TexasCHLforum.com

The notion of a "ladies drink free" night at a bar or club is certainly not unheard of, but a man in Maryland says a local firing range is breaking the law by hosting days where females -- and only females -- are allowed to shoot without having to pay.

"Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I should have to pay more," the man, who has filed a $200,000 lawsuit against the range, explains to WJLA-TV.

Read the rest at http://consumerist.com/2012/08/man-sues ... otion.html

Words escape me.

Thomas wrote:

The notion of a "ladies drink free" night at a bar or club is certainly not unheard of, but a man in Maryland says a local firing range is breaking the law by hosting days where females -- and only females -- are allowed to shoot without having to pay.

"Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I should have to pay more," the man, who has filed a $200,000 lawsuit against the range, explains to WJLA-TV.

Read the rest at http://consumerist.com/2012/08/man-sues ... otion.html

Words escape me.

I don't want to read the rest at http:

This too, must be Bush's fault.

What about when a college admits someone with a lower high school GPA because they are told there is not enough diversity in their school? Or when a particular department in your company is told by HR that there is not enough women in their department and won't forward the applications of men that are more qualified?

We just heard accusations last week that Janet Napolitano has promoted women over more qualified men. There is even accusations that certain police officers were removed from a certain detail in Chicago because of the color of their skin.

Discrimination either way is wrong. I wouldn't have sued the guy, but were do you draw the line? There is a whole lot of legalized discrimination and I usually see and hear more people complaining about stuff like that. What's different about it this time?

If it's legal and moral to charge women less than men, it's legal and moral to charge women more than men, blacks more than whites, etc.

I'm ashamed for the world to know that moron owns a gun.

The notion of a "ladies drink free" night at a bar or club is certainly not unheard of, but a man in Maryland says a local firing range is breaking the law by hosting days where females -- and only females -- are allowed to shoot without having to pay.

"Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I should have to pay more," the man, who has filed a $200,000 lawsuit against the range, explains to WJLA-TV.

Ridiculous! This guy doesn't care the least little bit about the women's free night. It's obvious in the damages he is attempting to recover. Another example of a person finding a situation that can get him something for nothing.

Who would ever do such a thing? Shocking!

http://www.redsguns.com/ladiesday.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gringop

The sad reality is that this type of thing happens so much that we have just come to accept it. But it seems to be a textbook definition of discrimination - charging one person more than another based solely on gender. As was already mentioned, would it different if one race was charged more than another?

C-dub wrote:What about when a college admits someone with a lower high school GPA because they are told there is not enough diversity in their school? Or when a particular department in your company is told by HR that there is not enough women in their department and won't forward the applications of men that are more qualified?

We just heard accusations last week that Janet Napolitano has promoted women over more qualified men. There is even accusations that certain police officers were removed from a certain detail in Chicago because of the color of their skin.

Discrimination either way is wrong. I wouldn't have sued the guy, but were do you draw the line? There is a whole lot of legalized discrimination and I usually see and hear more people complaining about stuff like that. What's different about it this time?

As I do understand and agree wholly with your point of view, this is a case of someone being able to run there business how they think is best, not if it is right or wrong. The range is doing us all a favor by bringing in a demographic that does not shoot as much as we "shooters" do. If there were a range local to me I would go stand on the street corner flipping a sign for them. This guy is just raising a stink to raise a stink, and maybe even get a few bucks doing it. If he does get what he wants the range will likely be shut down and now every one looses. The bar analogy is well put, guys will show up and pay more if they know there is the possibility of a good guy/girl ratio, weather they admit it or not, and a gun range is no different. Anyone who thinks what this range is doing is wrong, then i would suggest you take a business marketing class. I run women only CHL class to drive better business and to educate women better by making them feel more comfortable. This is all the people at the range are doing.

MasterOfNone wrote:The sad reality is that this type of thing happens so much that we have just come to accept it. But it seems to be a textbook definition of discrimination - charging one person more than another based solely on gender. As was already mentioned, would it different if one race was charged more than another?

But how can it be charging more? I see it as a discount. The business owner cannot charge everyone $0.00 or else he would go out of business.

Richardc wrote:

C-dub wrote:What about when a college admits someone with a lower high school GPA because they are told there is not enough diversity in their school? Or when a particular department in your company is told by HR that there is not enough women in their department and won't forward the applications of men that are more qualified?

We just heard accusations last week that Janet Napolitano has promoted women over more qualified men. There is even accusations that certain police officers were removed from a certain detail in Chicago because of the color of their skin.

Discrimination either way is wrong. I wouldn't have sued the guy, but were do you draw the line? There is a whole lot of legalized discrimination and I usually see and hear more people complaining about stuff like that. What's different about it this time?

As I do understand and agree wholly with your point of view, this is a case of someone being able to run there business how they think is best, not if it is right or wrong. The range is doing us all a favor by bringing in a demographic that does not shoot as much as we "shooters" do. If there were a range local to me I would go stand on the street corner flipping a sign for them. This guy is just raising a stink to raise a stink, and maybe even get a few bucks doing it. If he does get what he wants the range will likely be shut down and now every one looses. The bar analogy is well put, guys will show up and pay more if they know there is the possibility of a good guy/girl ratio, weather they admit it or not, and a gun range is no different. Anyone who thinks what this range is doing is wrong, then i would suggest you take a business marketing class. I run women only CHL class to drive better business and to educate women better by making them feel more comfortable. This is all the people at the range are doing.

NOW you've done it. If my wife ever sees this post, I'll never be able to go to the range again. She'll think I'm going there just to pick up chicks!

Thomas wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:The sad reality is that this type of thing happens so much that we have just come to accept it. But it seems to be a textbook definition of discrimination - charging one person more than another based solely on gender. As was already mentioned, would it different if one race was charged more than another?

But how can it be charging more? I see it as a discount. The business owner cannot charge everyone $0.00 or else he would go out of business.

Whether one group gets a discount or the other group pays a surcharge, it is still different rates based on gender.

urnoodle wrote:

The notion of a "ladies drink free" night at a bar or club is certainly not unheard of, but a man in Maryland says a local firing range is breaking the law by hosting days where females -- and only females -- are allowed to shoot without having to pay.

"Just because I'm a man doesn't mean I should have to pay more," the man, who has filed a $200,000 lawsuit against the range, explains to WJLA-TV.

Ridiculous! This guy doesn't care the least little bit about the women's free night. It's obvious in the damages he is attempting to recover. Another example of a person finding a situation that can get him something for nothing.

This was my understanding... A guy who either a. Saw a way to get $$$ for a made up problem or b.... Okay to me a. Is probably the answer.

I saw a ladies night as a good way to get more women who otherwise might not have become interested in learning about guns and gun safety to come out and have a night without men and possibly feeling intimidated by the process.

NOW you've done it. If my wife ever sees this post, I'll never be able to go to the range again. She'll think I'm going there just to pick up chicks!

why do you think i make the wife stay home