Current Events > female comedian sued in California for not allowing men into show

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkphoenix181 posted...

@Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

And yet the opposite didn't happen so....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/sports/golf/19links.html

What a whiny bitch. Who the fuck cares if they want to have a men's only event.

It's so fucking stupid. It's just like those whiny bitches that got upset about a women's only WW screening and comedy night.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Anheuser Busch developed a workaround, well over twenty years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrFxXZ3rk.

Back when commercials were good
---

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9bgpmv/what-happened-when-i-crashed-a-men-only-st-patricks-day-event

Here's What Happened When I Crashed a Men-Only St. Patricks Day Event

Ah, old boy's clubs: the Masons, the Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffalos, the Adventurer's Club of Los Angeles, the Stonecutters. While men-only clubs are generally agreed to be dated and embarrassing, they still existand, where they do, occasionally cause controversy.

I recently got pulled into a small flap over an annual dinner held by the St. Patrick's Society, a men's club in my hometown of Saint John, New Brunswick. Although it's existed in more or less its current form since 1928, I only learned about it when a friend mentioned plans to attend a dinner with a speech by Nova Scotia Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Kennedy. As a journalist, I'd heard of Kennedy, an outspoken advocate for improving court-media relations and a member of the Canadian Judicial Council's Public Information Committee.

"Cool," I said. "Where's that? I should come."

"You can't really do that. It's a men-only event," my friend said.

tl;dr they didn't kick her out and actually didn't really mind it
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

What a whiny b****. Who the f*** cares if they want to have a men's only event.

It's so f***ing stupid. It's just like those whiny b****es that got upset about a women's only WW screening and comedy night.

lol ok

she actually won the suit and I think got some money

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/sports/golf/04club.html

Last week, the United States District Court in Boston, in a rare federal ruling involving a town, its public golf course and an accusation centering on sex discrimination, told her she had won.

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton ruled that a municipality and its public golf course were liable under federal equal-protection laws if they engaged in sex discrimination through policy, conduct or custom.

It has been kind of a lonely road as far as support from other people, men or women, Joyce, 45, said in a telephone interview. For me, this decision means encouragement that I was right, and it certainly upheld what I took the law to mean. Hopefully, that prevents other women from having to go through this.

Gorton said that his decision did not require all public courses to conduct only coed tournaments. He stated that when a towns golf officials draw a clear distinction based upon gender and their only explanation is to deny that any distinction existed, they will not prevail. He said the burden was with the clubs officials to justify their conduct, and they have not done so.

Leonard Kesten, the lawyer for Dennis Pines, said no appeal was planned.

In a 21-page opinion, Gorton ruled that Joyce was protected under federal civil rights law and that she was entitled to damages and legal fees. A trial will be held on that issue, unless the case is settled.
Continue reading the main story

This case is about publicity and money: she wants $500,000, Kesten said, adding: The citizens of Dennis should pay her $500,000 because we did what? The people of this club were portrayed as discriminators. This is a taxpayer-funded club. These are working people.

---

The plaintiff is kind of an idiot. Didn't he realize he's in liberal California?

All he had to do was to yell at the staff "DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER!" and that'd get him an easy pass.

GregShmedley posted...

Just so consistency is established--to those who say she is in the right, would you support a male comedian doing a men only performance?

I wouldnt support any event that discriminates against anyone. I would however support an event that was for specific people but didnt exclude those who still wanted to check it out.

For instance they should have allowed the men to attend and proceeded as they were normally going to. If the men here started heckling then remove them.

TrumpTrain posted...

The plaintiff is kind of an idiot. Didn't he realize he's in liberal California?

All he had to do was to yell at the staff "DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY GENDER!" and that'd get him an easy pass.

Lol!!!!! True.
---

The Admiral posted...

Another progressive who supports discrimination. Hope she loses too.

---

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

It's short stroll from X only event to X only clubs n such. Clubs that offer services and networking, etc.

While I don't have much of an issue with a women only show every once in a while, it's a slippery slope from kitschy idea to abhorrent civil rights violation.

One of the MAJOR problems here is that he was allowed in, but told to sit in the back.
Fuck that shit.

Yeeeeeeaaah, that's pretty bad.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I think if a barbershop does become dependent on the providing a service that needs to include exclusivity, then so be it. Again, the context and intent matter. I don't think we can just lump everything into one group or the other.

If anything, the situation will sort itself out when the clientele realizes he's just plain awful at any haircut that isn't a #6 buzzcut.

Don't see anything wrong with the comedy act. Real problem is there's too many wussies in the world today, and the Internet amplifies everything more than it needs to be.

There's a difference between exclusion based on gender, and exclusion based on race. There are far less, if any, instances where excluding because of race would even be appropriate.

There's also a difference between exclusion based on your act and exclusion based on hate. If the exclusion isn't fueled by hate or some feeling of superiority, what's the problem?

It was a mistake to sell the guy the ticket in the first place, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone like him was mad at his wife going out for a girl's night.

It's only offensive if you choose to be offended.

Cuckflakes
---

Asherlee, how do you feel about the gay wedding cake stuff? It's not a perfect analogy by any means but . . .

because if we're going to permit performance art exceptions, I can't really think of a good reason to not exempt bakers who feel that by making the cake it makes them a part of the ceremony and being a part of a sacrilegious ceremony gives genuine concern over their soul. Forcing them to bake or forcing them out of the economy seems pretty abhorrent and antithetical to make the world a better place in any way.
---

To reiterate; how do you feel about the specific case that's actually going to the Supreme Court of the United States and how do you feel about the arguments they've made.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Asherlee, how do you feel about the gay wedding cake stuff? It's not a perfect analogy by any means but . . .

because if we're going to permit performance art exceptions, I can't really think of a good reason to not exempt bakers who feel that by making the cake it makes them a part of the ceremony and being a part of a sacrilegious ceremony gives genuine concern over their soul.

As I've already posted, I think context is important. I didn't say that I think all performing arts should be exempt because I don't.

Further, I don't think that all businesses should be excluded or included when deciding something like this. Context, intent, malice, etc. are all important.

Either you allow discrimination or you dont. You cant pick and choose because then it just becomes arbitrary.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

What a whiny b****. Who the f*** cares if they want to have a men's only event.

It's so f***ing stupid. It's just like those whiny b****es that got upset about a women's only WW screening and comedy night.

lol ok

she actually won the suit and I think got some money

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/sports/golf/04club.html

Last week, the United States District Court in Boston, in a rare federal ruling involving a town, its public golf course and an accusation centering on sex discrimination, told her she had won.

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton ruled that a municipality and its public golf course were liable under federal equal-protection laws if they engaged in sex discrimination through policy, conduct or custom.

It has been kind of a lonely road as far as support from other people, men or women, Joyce, 45, said in a telephone interview. For me, this decision means encouragement that I was right, and it certainly upheld what I took the law to mean. Hopefully, that prevents other women from having to go through this.

Gorton said that his decision did not require all public courses to conduct only coed tournaments. He stated that when a towns golf officials draw a clear distinction based upon gender and their only explanation is to deny that any distinction existed, they will not prevail. He said the burden was with the clubs officials to justify their conduct, and they have not done so.

Leonard Kesten, the lawyer for Dennis Pines, said no appeal was planned.

In a 21-page opinion, Gorton ruled that Joyce was protected under federal civil rights law and that she was entitled to damages and legal fees. A trial will be held on that issue, unless the case is settled.
Continue reading the main story

This case is about publicity and money: she wants $500,000, Kesten said, adding: The citizens of Dennis should pay her $500,000 because we did what? The people of this club were portrayed as discriminators. This is a taxpayer-funded club. These are working people.

Taxpayer funded changes things... Taxpayers shouldn't fund anything like this but if they're going to everyone should have access.
---

Damnit and it just so happens to be one of the few hot AND funny female comedians!

That said, it's her show. It's not like she has a monopoly on standup.

kronos96 posted...

What is the race of the crybaby?

Probably white
---

Asherlee10 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Asherlee, how do you feel about the gay wedding cake stuff? It's not a perfect analogy by any means but . . .

because if we're going to permit performance art exceptions, I can't really think of a good reason to not exempt bakers who feel that by making the cake it makes them a part of the ceremony and being a part of a sacrilegious ceremony gives genuine concern over their soul.

As I've already posted, I think context is important. I didn't say that I think all performing arts should be exempt because I don't.

Further, I don't think that all businesses should be excluded or included when deciding something like this. Context, intent, malice, etc. are all important.

Either you allow discrimination or you dont. You cant pick and choose because then it just becomes arbitrary.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I think it is incorrect to try to lump everything into one group or the other because this is not a simple, contextless world. Things are complex and context in each scenario matters. In short, there is a lot of grey area and because of that case-by-case judgment should be used.

Then you can explain how segregation was slowly allowed back in the States because I see no difference.
---

Sounds like a female version of The Little Rascals. Lol

OnlyAHobo posted...

There's a difference between exclusion based on gender, and exclusion based on race.

Not according to US law. Discrimination is discrimination.
---

Was the possibility of missing out on one of her shows even worth being upset about...?
I get the controversy over principle, but is her act worth seeing to begin with? Is her usual material actually good?

There's plenty of talented A-list female comedians with great material and depth, but sometimes the C-listers can still sucker a crowd into buying tickets to rehashed vagina jokes...

Is she talented and worth seeing? Or is she another Amy Schumer?


---

If you think that private business events should be free to discriminate, then fine. If you don't, then fine. Or, if you want to set some specific guidelines (like bars are allowed to discriminate, but a towing company or cab company not because they provide an essential service) then fine, but at least be consistent.

It's pretty ridiculous to try to "but muh context" in order to determine which groups can and cannot be the recipients of discrimination because there's no way to do this fairly or justly.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Asherlee, how do you feel about the gay wedding cake stuff? It's not a perfect analogy by any means but . . .

because if we're going to permit performance art exceptions, I can't really think of a good reason to not exempt bakers who feel that by making the cake it makes them a part of the ceremony and being a part of a sacrilegious ceremony gives genuine concern over their soul.

As I've already posted, I think context is important. I didn't say that I think all performing arts should be exempt because I don't.

Further, I don't think that all businesses should be excluded or included when deciding something like this. Context, intent, malice, etc. are all important.

Either you allow discrimination or you dont. You cant pick and choose because then it just becomes arbitrary.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I think it is incorrect to try to lump everything into one group or the other because this is not a simple, contextless world. Things are complex and context in each scenario matters. In short, is a lot of grey area and because of that case-by-case judgment should be used.

It's how the law is written. I personally think that in a free society discrimination should be allowed. I should be able to say no women in the mens room, I should be able to start a chinese restaurant and only hire Chinese, I should be able to start a night club that only allows black people in.

But that's not how it is.
The law states:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

Read the last few words of that. In fact, the same law was applied to ban bars from having lady's night discounts.
This case is a clear violation of the act.
---

If us white men keep whining about stupid shit, it won't be as easy to feel superior and act like the whole world's problems rest on our oh so awesome shoulders.

Asherlee10 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Asherlee, how do you feel about the gay wedding cake stuff? It's not a perfect analogy by any means but . . .

because if we're going to permit performance art exceptions, I can't really think of a good reason to not exempt bakers who feel that by making the cake it makes them a part of the ceremony and being a part of a sacrilegious ceremony gives genuine concern over their soul.

As I've already posted, I think context is important. I didn't say that I think all performing arts should be exempt because I don't.

Further, I don't think that all businesses should be excluded or included when deciding something like this. Context, intent, malice, etc. are all important.

Either you allow discrimination or you dont. You cant pick and choose because then it just becomes arbitrary.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I think it is incorrect to try to lump everything into one group or the other because this is not a simple, contextless world. Things are complex and context in each scenario matters. In short, is a lot of grey area and because of that case-by-case judgment should be used.

It's how the law is written. I personally think that in a free society discrimination should be allowed. I should be able to say no women in the mens room, I should be able to start a chinese restaurant and only hire Chinese, I should be able to start a night club that only allows black people in.

But that's not how it is.
The law states:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

Read the last few words of that. In fact, the same law was applied to ban bars from having lady's night discounts.
This case is a clear violation of the act.

I'm not trying to argue about the law. In fact, I would say it's irrelevant to my point.

Then your posts are irrelevant to this topic.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Asherlee, how do you feel about the gay wedding cake stuff? It's not a perfect analogy by any means but . . .

because if we're going to permit performance art exceptions, I can't really think of a good reason to not exempt bakers who feel that by making the cake it makes them a part of the ceremony and being a part of a sacrilegious ceremony gives genuine concern over their soul.

As I've already posted, I think context is important. I didn't say that I think all performing arts should be exempt because I don't.

Further, I don't think that all businesses should be excluded or included when deciding something like this. Context, intent, malice, etc. are all important.

Either you allow discrimination or you dont. You cant pick and choose because then it just becomes arbitrary.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I think it is incorrect to try to lump everything into one group or the other because this is not a simple, contextless world. Things are complex and context in each scenario matters. In short, there is a lot of grey area and because of that case-by-case judgment should be used.

Then you can explain how segregation was slowly allowed back in the States because I see no difference.

I'm sorry, but what? I don't understand what you are conveying here.

It's pretty self-explanatory. Allowing any kind of segregation, no matter how benign, will lead to not-so benign segregation. Sports leagues are the only exception since men and women are on completely different levels in performance. But for social events, there's no reason whatsoever to say someone can't come.
---

LordRazziel posted...

Chad-Henne posted...

This totally isn't a couple of MRA snowflakes looking for a battle

---

Asherlee10 posted...

I am not purposely being obtuse, but I am not following what you are trying to convey. I'm sorry.

There is no difference between whites only and women only. Made all the more apparent by making the dude sit in the back.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

I am not purposely being obtuse, but I am not following what you are trying to convey. I'm sorry.

There is no difference between whites only and women only.

Yeah, well if redhats and MRA nerds weren't advocating for whites only shit out of the other side of their mouths, it'd be easier to take this clear display of small testicle syndrome seriously. What kind of man gives a shit about a woman's only venture? That's called a reprieve.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

daftpunk_mk5 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Anarchy_Juiblex posted...

Asherlee, how do you feel about the gay wedding cake stuff? It's not a perfect analogy by any means but . . .

because if we're going to permit performance art exceptions, I can't really think of a good reason to not exempt bakers who feel that by making the cake it makes them a part of the ceremony and being a part of a sacrilegious ceremony gives genuine concern over their soul.

As I've already posted, I think context is important. I didn't say that I think all performing arts should be exempt because I don't.

Further, I don't think that all businesses should be excluded or included when deciding something like this. Context, intent, malice, etc. are all important.

Either you allow discrimination or you dont. You cant pick and choose because then it just becomes arbitrary.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

I think it is incorrect to try to lump everything into one group or the other because this is not a simple, contextless world. Things are complex and context in each scenario matters. In short, there is a lot of grey area and because of that case-by-case judgment should be used.

Then you can explain how segregation was slowly allowed back in the States because I see no difference.

I'm sorry, but what? I don't understand what you are conveying here.

It's pretty self-explanatory. Allowing any kind of segregation, no matter how benign, will lead to not-so benign segregation. Sports leagues are the only exception since men and women are on completely different levels in performance. But for social events, there's no reason whatsoever to say someone can't come.

You realize this is 2017 right?

The only place this might be reality is in small towns with two black people.
---

Kineth posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

I am not purposely being obtuse, but I am not following what you are trying to convey. I'm sorry.

There is no difference between whites only and women only.

Yeah, well if redhats and MRA nerds weren't advocating for whites only shit out of the other side of their mouths, it'd be easier to take this clear display of small testicle syndrome seriously. What kind of man gives a shit about a woman's only venture? That's called a reprieve.

Notice the small testicle part. A need to feel above everyone else is what spawned this "Man the fuck up!" point of view.

I'm not saying I don't subscribe to the idea in several areas, but I acknowledge how things came to be this way.

TheGrindery posted...

Notice the small testicle part.

Yeah, look at it and cry some more.
---

Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...

You realize this is 2017 right?

The only place this might be reality is in small towns with two black people.

Didn't Hillary Clinton call 25% of the nation Racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe/misogynist?
---

Of course CE would cry foul
---

Kineth posted...

TheGrindery posted...

Notice the small testicle part.

Yeah, look at it and cry some more.

You're supposed to make your point instead of mine. That's how debating works.

Notice that I didn't even disagree with you. Women can do as many women's only things as they like.