3 ms·

Discrimination? For a reason or another they thought she was an escort and they don't like that kind of activity in their establishment. Maybe she was, maybe sh

Discrimination? For a reason or another they thought she was an escort and they don't like that kind of activity in their establishment. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. She says no, but very few would admit. Either way, maybe they don't even like single, pretty women looking for their "knight in shining armor" at an expensive restaurant. It ruins their image and they don't that kind of a crowd. Just like they would not guys coming at the bar laughing and screaming with a couple of escorts. Not exactly sexual discrimination, as they'd almost certainly ban guys that are touchy feely with female guests. More like trying to preserve their reputation and business, false positives and all. You can't really ask to see their Whatsapp or FB messages to investigate...

vidarh 8y ago
> Not exactly sexual discrimination, as they'd almost certainly ban guys that are touchy feely with female guests. Of course it is sexual discrimination. What more is, you're skating close to it yourself by equating a woman eating quietly by herself with a guy being "touchy feely with female guests". If she was being touchy feely with male guests, and that was the justification, then that would have been an entirely different scenario. You go on to compare it to guys "coming at the bar laughing and screaming with a couple of escorts". Again you miss the point: If they set policies for conduct, such as "don't get touchy feely with the guests or you'll get sent to a table" or "no laughing and screaming at the bar", it'd be fine and not discriminatory. But when they send women to tables but allow men to continue eating at the bar, it is very clear cut. I don't know if it is illegal in New York, but that clear discrimination certainly would be many other places.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  We read an article, or her version. So we should keep that in mind. I doubt they did that the first time she sat there...
- grkvlt 8y ago
  I'm not convinced it would be illegal anywhere though. She isn't being prevented from eating there, simply being asked to sit is a particular place, chosen by the management. This is basically the definition of how seating works in restaurant. Your seats are selected for you, and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere...
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
So ... because they could make decisions based on other citeria than the sex of the patron, it isn't sexual discrimination if they make a decision based on the sex of the patron?
chrisbennet 8y ago
Read the article, or read it again. She was a regular customer and didn’t acquire “dates”. They knew she wasn’t an escort.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  That's her side of the story. We don't know what the management saw, what they based their judgement on, whether they even considered her an escort or had this policy for single women in order to prevent other problems.
  - chrisbennet 8y ago
    ” had this policy for single women in order to prevent other problems.” Right there, that’s sexual discrimination! You can’t have one rule for single men and another for single women.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  >>So when doing an optics inventory on their patrons they treated the single woman in a patriarchal fashion: they automatically objectified, sexualised, put her (me) in a box – the treasure chest of pleasure. Ummm...after 4 years of going there. I have no dog in this race just don't buy the worst thing here. Maybe they misjudged, maybe she lead them to believe otherwise...whatever. But maybe they just don't want people bothered at the bar by the opposite sex (or whatever they enjoy.) Some let ladies drink free to attract guys to the bar, some don't, and maybe pull the trigger too fast. The callgirl thing is tricky. No one knows for sure unless they're there when you ask for the money? What if...she behaved like one? Maybe she was looking to meet a guy not have sex for money, but then, they judged it.

vidarh 8y ago

> Not exactly sexual discrimination, as they'd almost certainly ban guys that are touchy feely with female guests. Of course it is sexual discrimination. What more is, you're skating close to it yourself by equating a woman eating quietly by herself with a guy being "touchy feely with female guests". If she was being touchy feely with male guests, and that was the justification, then that would have been an entirely different scenario. You go on to compare it to guys "coming at the bar laughing and screaming with a couple of escorts". Again you miss the point: If they set policies for conduct, such as "don't get touchy feely with the guests or you'll get sent to a table" or "no laughing and screaming at the bar", it'd be fine and not discriminatory. But when they send women to tables but allow men to continue eating at the bar, it is very clear cut. I don't know if it is illegal in New York, but that clear discrimination certainly would be many other places.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
We read an article, or her version. So we should keep that in mind. I doubt they did that the first time she sat there...
grkvlt 8y ago
I'm not convinced it would be illegal anywhere though. She isn't being prevented from eating there, simply being asked to sit is a particular place, chosen by the management. This is basically the definition of how seating works in restaurant. Your seats are selected for you, and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere...

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

So ... because they could make decisions based on other citeria than the sex of the patron, it isn't sexual discrimination if they make a decision based on the sex of the patron?

chrisbennet 8y ago

Read the article, or read it again. She was a regular customer and didn’t acquire “dates”. They knew she wasn’t an escort.

lazyjones 8y ago
That's her side of the story. We don't know what the management saw, what they based their judgement on, whether they even considered her an escort or had this policy for single women in order to prevent other problems.
- chrisbennet 8y ago
  ” had this policy for single women in order to prevent other problems.” Right there, that’s sexual discrimination! You can’t have one rule for single men and another for single women.
onetimemanytime 8y ago
>>So when doing an optics inventory on their patrons they treated the single woman in a patriarchal fashion: they automatically objectified, sexualised, put her (me) in a box – the treasure chest of pleasure. Ummm...after 4 years of going there. I have no dog in this race just don't buy the worst thing here. Maybe they misjudged, maybe she lead them to believe otherwise...whatever. But maybe they just don't want people bothered at the bar by the opposite sex (or whatever they enjoy.) Some let ladies drink free to attract guys to the bar, some don't, and maybe pull the trigger too fast. The callgirl thing is tricky. No one knows for sure unless they're there when you ask for the money? What if...she behaved like one? Maybe she was looking to meet a guy not have sex for money, but then, they judged it.