Ladies Night: Discrimination vs. Property Rights

I remember reading about a similar lawsuit a while back, in Australia. And I think I’ve heard of similar lawsuits (or threats) Stateside. This time, it’s in New York City, where an ass-hat is suing several nightclubs for their “Ladies’ night” policies.

[The judge has been asked] to conclude that the policies violated the Constitution and to assess minor damages against the clubs.

Some people just don’t get it.

If we conclude that the nightclubs in question “violated the Constitution,” then by the very same reasoning, we must conclude that all manner of exercised property rights are one or another similar violations. Except for one pesky detail: the Constitution does not apply to individuals.

Therefore, discriminatory standards applied to the patrons of a private establishment are not, by definition, at odds with the Constitution, which only applies to Government. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but in my individual capacity, I can toss you out of my house for insulting me, or, for whatever reason I choose. Government can’t censor your freedom of speech, but I don’t have to listen to it or tolerate it. Government can’t interrupt your right to peaceably assemble, but I’m free to prevent you from picnicking on my front lawn. Etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Constitutionally speaking, the government is required to provide equal protection, but individuals are not so obliged. If the plaintiff’s case rests on the “constitutional” claim, he should be tossed out on his ass. If the suit even goes to trial, it will be another grain of sand on top of the mountain of evidence which suggests our justice system is hopelessly broken; manned entirely by half-wits and moral defectives.