A heartbroken Denver man has successfully sued a local bar for sponsoring a Ladies’ Night, in which women pay less for their drinks. General theory is that bars are common carriers and therefore must comply with anti-discrimination laws. A differential pricing structure is, according to Steve Horner, discriminatory and worth fighting. The pachyderm agrees with him on constitutional grounds: in order to exempt frivolous matters (i.e. half-price beers) from non-discrimination laws, the courts would have the thankless job of determining what is frivolous and what constitutes actual discrimination worth a remedy. Yet, she has a tough time mustering up much indignation over the price of beverages.
Despite this, she finds Mr. Horner to be misguided. He states that it “takes [him] five minutes to be discriminated against.” This pachyderm cannot imagine the senselessness in deliberately seeking out discrimination – not to end it, but to make money. (She wonders if there is an equity defense: should someone be reimbursed for discrimination deliberately sought out?) Furthermore, he isn’t “being charged more” for his drinks – he just is not allowed to get a discount. His drinks don’t cost any more on Ladies’ Night than on any other evening.
This brings the pachyderm to her ultimate complaint: the free market. Bars like to have enough women so that men will enjoy themselves (and patronise the establishment). Women who walk into a bar that is filled mostly with men will leave. The pachyderm would not care if men were offered a discount on ballroom dancing courses in an attempt to make the experience better for the women who attend. If a bar wants to offer, and a woman wants to accept, discounted drinks in exchange for her presence, it is their perogative. Voila! Free market.