From: williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums)
Newsgroups: rec.nude
Subject: Re: Lawsuits (was Re: Excluding Single Males)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:24:12 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Reply-To: williamt@athena.Eng.sun.com (Dances with Drums)
NNTP-Posting-Host: athena

In article <1irkr9INNplt@skeena.ucs.ubc.ca> arnett@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Arnett) writes:
>In article <a952008@pro-harold.cts.com> rford@pro-harold.cts.com (Richard Ford) writes:
>>Perhaps
>>those of us who do not fear having our names associated with nudity should
>>file a discrimination suit against a discriminitory resort.  We just might
>>make some money!
>
>Please *don'* do this!
>1) you would probably not win.
>2) you would probably succeed in shutting down the club/resort you were
>wanting to attend!
>
>Why would you lose?
>1) This "discrimination" is probably not illegal.  Spa Lady and Living Well
>Lady (health clubs) actively prohibit male members without breaking any laws.
---
	Never the less, I remember a suit against some bars (don't remember
the state) that gave discounts to women on some nights.  Suit was
filed that this was unfair and the bars *lost*.  The bars could continue
their promotions as long as they offered similar benefits to men on other
nights.  I believe the bars in question dropped their promotions altogether.

>2) They do not (generally) discriminate based upon gender.  They discriminate
>based upon marital status.
---
	Do they?  Or just whether or not you are accompanied by a female?  Do
they charge differently if you are single and female vs. single and male?
	
>3) The jury would be biased against you. (i.e., Joe Public *knows* that you
>only want to get in there so you can drool over the babes.)
---
	This is a misconception as the 'bar' case demonstrates.  Joe public
might just as easily be biased against the nude establishment for catering
to women.


>Why would you shut the place down?
>1) Most nudist places are not big profit makers.  If you actually won your
>lawsuit they probably wouldn't be able to pay their bills.
---
	They might choose to settle out of court first, and/or change their
policy.  Furthermore, even if you shut 1 place down, other resorts would
take note of the ruling and likely change their policies.  So the good would
come of this anyway.

>2) Most nudist places are owned be people just trying to help out other
>nudists be sharing their own land.  After being sued, they will probably
>just decide that it's not worth the hassle any more.
---
	Maybe, maybe not.  Places that have complex discrimination policies
in place in order to attract more women sound more like businesses rather
than Sally & Joe sharing their land.


>Of course, they might just give in an let you join, but guess how welcome
>you'd be made to feel!
---
	Imagine how welcome the first women felt when they sued for access
to all male clubs.  The first one on any path often doesn't have an easy
time of it, but they are paving the way for others.


>BTW, I disagree with this discrimination, too.  But I also support the
>right of a privately owned club to decide for themselves who they admit
>and on what basis.
---
	And here is the 'rub'.  What is 'private'?  I've seen laws that 
apply to 'clubs' that have more than 10-20 members, but not less, with
the idea that it is not private above some arbitrary figure.

	I too support the right for people to to do with their land and 
property and business and housing, etc, as they wish.  But I also
dislike discrimination based upon a persons physical attributes or
their religion.  I suppose it depends on whether or not I would
consider the club public or private.  If they advertise, or are members
of some national organization, then it would seem they are going beyond
private.

william

-- 
***  Dances with Drums  ***
***    DoD #0492   Steed: Kawasaki '80 750LTD                             ***
:: If pro-choice means choice after conception, does this apply to men too? ::