddy corrected their misconception) :rolleyes:

Partially because they are novice shooters, and they are afraid of being judged. I personally don't have this problem, but several women I've shot with have. It also seemed to me that they really disliked being bossed around by their significant others. In my CWP class, each woman (except me) specifically requested to NOT shoot with their husband/boyfriend. I don't really understand it, but I have witnessed it more than once.

Huh?? Shooting is one of the few sports where it matters very little what your plumbing is.
(Having a lower center of gravity, women are slightly more stable when standing, but men generally have better upper-body strength, which is helpful when holding a heavy long gun up or holding a pistol at arm's length for an extended period.)

The plumbing doesn't matter, but the mental stereo-type is there. Perhaps it's just where I live, but we have a lot of good ol' boys that think all women should carry dainty little revolvers, preferably in the color pink, if they should carry at all. Not everyone here is like that, but almost all the ones I've run into are. When I said it's "fair" for women to shoot with other women, it's because that general mental competitive and sexist mindset is not there, and women can focus more on shooting, rather than worrying she'll be judged by the guy in the next lane.

Men have breasts.
They don't work right, but men have breasts.
(Same exact tissue, without the hormones to make it work.)

:banana:

In a way, I hope this schmuck wins this lawsuit.

MSM is a scumbag range anyway. It's regular clientelle are some of the most thug-life dirtballs I've ever seen at a commercial range. It's staff are snooty, elitist misogynist a$$hats, and they are rude to anyone who isn't part of their little "insiders club". If they get forced out of business because of this suit, it would be, IMO, a great service to the shooting sports in MD.

Plus, it would give us precedent to file suit against EVERY range in the state that doesn't charge LEOs to shoot, and winning THAT lawsuit would be triple-sweet...

Just sayin'...

I respectfully disagree. I think that would set a very bad precedent that anyone could sue any business that did something they wouldn't like. If this range is as bad as you say, well, I've got no problem with him going out of business. But I don't want government or lawsuits to be the cause of it; rather, just good ol' fashioned bankruptcy.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

Changing "gun owners" to "race" doesn't change my views at all. If someone is discriminated against, remove financial support and let them go down as quickly as the Hindenburg. When businesses tell us we can't carry guns in their stores (and yes, I'm aware gun owners are not a protected class like race is, but a right is still a right and I think it should all be equal) we give them a no gun= no money card; we do NOT try to use government to force them to change their policies.
 

MagiK_SacK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
257
Location
VA Beach, VA
I agree with the guy ... cannot say women dont pay and men do ....

My local range here in Virginia has a ladies shoot for free policy 365 days a year. I think it's great for the simple fact that if it can get more people to the range and be more proficient with their firearms than that's great. Also for people like myself who are married it cuts the cost of going to the range. Plus with my membership I can get one person in for free. So my neighbor (who doesn't have a membership) an I can both go, bring our wives and only have to pay the price of ammo and targets. Kudos to the owner for trying to get more people to the range.
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
It's not discrimination, it's a promotion, and people having a hissy fit over this is why nothing important ever gets done; people are too busy whining about little things that do not make an ounce of difference to anybody but themselves. As was suggested earlier, would it still be discrimination if it was free entry for wearing lipstick? Should we maybe start boycotting places that provide disabled friendly ramps? After all, I want to climb stairs for my health, and these ramps and elevators offend me.

I find it odd that someone that relies on the protection of rights and privileges under the law, 2nd Amendment, state and local laws relating to firearms, is so quick to deny the others their rights.

There is a word for that, what is that?..Oh yeah hypocrite
 

Phoenix David

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
605
Location
Glendale, Arizona, USA
My local range here in Virginia has a ladies shoot for free policy 365 days a year. I think it's great for the simple fact that if it can get more people to the range and be more proficient with their firearms than that's great. Also for people like myself who are married it cuts the cost of going to the range. Plus with my membership I can get one person in for free. So my neighbor (who doesn't have a membership) an I can both go, bring our wives and only have to pay the price of ammo and targets. Kudos to the owner for trying to get more people to the range.

So if he posted a sign "No legs no service" would you feel the same?

There are things that you can do and things you can't do. Like for example you could say "No bald people allowed" that is totally legal. What is not legal is to discriminant on the basis of Race, Color, Religion, National origin, Age, Sex, Disability Veteran status.

Again it's odd that someone who loves their rights and privileges under the US Constitution, Federal and state laws is so quick to deny them to others.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
So if he posted a sign "No legs no service" would you feel the same?

There are things that you can do and things you can't do. Like for example you could say "No bald people allowed" that is totally legal. What is not legal is to discriminant on the basis of Race, Color, Religion, National origin, Age, Sex, Disability Veteran status.

Again it's odd that someone who loves their rights and privileges under the US Constitution, Federal and state laws is so quick to deny them to others.

One needs to remember that the constitution was written and amended to protect the people from tyranny of government, not business. These protections laws are a perversion of the constitution. No matter how vile a business should have the choice to decide who they do business with, just the same as the consumer has that same ability.

As far as this business is concerned it is the same business examples of most business. One hot girl attracts 4 or 5 paying men. When I was a teenager working in a grocery store the store manager only hired hot female cashiers. His store was the top sales store in the region.
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I find it odd that someone that relies on the protection of rights and privileges under the law, 2nd Amendment, state and local laws relating to firearms, is so quick to deny the others their rights.

There is a word for that, what is that?..Oh yeah hypocrite

which right is being violated for this guy to have to pay to shoot?
 

MagiK_SacK

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
257
Location
VA Beach, VA
So if he posted a sign "No legs no service" would you feel the same?

There are things that you can do and things you can't do. Like for example you could say "No bald people allowed" that is totally legal. What is not legal is to discriminant on the basis of Race, Color, Religion, National origin, Age, Sex, Disability Veteran status.

Again it's odd that someone who loves their rights and privileges under the US Constitution, Federal and state laws is so quick to deny them to others.

Nothing about them having a girls day, or doing it all year long violates anybodies rights. What you have to remember is personal property right. Just as said above, the owner can set what ever rules they want within the guidelines of the law. The range has done nothing wrong, and I just don't get how we take it all the way to constitutional rights. Let me as you this, Hooter doesn't hire men as waiters, only women. If you feel that is against your constitutional rights, why don't sue them? Same thing right?
 
Last edited:
Top