So because I have this I've got to be how old?
September 28, 2012 7:11 PM Subscribe
18+ girls 21+ guys everyone gets in free YAY... wait... what?
I get how it's good business to get 18 y/o girls into a bar to attract the 21+ male clientèle who are very likely to spend any money they have. What I don't get is... how is that legal?
Clearly doesn't pertain to me anymore... but curious nonetheless.
I get how it's good business to get 18 y/o girls into a bar to attract the 21+ male clientèle who are very likely to spend any money they have. What I don't get is... how is that legal?
Clearly doesn't pertain to me anymore... but curious nonetheless.
I get how it's good business to get 18 y/o girls into a bar to attract the 21+ male clientèle who are very likely to spend any money they have. What I don't get is... how is that legal?
18 year old girls may not be able to drink, but they are able to give consent for kissing and kissing-related activities that 21+ year old males who have had a few drinks may well want to engage in.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 7:19 PM on September 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
18 year old girls may not be able to drink, but they are able to give consent for kissing and kissing-related activities that 21+ year old males who have had a few drinks may well want to engage in.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 7:19 PM on September 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: Yeah that's the part I get beaucoupkevin :P
posted by one4themoment at 7:26 PM on September 28, 2012
posted by one4themoment at 7:26 PM on September 28, 2012
Are you sure this is explicitly a bar and not a club or lounge?
posted by griphus at 7:31 PM on September 28, 2012
posted by griphus at 7:31 PM on September 28, 2012
Whether bars have to kick out anybody under 21 or just refuse to serve them alcohol is a matter of state law. They probably have to give the 18-20-year-olds some kind of wristband to identify them as non-drinkers, though.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:33 PM on September 28, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 7:33 PM on September 28, 2012 [4 favorites]
That sounds like something the major night clubs around here would promote, on one of their "18 to enter, 21 to drink" nights. They do stamps/wristbands. It's very common to separate who gets in no-cover... "no cover in a bikini," "no cover for ladies before 10," etc. Whether or not the bartenders are paying good attention to who has a wristband or not... well, that's where places tend to get busted.
posted by DoubleLune at 7:35 PM on September 28, 2012 [6 favorites]
posted by DoubleLune at 7:35 PM on September 28, 2012 [6 favorites]
Response by poster: I'm sure they're not serving people under 21 alcohol... my question is on the legality of letting someone into the club/bar/lounge based on their age (which is variable depending upon their sex)
posted by one4themoment at 7:37 PM on September 28, 2012
posted by one4themoment at 7:37 PM on September 28, 2012
Not sure if it's still current, but when I was in high school in Louisiana, you could get into a club (and maybe a bar/lounge/other alcohol-serving establishment?) at eighteen, but could not actually buy alcohol. There were various arcane systems of stamps and arm bands to communicate to bartenders who they could serve.
posted by Sara C. at 7:38 PM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Sara C. at 7:38 PM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
My experience with this, the one time that I experienced it, was that women of any age got in free because they'd draw in men. Men of drinking age got in free, because they'd spend money on booze. Men between bar-age and drinking age (you can get into a bar at 18, here) had to pay cover. So they're not being denied access so much as they are being hit with a surcharge for their inability to purchase $8 drinks.
posted by MeghanC at 7:43 PM on September 28, 2012
posted by MeghanC at 7:43 PM on September 28, 2012
Response by poster: Again, in this instance (for my understand of the situation) an 18 y/o girl could get into the club while an 18 y/o guy could not. *everyone* gets in free that meets the criteria 18+ girl 21+guy
posted by one4themoment at 7:50 PM on September 28, 2012
posted by one4themoment at 7:50 PM on September 28, 2012
What I don't get is... how is that legal?
You didn't say your jurisdiction, but for example, in the US, things are basically legal unless they're explicitly not. We do have a law barring discrimination in places of public accommodation (the Civil Rights Act of 1964), but males 18-20 aren't any kind of protected class under that law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
posted by ftm at 7:50 PM on September 28, 2012 [10 favorites]
You didn't say your jurisdiction, but for example, in the US, things are basically legal unless they're explicitly not. We do have a law barring discrimination in places of public accommodation (the Civil Rights Act of 1964), but males 18-20 aren't any kind of protected class under that law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
posted by ftm at 7:50 PM on September 28, 2012 [10 favorites]
my question is on the legality of letting someone into the club/bar/lounge based on their age (which is variable depending upon their sex)
Very loosely, businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time at their discretion. Certain disclaimers apply, but that's how they are allowed to cut off drunks, disorderly patrons and so on.
Now, there have been some suits on "Women drink free" drink specials, but given their continued prevalence, I have to assume that they are allowed for some reason.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:52 PM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Very loosely, businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time at their discretion. Certain disclaimers apply, but that's how they are allowed to cut off drunks, disorderly patrons and so on.
Now, there have been some suits on "Women drink free" drink specials, but given their continued prevalence, I have to assume that they are allowed for some reason.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 7:52 PM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
My impression is that 18-20yo guys can still get in, but not free. They would have to pay a cover.
posted by ceribus peribus at 8:02 PM on September 28, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by ceribus peribus at 8:02 PM on September 28, 2012 [3 favorites]
Many states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender. Men certainly have a gender; I have a vague recollection that in some places, bars offering "ladies' night" specials had to offer those prices to all patrons, not just women.
posted by rtha at 8:02 PM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by rtha at 8:02 PM on September 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Via the Volokh Conspiracy, writing about a lawsuit claiming unconstitutionality of ladies night promotions like the one you describe:
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly says that a "state" may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Amendment does not ban discrimination by private parties, only that undertaken by states.
Over the years, courts have sometimes ruled that private racial or sex discrimination can be imputed to states in cases where the private actor is actually an agent of the government or otherwise closely entertwined with it. However, [lawsuit filer] is claiming that night club owners who institute ladies' nights are state actors merely because they are regulated and licensed by the government. This theory was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress the power to regulate common carriers, "places of public accomodation" (e.g. - hotels, restaurants) despite the fact that most such businesses were highly regulated often required to have government licenses.
So, yeah, the state would have a hard time with a privilege granted at different ages on the basis of sex/gender alone - see Craig v. Boren, where the Supremes held that Utah couldn't sell 3.2 beer to 18+ females and 21+ males - but the bars/clubs aren't state actors, so.
posted by Signed Sealed Delivered at 8:13 PM on September 28, 2012 [7 favorites]
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly says that a "state" may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Amendment does not ban discrimination by private parties, only that undertaken by states.
Over the years, courts have sometimes ruled that private racial or sex discrimination can be imputed to states in cases where the private actor is actually an agent of the government or otherwise closely entertwined with it. However, [lawsuit filer] is claiming that night club owners who institute ladies' nights are state actors merely because they are regulated and licensed by the government. This theory was specifically rejected by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, which held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not give Congress the power to regulate common carriers, "places of public accomodation" (e.g. - hotels, restaurants) despite the fact that most such businesses were highly regulated often required to have government licenses.
So, yeah, the state would have a hard time with a privilege granted at different ages on the basis of sex/gender alone - see Craig v. Boren, where the Supremes held that Utah couldn't sell 3.2 beer to 18+ females and 21+ males - but the bars/clubs aren't state actors, so.
posted by Signed Sealed Delivered at 8:13 PM on September 28, 2012 [7 favorites]
I agree with ceribus peribus- if an 18-20 year old guy really wanted to get in, he'd probably have to pay a cover.
posted by MadamM at 8:19 PM on September 28, 2012
posted by MadamM at 8:19 PM on September 28, 2012
These promotions are not lawful under many state and local laws.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:23 PM on September 28, 2012
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 9:23 PM on September 28, 2012
It's also quite possible that it's not legal, and no-one has bothered to make enough complaints for an enforcement authority to step in and say "ok, cut that out, or you'll get a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket... after your 7th or so warning. I mean it!"
posted by anonymisc at 11:11 PM on September 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by anonymisc at 11:11 PM on September 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
Most likely, they are unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean there is a specific law preventing it. However, Craig v. Boren was about applying broad stereotypes to gender (men 18-20 couldn't buy 3.2 beer because men are involved in more car accidents than women). The Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Rights Amendment means that gender can't be used as a proxy for other methods of classification.
I think the real reason why it can go on is that if it is against the Constitution but not against an actual law, then the case still needs to be brought up to the Supreme Court by some party hurt by it (or by some representative of the party). I have a hard time seeing many 18-20-year-old guys suing because they had to pay a cover charge to get in somewhere full of drunk women. When it does, though, you can bet the current court will rule in the 18-20-year-old man's favor (though Scalia will certainly disagree!).
Also, even though they used it in Craig v. Boren and Reed v. Reed, the Supreme Court flip-flops on whether gender goes under strict scrutiny (if it did, then many argue that gender-segregated bathrooms would be unconstitutional, because racially-segregated bathrooms are unconstitutional). I have a hard time thinking of a way to frame this without making it against the Equal Rights Amendment, but then again, I'm sure the Supreme Court would find a way.
posted by obviousresistance at 12:57 AM on September 29, 2012
I think the real reason why it can go on is that if it is against the Constitution but not against an actual law, then the case still needs to be brought up to the Supreme Court by some party hurt by it (or by some representative of the party). I have a hard time seeing many 18-20-year-old guys suing because they had to pay a cover charge to get in somewhere full of drunk women. When it does, though, you can bet the current court will rule in the 18-20-year-old man's favor (though Scalia will certainly disagree!).
Also, even though they used it in Craig v. Boren and Reed v. Reed, the Supreme Court flip-flops on whether gender goes under strict scrutiny (if it did, then many argue that gender-segregated bathrooms would be unconstitutional, because racially-segregated bathrooms are unconstitutional). I have a hard time thinking of a way to frame this without making it against the Equal Rights Amendment, but then again, I'm sure the Supreme Court would find a way.
posted by obviousresistance at 12:57 AM on September 29, 2012
I doubt that it is legal, but probably no one is making a stink. You could call your local Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, or DA, or some kind of local office to ask, but just assume that it isn't.
FYI, these laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Atlanta, you can't have happy hour. Weird, right?
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 7:02 AM on September 29, 2012
FYI, these laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In Atlanta, you can't have happy hour. Weird, right?
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 7:02 AM on September 29, 2012
You're operating under a basic assumption -- that this is legal -- that isn't necessarily true.
Discrimination law is enforced on a complaint basis, usually by pretty expensive lawyers. 19-year-old boys who want to get into bars aren't necessarily organized enough to arrange that sort of thing, and they're not generally a put-upon demographic that'd get the ACLU all interested in their cause. So it may be that if this was challenged in the courts, the bars would get in trouble, but no one has done it yet.
It also may be that in your jurisdiction, this is viewed as age discrimination -- which is generally only a protected class when older people are being discriminated against -- rather than gender discrimination which is more broad-reaching.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:19 AM on September 29, 2012
Discrimination law is enforced on a complaint basis, usually by pretty expensive lawyers. 19-year-old boys who want to get into bars aren't necessarily organized enough to arrange that sort of thing, and they're not generally a put-upon demographic that'd get the ACLU all interested in their cause. So it may be that if this was challenged in the courts, the bars would get in trouble, but no one has done it yet.
It also may be that in your jurisdiction, this is viewed as age discrimination -- which is generally only a protected class when older people are being discriminated against -- rather than gender discrimination which is more broad-reaching.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:19 AM on September 29, 2012
The Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Rights Amendment means that gender can't be used as a proxy for other methods of classification.
The Equal Rights Amendment was that amendment in the 1970s that never got ratified. I'm assuming you mean the Equation Protection Clause because it's a very similar-sounding thing, but I haven't checked that.
posted by hoyland at 7:42 AM on September 29, 2012
The Equal Rights Amendment was that amendment in the 1970s that never got ratified. I'm assuming you mean the Equation Protection Clause because it's a very similar-sounding thing, but I haven't checked that.
posted by hoyland at 7:42 AM on September 29, 2012
^Yeah, oops.
posted by obviousresistance at 8:32 AM on September 29, 2012
posted by obviousresistance at 8:32 AM on September 29, 2012
There are a number of things in most any country around the world that aren't legal - yet people do them anyway and no one gets punished. Jaywalking, drinking underage, etc. - in this case, the 19-year-old guys just go elsewhere. Whether they decide to 'punish' the bar by not visiting once they're 21 presumes a long-term memory.
That said, if some teenaged legal eagle felt like getting on a high horse, he could find himself enough support and create a buzz. Or he might just go elsewhere.
posted by chrisinseoul at 10:06 AM on September 29, 2012
That said, if some teenaged legal eagle felt like getting on a high horse, he could find himself enough support and create a buzz. Or he might just go elsewhere.
posted by chrisinseoul at 10:06 AM on September 29, 2012
If it's legal, I'm guessing it has something to do with Home Rule or Municipal Home Rule or something similar.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 12:39 AM on September 30, 2012
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 12:39 AM on September 30, 2012
« Older How to Manage a Job Interviewer Whose Knowledge is... | How do I calculate the probability of a specific... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
It wouldn't be legal in Massachusetts, but apparently it's legal where you are? Or you might drop a dime to whatever authority is responsible for alcohol licensing where you are.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:18 PM on September 28, 2012 [2 favorites]