“He wants to serve food and earn tips and why can’t he?”
So argues Martin A. Shellist, attorney for Nikolai Grushevski, a citizen of Corpus Christi, Texas, who filed a gender-discrimination lawsuit after Hooters denied him a job as a server at the chain restaurant. But in the case of a private entity such as Hooters, Title VII should not enforce a “right-to-work” policy. FULL ARTICLE
{ 20 comments }
why i am thinking “man-boobs”?
“why i am thinking “man-boobs”? ”
No one here can answer that question for you, newson.
This article could say more with less.
I think the answer for Hooters is clear…give they guy a job! Put him on a Hotdog stand outside on the street and make him wear the shorts and tank-top!
Video tape it. Press-release it. Get the journalists down for “bite”.
Why do with lawyers what you can do with PR?
It could even turn out to be money maker! THAT’s Free-Market Capitalism at it’s best!
It should be noted that “right to work” laws are a way to protect workers who want to stand up to a union and continue working through a strike. I don’t think they were ever intended to be abused this way.
Mentioned lawsuit is one of the best cases against anti-discrimination laws I could think of. It makes the absurdity of the law so glaringly obvious.
@Egosumabbas: Although I wouldn’t know the literal contents of the law you mentioned, one would think this “right to work” abuse is already captured by the negative natural law which states one should be left alone and be left without force in one’s own discretionary space.
That is true, but it can be difficult to get to work when the union boss has you pinned and his goons are crushing your ankles with a sledgehammer.
You have natural rights until collectivists take them away from you.
Point taken, maybe in that case two wrongs (wherein one is a misinterpretation of the wrong) do make a right!
riffing off that point, if there were a private organization called Negative Rights Assurance corp that would protect your freedoms that would be nice. We’ve also tried Constitutionally Limited Republics, which work great, if only for a century or so.
I don’t know how the author could call this a frivolous lawsuit.
The man stands to win $3.75 million based on the prior lawsuit. Maybe more, as there’s a case for punitive damages since they have shown a pattern of willful disobedience to the law.
This is, after all, the litmus tests for lawsuits – winning. It’s not the suit that’s frivolous, it’s the laws. I can’t really condemn lawyers that would take on this sort of case; they’re no different than anyone one else playing by the rules in a fascist legal system. Even sharks have to eat.
Another interesting consideration: How come men are never hired as mammography technicians? If it’s OK for radiology departments to hire only women for this job, why isn’t it OK for Hooter’s to hire only women?
The equality of treatment restrictions of the “rule of law” apply only to the law which can use force to achieve its goals and, all are equally subject to the law, with no escape (theoretically).
Equality of treatment (inability to discriminate except against criminals) most definitely does not apply to anyone else. We are free to discriminate and choose “not to associate” with persons and groups, should we choose, as are they.
If this were not true, we would face the absurdity of discrimination charges from, for example ex-girlfriends we chose not to associate with by marrying someone else.
Rule of Law:
http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/34
Equality, definition, scope and applicability is highly misrepresented by the legal “profession”, to create conflict and income for themselves at the expense of civilization (the rules by which we cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest).
Ditto for “entitlements” (for some)
The picture in the article could be a little better. I didn’t read the article.
This reminds of what a professor from George Mason University, Walter Williams, said in one of his columns regarding discrimination (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/discrimination.html). I think that this case is nothing more than a symptom of a disease: statism. As long as people cling to the notion that the state should do something as in must act as the social engineer (An imperfect one I would admit), we can expect more of these cases in the future and years from now, people will think that our reaction was ridiculous.
A private business is allowed to do anything they want to do. The market will take care of discrimination etc. For example, the one scene I found interesting in the liberal heyday movie ‘Milk’ was how in the beginning Harvey Milk’s strategy to get businesses to accept homosexuals was through economic boycotts. The businesses quickly realized it was not in their best interest to discriminate. The same goes for the Jim Crow Laws. Most businesses wanted them to go away because they were missing out on customers.
If there is a market for men in Hooters tops, then the free market will determine that. I would actually pay top dollar to see that!
An interesting side note, Harvey Milk actually started off as a Goldwater Republican. They brushed over that in the movie.
Pat,
I suspect that in years to come it will not get better, but worse. In the 60′s I thought that the war on state disapproved drugs would someday be ridiculed for the insanity that it is, but this has only become worse.
Perhaps in hundreds of years, if humans survive, this will be laughed at, but I see nothing in the next 30 years or so that is going to change, unless we have the big war.
In good ol’ Dutchland in the EUSSR, we have a constitution that was screwed from the start, and in which every article is superseded by law. So we have an article 1 (sic), which says that one may not be discriminated on certain characteristics (sex, race, religion, sexual orientation). Originally this was a fundamental right of the people visavis the government/state. Now it’s superseded by a law which is applicable between people, which de facto and ultimately deems every action taken by me and fellow Dutchmen and women as illegitimate.
Good article.
There is logically no such thing as discrimination in private sector – it’s an oximoron! As long as private entities do not break any criminal laws, and as long as their interaction with other market participants is voluntary in nature they should be allowed to conduct their business as they wish, and take the risk of the market “punishing” their decisions on whom and when to employ and to whom provide services to… Otherwise it’s kind of hard to see how the entity can be called “private” with a straight face on…
So what happens when Hooters starts to lose business because patrons complain that they didn’t come to the restaurant to be served by some guy? Who gets to sue whom then?
Comments on this entry are closed.