Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Aug '17 19:53
    www.thesun.co.uk/news/4176712/men-tax-pay-more-melbourne-cafe/
  2. 06 Aug '17 20:34
    Originally posted by @kquinn909
    www.thesun.co.uk/news/4176712/men-tax-pay-more-melbourne-cafe/
    I'm afraid there are many more libtards than D. Very progressive sexist tax. I can't imagine they get any male customers beyond the typical libtard guy who enjoys being punished.
  3. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    07 Aug '17 19:23
    I imagine you two will be upset to have your access to vegan food restricted so brutally and unfairly.
  4. 07 Aug '17 19:53 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar to Kquinn909
    I'm afraid there are many more libtards than D. Very progressive sexist tax. I can't imagine they get any male customers
    beyond the typical libtard guy who enjoys being punished.
    From the article cited in the original post:
    "Owner Alex O’Brien told Broadsheet website: “I do want people to think about it, because
    we’ve had this (pay discrepancy) for decades and decades and we’re bringing it to the
    forefront of people’s minds. I like that it is making men stop and question their privilege a little bit.”

    Ms O’Brien says the response from her customers has been positive, with one man even donating $50 (£30) to the cause.
    She said: “There’s been nothing but positivity from everyone, males and females.”
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Aug '17 20:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @kquinn909
    www.thesun.co.uk/news/4176712/men-tax-pay-more-melbourne-cafe/
    That would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act in the US.

    There's substantially no moral or legal difference between that and charging black patrons a "security tax." Both are equally absurd and illegal.
  6. 07 Aug '17 20:28
    Originally posted by @sh76
    That would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act in the US.

    There's substantially no moral or legal difference between that and charging black patrons a "security tax." Both are equally absurd and illegal.
    Don't bars often charge men and women different amount to enter?
  7. 07 Aug '17 20:44
    Originally posted by @sh76
    That would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act in the US.

    There's substantially no moral or legal difference between that and charging black patrons a "security tax."
    Both are equally absurd and illegal.
    Should it be illegal for a pub to have a "Ladies' Night", where women are allowed free entry at certain times?
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    07 Aug '17 23:01
    Originally posted by @quackquack
    Don't bars often charge men and women different amount to enter?
    Good question. Maybe nobody's sued.

    If they were sued, I bet they'd lose.
  9. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 Aug '17 23:21
    Originally posted by @sh76
    That would be illegal under the Civil Rights Act in the US.

    There's substantially no moral or legal difference between that and charging black patrons a "security tax." Both are equally absurd and illegal.
    You saw the part about Melbourne?
  10. 07 Aug '17 23:31
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    You saw the part about Melbourne?
    I guess that's why he wrote would be illegal.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Aug '17 00:39
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    You saw the part about Melbourne?
    You saw the part about "would be"?
  12. 08 Aug '17 01:20
    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9

    "The strange loophole that lets Hooters hire only female servers."

    "If you've been to a Hooters lately, you've probably noticed something about the servers.
    It's pretty obvious: They're all women. Hooters doesn't hire any men as servers."

    "Hooters did not agree to let men work as servers, and it had a legitimate legal argument for refusing to do so.
    "Hooters argued BFOQ [bona fide occupational qualification] under essence of the business,"

    "Hooters is what has been called a "breastaurant," a dining establishment that often
    features scantily clad women to cater to a male clientele. As such, the "Hooters Girl,"
    the company argues, is an essential part of its business.

    From its website:
    We’re proud of who we are. Yes, we have a pretty face. And sex appeal is part of our
    thing, but it’s not the only thing ... There will always be those out there looking to take a
    shot at us, or have the government dictate what we can or can’t do ..."

    "Not every company can successfully argue that it's okay to discriminate against men.
    In 1981, a federal court found that Southwest Airline's policy of hiring only women flight attendants
    and ticket agents violated the Civil Rights Act. The court also found the airline's practice
    of capping flight attendants' height at 5 feet 9 inches effectively discriminated against men."
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Aug '17 12:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @duchess64
    http://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9

    "The strange loophole that lets Hooters hire only female servers."

    "If you've been to a Hooters lately, you've probably noticed something about the servers.
    It's pretty obvious: They're all women. Hooters doesn't hire any men as servers."

    "Hooters did not agree to let men work ...[text shortened]...
    of capping flight attendants' height at 5 feet 9 inches effectively discriminated against men."
    Yes, the Hooters BFOQ argument is classic fodder for a law school discussion on employment discrimination.

    I tend to agree with Hooters. Sex appeal is a central component of their waitress' jobs. On the other hand, sex appeal cannot reasonably be said to be a central component of a flight attendant's job. I think the courts got it right in both cases.

    Of course, the BFOQ rationale does not extend to customers.
  14. 08 Aug '17 18:22
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Yes, the Hooters BFOQ argument is classic fodder for a law school discussion on employment discrimination.

    I tend to agree with Hooters. Sex appeal is a central component of their waitress' jobs. On the other hand, sex appeal cannot reasonably be said to be a central component of a flight attendant's job. I think the courts got it right in both cases.

    Of course, the BFOQ rationale does not extend to customers.
    "Sex appeal cannot reasonably be said to be a central component of a flight attendant's job."
    --Sh76

    Back in the 'Golden Age' of air travel, some airlines advertised their (exclusively) female
    flight attendants' sex appeal (and implied sexual availability) as selling points for male passengers.
    "Would the gentleman like to have coffee, tea, or me?" (service with a smile)

    This was during an era when stewardesses were routinely terminated for not meeting
    the airlines' stringent requirements on height, weight, age, and/or marital status.
    Racism also tended to exclude non-white women from such highly visible jobs.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee,_Tea_or_Me%3F

    "Coffee, Tea or Me? is a book of alleged memoirs by the fictitious stewardesses
    Trudy Baker and Rachel Jones, written by the initially uncredited Donald Bain and
    first published in 1967. The book depicts the anecdotal lives of two lusty young
    stewardesses, and was originally presented as factual."
  15. 08 Aug '17 18:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @finnegan to Kquinn909 and Eladar
    I imagine you two will be upset to have your access to vegan food restricted so brutally and unfairly.
    This restaurant could try a "Raising Awareness of Racism Evening".
    Aboriginal customers would be served first; white customers would be served last.
    (How many aboriginal Australians are vegans?)

    Would be that racist? Would it be sexist to serve ladies ahead of gentlemen?