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

[hjmoosejaw]

Just another Lib looking for the easy money, the free lunch. Hell. I'd gladly pay 15.00 to hang out at a range full of women. It's a win win for everybody. Just more little B.S. things trying to be forced onto others. See, if he was in N.Y., he could have offered all of the women free soft drinks larger than 16 oz. too.

 

[WalkingWolf]

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?

I am not positive but I think Hooters has been sued, I guess they won because I have not seen any male waiters.

 

[MagiK_SacK]

I am not positive but I think Hooters has been sued, I guess they won because I have not seen any male waiters.

Twice actually:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobil...-campus_n_1822550.html?utm_hp_ref=email_share

The point is we all know Hooters reason for having women rather than men. They are much worse than a range having a ladies day. The guy suing is a stupid libtard just trying to make money. Like I said before it's their business and if it gets more people to the range good for them!

 

[Phoenix David]

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

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment.

If it's good for the Goose it's good for the gander.

It's sex discrimination if woman can shoot for free and men have to pay.

Would you be fine if a mechanic charged men less for repairs then women?

 

[davidmcbeth]

I would wear a wig ....

 

[Phoenix David]

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?

The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex. Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th Amendment.

Tell me what is the difference between saying No Blacks allowed and men have to pay extra?

 

[Phoenix David]

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.

Ah so when laws and the Constitution get updated to reflect the modern times you think it's a perversion of the Constitution. But when that same update is applied to the 2nd Amendment it's just fine?

So is slavery OK in your book? Was outlawing it was a perversion of the Constitution? Woman shouldn't be allowed to vote?

 

[Phoenix David]

Should people with coupons be sued by those without? Come on now.

With coupons everyone has the chance to use it, unless they say on it "redeemable by women only" or "No Jews allowed"

 

[MagiK_SacK]

The law says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex. Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th Amendment.

Tell me what is the difference between saying No Blacks allowed and men have to pay extra?

You do realize that the laws you are referring to pertain to keeping federal/state/local law from doing such things. The difference between blacks/men question is very simple. One is race while the other is sex. That is it. Our government has too much power as it is. The last thing we need is for them to further regulate PRIVATE businesses. The owner isn't breaking the law, period. See my next post.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Ah so when laws and the Constitution get updated to reflect the modern times you think it's a perversion of the Constitution. But when that same update is applied to the 2nd Amendment it's just fine?

So is slavery OK in your book? Was outlawing it was a perversion of the Constitution? Woman shouldn't be allowed to vote?

The examples you have listed have to do with government abusing rights, not private business. It is not the business of government to promote slavery. People are not property to be titled(government), but indentured labor does still exist. When a person signs a contract they are indentured to that contract. Singers are indentured to the label they sign on with. The constitution does not allow forced indentured labor, unless it is correctional(penal). Infringements on the 2A are done by government, not private business. Voting is a privilege that is controlled by voting laws but only for public office and government programs or laws. Government has nothing to do with say a private club votes, as most MC do not allow female members or female voting, nothing can be done about this, it is not government.

 

[MagiK_SacK]

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. If enough men began to boycott such a range because they felt it was unfair or prejudicial, then the owner would feel the lightness of his pockets and realize he may need to change policy.

I support his right to do what he pleases with his business, even if it drives away paying customers and runs his company into the ground. I do not support government regulation that dictates what he may or may not do. The important factor here is that this is a private business, not a public service. No one is entitled to shoot at his range, and a court order saying otherwise bodes ill for America.

+1000000000

 

[MagiK_SacK]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/mary...e-sexism-women/story?id=17067299#.UDqPHqDLmSo

Hunter's lawyer, Jimmy A. Bell, sees it differently. "If someone said because you were Jewish you'd have to pay more money, what would you think about that?" he said. "People don't look at it like that. People think a man should have to take it. And that's now how the law works."

As it happens, attorney Bell is no stranger to discrimination suits. In 2010 he sued a nail salon after he shelled out $4 more for a manicure/pedicure than women were charged.

He eventually settled with the salon for an undisclosed amount. But last year, he sued another nail salon, Nail First, on Hunter's behalf. Hunter didn't win any money, but the court issued a permanent injunction against the salon.

Sounds to me like this Derrick Hunter is trying to make a living on suing people....:banghead:

Like many have said, just another libtard finding anything to complain about and trying to make a buck on it.

 

[Phoenix David]

The examples you have listed have to do with government abusing rights, not private business. It is not the business of government to promote slavery. People are not property to be titled(government), but indentured labor does still exist. When a person signs a contract they are indentured to that contract. Singers are indentured to the label they sign on with. The constitution does not allow forced indentured labor, unless it is correctional(penal). Infringements on the 2A are done by government, not private business. Voting is a privilege that is controlled by voting laws but only for public office and government programs or laws. Government has nothing to do with say a private club votes, as most MC do not allow female members or female voting, nothing can be done about this, it is not government.

So then I gather from above that you are OK when the Constitution is modified by the method that the Founders put into it? Beacuse you said above earlier that you thought it was a perversion?

The voting was an example of when the Constitution is modified, yes private clubs can have whatever rules they want, this range unless I missed it was not a private club, it was a public business. When you open a public business part of the licensing process (perhaps implied) is that you agree to abide to the requisite laws. That includes the current federal discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act 1965 says it's illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. The 14th Amendment provides equal protection under the law.

While it might be a small discrimination based on sex, giving preferential treatment to one sex, it is still a violation of the law.

Should he get any money? No he's a ******, but it's still illegal to do

 

[Phoenix David]

You do realize that the laws you are referring to pertain to keeping federal/state/local law from doing such things. The difference between blacks/men question is very simple. One is race while the other is sex. That is it. Our government has too much power as it is. The last thing we need is for them to further regulate PRIVATE businesses. The owner isn't breaking the law, period. See my next post.

Race and sex are protected in that you can't discriminate based on it.

 

[Aknazer]

For me this is tricky. I do feel it is discrimination, after all they don't do "Men's Night" and what not. And in this day and age of "equal treatment" why does one group of individuals based solely on sex get a discount, but not another? I also find it interesting that so many people who claim to want "equal treatment" either let things like this have a pass, or flat out fight against the removal of something that gives them an upper hand (like affirmative action).

As for if the guy should be suing, I don't really think so. But I do agree such "promotions" like this (or a regularly occuring "Ladies Night" at a bar, etc) is discrimination. But then again, places like Hooters discriminate as to who can be a waitress there, so not all discrimination is wrong/illegal even when it is based off of race or sex.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Race and sex are protected in that you can't discriminate based on it.

Yes a person can, or a business, or even a club can. College funds for specific race, beauty contests for women and not men, characters written for specific race or sex in movies or tv. The list is endless.

 

[moriar]

You do realize that the laws you are referring to pertain to keeping federal/state/local law from doing such things. The difference between blacks/men question is very simple. One is race while the other is sex. That is it. Our government has too much power as it is. The last thing we need is for them to further regulate PRIVATE businesses. The owner isn't breaking the law, period. See my next post.

Incorrect,

The laws are in place to protect from Federal / State / Local / Business / Employment discrimination,

You retain the "Right to refuse service", but you cannot charge one group (Men, Blacks), and give free range (Women, Whites).

Ignorance of the Law does not make the law non existant.

If you want to have promotions, then you must have "Ladies Night" and "Men Nights".

Other wise you are in violation of several laws, most businesses break laws everyday and get away with it since the average joe does not know its against the law and if he does, doesnt have the capital to bear the suit / make it known that the business is breaking the law.

MKEGal ; Thanks!

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

So, since we've never had a woman as president, does that mean we have a national level of discrimination going on?

 

[moriar]

Yes a person can, or a business, or even a club can. College funds for specific race, beauty contests for women and not men, characters written for specific race or sex in movies or tv. The list is endless.

A person can discriminate. (just how i dont do business with people that hire illegals, you want to cut my grass? I need green cards please)

A business cannot.

Television can, If the story is about a black slave, cant have a white guy being a slave...

Beauty contests do exist for both men and women, ever watch "Toddlers and Tiara's" /vomits

 

[moriar]

So, since we've never had a woman as president, does that mean we have a national level of discrimination going on?

PPM,

Yes for almost 150 years there was a level of discrimination present, but since the 1920's there has been a gradual decrease in the discrimination towards the female sex, to say that it still exists I would agree. Ladies Night is representitive of this, if you are to be treated as "Equals" then you should be charged.

As for woman as president, I believe that Hillary Clinton will be a strong contender for the 2016 election. Hopefully the Republican party can find a stronger contender for president.