Anything you want to tell us lopaw?

Aka Flabbadise, casa de la masa.

Wow, I can't believe how stupid that club's policy is. They are going to lose a lot of money on this one!

It's about time a club that conducts itself like this was taken to task. Kudos to Tamara Yatkin for putting the heat on a strip club! The fears that some establishments (not solely strip clubs) have that don't permit women are truly archaic. Maybe this action will force a lot of clubs that still do this, to recognize this is the 21st century.

Yeah – that sucks – not being able to visit and enjoy a strip club like everyone else.

Reminds of a lawsuit I heard about a couple of years ago when a dude was suing a women’s only gym b/c they did not allow him to join – IDK how it ended.

Tamara Yatkin is, of course, "lopaw" on the boaards

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/04/21/…

But where was sclvr5005?

I am sure I am going to be in the minority, but having been a business owner, I don't think ANYONE has the right to tell me who I must serve!

What a dumb policy. The club should allow girls to enter as customers. In fact, some of the hottest customers are the lesbian girls traveling in packs to the clubs!

Since this case is in California, can only imagine the big $$$$$$$$$$$ lawsuit if she wins.

I understand their goal, to keep out hookers who might come in looking to take business from them. That said it should be pretty simple to deal with that issue without banning all women.

C'mon clubber. As a bidnessman you KNOW that you can't serve only the ones you want. About the only reason a business can refuse service to someone is if they are WASP males.

I thought this was standard policy at a lot of SCs. No woman only b/c of the hooker factor. I know the prior Tootsies location had this policy as I recall some woman not being allowed in as I was arriving.

How is this different than a nightclub that let's women in free but charges men. Or let's women drink free. I know there have been lawsuits by men about Ladies Nights, not sure the outcomes.

Do naked male stripclubs, not the gay ones, allow unaccompanied males? I wouldn't know of course(or at least that's my story)!

jab,

We WASPs are the worst on the earth!

@Clubber: I completely agree that you have the absolute right to serve, or not serve, anyone you want on your property with your labour. Unfortunately, our government sees fit to violate that right because some people believe that they have the right to take what you have to offer, whether or not you want to give it to them. They're wrong, of course, but it's politically expedient to pretend they aren't.

Can I keep blacks out of my club? Jews? Lesbians? How about we just don't serve bigots.

As a matter of fact, just got a memo from corporate yesterday reminding everyone that we are strictly forbidden to sell, ship, or otherwise export any product to Cuba, Syria,North Korea, Iran, and Sudan.

Damn bigots.

@rockstar666: You have the *right* to exclude those people if you want. That's not the same thing as "legally allowed" though. Nor is it the same thing as "smart."

@motorhead: I find it hard to equate racial or sexual bigotry as applied to strip clubs (or public businesses in general) to our government's international trade policy, but I have a feeling the straw graspers are coming out of the woodwork to justify prejudice.

rock,

We, as humans, are all prejudice. Accept it and live with it.

I am many things. Racially, sexually, and religiously insensitive, absolutely. But I ain't prejudice. No need to pre judge. Who and what people are will float to the surface soon enough.

This is how I feel-

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iRLVsd5XAkE

That is all.

Rockstar....


I guess my sarcasm didn't come across too well

SS,

Don't know if you have a SO or not, but I would bet that before you had them or when you get one, you will exclude all men from your options. That is prejudice. You prejudged. Who knows, some guy might be a better fit for you as a partner than any woman.

"I am sure I am going to be in the minority, but having been a business owner, I don't think ANYONE has the right to tell me who I must serve!"

You gotta be kidding...

There are Civil Rights acts that prohibit stuff like that based on race, color, religion, etc.

And in California there's an additional civil rights act that prohibits discrimination by businesses bases on sexual preference and other things.

Dude, some things are against the law.

Now, on the other hand, I assume the club policies, especially in this day and age, were THOROUGHLY evaluated and approved by lawyers, so I'd be surprised if this were much more than either a misinformed bouncer, or a legitimate policy reason for refusing service unrelated to any civil rights issues.

Now, for example, let's say that a club is DESIGNED for men's entertainment, and their business model is designed around men. And a bit like the Family Guy episode where the local bar was taken over by women (or was it gays), that could be disastrous for the business. Or not. It depends.

So if the owners were merely worried about too many single women making the male customers uncomfortable, and thereby destroying the business, is that a legitimate reason? Yeah, maybe. Nothing to do with civil rights, simply a business decision. And only the business owner knows his market and what's right for it. Hopefully. If it's bad for customers, or bad for business, the owners have a good case.

And as far is it being a big loss of business for Paradise to not allow single women, no fucking way. In all my years of clubbing I can't recall every seeing a single woman in a strip club. Not a big market. Women generally like to do that in social groups if anything.

And BTW, my 2 cents...

Those who EXPECT discrimination, will find it.

Notice how everyone here immediately jumped on the discrimination bandwagon.

And 2 more cents...

I would be VERY surprised if the Paradise lawyers aren't dusting off their club policies, and preparing documents showing that they are fully compliant with all federal and state civil rights law.

Which means if the policies are compliant (and they probably are), which is all that you and I and the public really expect, the only thing left is a failure by the bouncer or management that particular day.

So what happens? Well, if it was the bouncer who screwed up, and the Miss Lopaw didn't escalate this to the management, the bouncer is out of a job. And if she did escalate it, and management explained a legitimate business reason, then what's the beef?

Not sure what Miss Lopaw expects to gain from all of this. Maybe a free pass to Paradise?

Okay, one more...

And before you guys get so shocked that a business would dare to refuse service to anyone, consider this:

Dress codes. How many times have you been turned away because of dress code. Collard shirts, no gang attire, whatever. Happens all the time. Something as minor as how you're dressed means whether you're served or not.

Fancy clubs. Ever go to a fancy, star studded night club, and get turned away for the least reason? Like because you're not Mariah Carey. Yeah, they do it.

Cover charge. You don't pay enough at the door, you don't get in.

The list goes on and on. Yes, businesses DO have the right to refuse service as long as they don't break the law in doing so.

Dress codes are legal because a black Jewish lesbian can dress appropriately. Cover charges? I can't see any connection to the discussion.

What makes me laugh is the lame contention that prostitutes might be in a strip club if you let single women in. I'm shocked..... SHOCKED!! to find there might be prostitutes in a strip club!!! After 30 years of clubbing I never even considered that women who grind against my cock might actually accept money for sex.

"Cover charges? I can't see any connection to the discussion"

Really?? You don't think it's discrimination against the poor homeless guy who wants to look at pretty girls as a bright spot in his sad life? Discrimination against the guy mowing lawns who came all the way from Mexico for a better life but can't afford what those middle class white guys can, and therefore he's being discriminated against, with extreme prejudice?

It's discrimination against poor people. I can't believe you aren't ready to march on Washington to abolish cover charges.

Once you discriminate and refuse entrance SOLEY based on any protected class like race, gender, religion, etc it becomes illegal. They are breaking the law. Period. One of my 2 lawyer brothers is in civil law and he knows his shit.

Jerkoffson like usual doesn't know shit.

I just noticed the last line of the article:

"She is seeking an injunction preventing the club from requiring lesbians and other females to be accompanied by a man before they are allowed inside, as well as unspecified damages."

Yeah, unspecified damages. Isn't that really what many of these discrimination lawsuits is really about?

Damages? Hmmm, let's see...wouldn't let her enter a strip club...so the damages are that, um, she was denied the opportunity to have illegal sex for money with a stripper? Or whatever lesbians do...

Poor jerkoffson. So bitter that everyone else gets everything that he never will. Wah!!!!!!!!!!

@jerikson: You should move to a communist country if you think a cover charge is discrimination. Here in the US it's called "capitalism". You're the guy that doesn't tip while sitting at the rail I assume?

Just like a dress code, our black Jewish lesbian can enter just like an angry old white guy just by paying the price of admission. As I said, the straw graspers are out in full force.

I was being facetious douchebag. Sarcasm. Making fun of the hyper sensitivity people have to discrimination nowadays.

But I forgot this is the TUSCL forum, where people don't understand subtleties like sarcasm. Sorry.

And I forgot that most people here are morons, and can't grasp rational thought on legal matters like this. So they think it's grasping at straws.

We'll see what happens to the case. My guess is they laugh her out of court. But she'll probably get a free pass for Paradise.

Anything that jerkoffson predicts is guaranteed to do the opposite considering his basic lack of intelligence and angry old man mentality. And his lame "guess" here is a perfect example of that.

And now you are being laughed out of TUSCL.

Wahhhhhhhhh!!!!!

Jerkson40: If you think she'll be laughed out of court, you are even dumber than your posts indicate you are. Whish isn't easy. This is a gold mine case that will settle out of court for a significant amount of money.

Maybe you're right. Now that you mention it, if it even has a slightly tangential relation to "discrimination" or "prejudice", any court and/or jury nowadays will give the same knee-jerk response as the guys in this forum. Maybe Paradise will see that coming and settle. And the world will think justice has been done, as the lady in question walks away with a pocket full o' money. Unfortunately.

Two days and 3 dozen posts with nary a peep from lopaw indicates that she doesn't want to tell us anything. If subject litigant and lopaw are indeed one and the same, it was my impression meeting her that she's 7-10 years younger than listed age. If an out of court settlement occurs, one string attatched may be not to blab about it to the press.

In the absence of lopaw another view by the stripclubhound:

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Dicrimination
I wonder if you have any comment on the lawsuit that has been filed against the Paradise Showgirls club in City of Industry. Why would a club have a policy of refusing admission to single women? Did you have that policy at the club you managed?

[Here he posts a news item about this]

My first comment is that I went to that club a few years ago. If it's still like it was then, anyone who is refused admittance is being done a great favor.

My second comment is that this sounds like something that will be settled very quickly. The club will decide if it wants to change its policy. If it does, they will issue an apology to Ms. Yatkin and offer her some compensation. If she expects a lot of money, I think she will have a hard time proving she suffered much damage. If it does not wish to change its policy, I think they will spend more money fighting the case than it would to settle and if they fight, they would have an uncertain outcome.

My club had no such policy. We did admit unescorted women but I don't recall any who were there for lap dances or because they were Lesbians. We had a few women who came to see friends dance and we had a number who came in to check out the place to see if they wanted to apply to work there.

I am not saying we never had a solo Lesbian customer. We may have. I wasn't there every minute.

If a woman had come in and wanted to pay the price and the drink minimum, I wouldn't have cared what her interest was as long as she was of legal age. We did have dancers giving laps to women who came in with a boy friend or husband.

You ask why clubs would bar single women. I heard two reasons from others in the business why some clubs had that policy. One was a fear that hookers would come in and try to pick up guys to leave the club with them or meet them outside. I have never heard of a case of that actually happening anywhere but maybe it did once somewhere.

The other reason I heard was that some managers were afraid it would make male customers uncomfortable to have a woman around competing with them for dancers. I don't think that makes a lot of sense either.

It's a stupid policy. It should be changed. If Ms. Yatkin gets it changed there and discourages other clubs from having that policy then good for her.

Yeah minnow I noticed that to - they got her age wrong and I think her name too - at least her first name coz I never knew her last name. Pretty sure they got the lesbian part right, tho ;)