Man Sues Range Because of Lady's Day Promotion

[Carry-a-Kimber]

I think he has a legit claim. I think the $$$ he is seeking is ridiculous. Several states have ruled that "ladies' night" is indeed dicrimination and have banned the practice.

[urnoodle]

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.

As a woman entering the world of guns and shooting, it was very intimidating for me. A couple of events brought me to the point of seeking a gun for self defense. In my early experiences I was patronized and treated as if I were stupid. Those first experiences discouraged me to the point I decided I had to find alternative self defense option. My first trip to an actual range was on a womens free night on a whim with a girlfriend. Her husband was a gun enthusiest so he encouraged us to go. He thought we'd be more comfortable around other woman and feel less intimidated. I think he had an alterior motive . It was all down hill for the two of us from there. She now spends almost every weekend at a range with her husband. I have acquired several guns and I make an effort to go to the range at least once per month. I would go more often if the range was closer. I have learned that my bad beginning was the exception and not the rule. I believe many women who haven't been raised with guns in their hands have similar experiences. Most of the women who have never handled a firearm that I've tried to encourage to go to the range won't even consider it. Ask those same women on a womens free night and many will change their mind because they have nothing to lose and they have the support of other women. The womens free night was a great marketing tactic, it cost the range about $20 in fees for each of us. We've both spent a lot of money since when we otherwise would not have so I think the range made up for their initial $20 investment.

[RoyGBiv]

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.

Thanks for saving me some typing.

[C-dub]

I totally understand the marketing strategy and the intent of getting more women shooting. And while the bar/club analogy is correct this is different. Ladies nights, where drinks are free and no cover charge are to get more ladies in the door, but that will also bring in a lot more men and they will spend their money. If only the ladies are allowed at the range for an event like this then it won't bring more men in like in a bar/club.

Has discrimination like this become so acceptable that we don't care if the entire camel is in the tent now? Having a ladies night or day is a great idea, but charge them the same as any other time. Just don't let any men in during that period. Problem solved.

The guy suing is a moron, but he has a point. Not a $200,000 point, but a point.

[Teamless]

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

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"

[Commander Cody]

If it helps me get to wife to go to the range with me, I’m all for it.

[MasterOfNone]

There are two different issues in the article.

1. I think we all agree that the plaintiff suing for $200k is wrong. If he were suing for an injunction to stop the discriminatory practice and the cost of his legal fees, he would have a lot more credibility.

2. Whether a practice benefits the business or not does not change the legality of the practice. Using the night club example that has been mentioned, consider a night club whose clientele has become mostly Hispanic. The owner may feel this has made his club a niche offering only drawing a limited part of the market. To expand his market share, he may consider having Asian night, black night, or white night on which those groups pay less to get in and get free drinks. Is it discrimination to charge the Hispanics more for a drink than the whites?

[philip964]

Made the national TV news this morning. Welcome to your 15 minutes.

[Jim Beaux]

Daily the government encroaches on our rights and we accept it's mandates as morality. Big Brother has no right to legislate my morals or personal beliefs. If I dont want to associate with someone for any reason that is my right. I shouldnt have to treat a deviate as someone who is normal. I should also have the right to market my business to any segment that I think would give the best return.

Though the reason for such may be wrong, discrimination in itself is not. Those I choose not to associate with should deal with it and move on.

[urnoodle]

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.

[C-dub]

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

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"

Is it a private range? Or is it a privately owned range that is open to the public? There is a big difference.

Augusta is an excellent example. I don't think they were open to the public. I could not have driven up to the course and paid a green fee without being a member. Also, they did not exclude women from playing on the course. They only prohibited them from becoming members. If I were a member I could bring my wife to play. I think. I'm not completely positive about that.

[C-dub]

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.

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

[Teamless]

http://consumerist.com/2012/08/is-it-sw ... urant.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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

ETA: Do we really want MORE government out there taking MORE controls? Come on! The business WAS built by the person owning it, not the government, let them internally govern their own

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!

[C-dub]

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.

[Teamless]

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?)