You clearly didn’t read the article. A very typical, privileged response.
Although, you are experiencing the Ladies Lounge in the way it was intended.
The legal aspect is crystal clear. I bet the court will be angry that it even went to court at all.
The purpose of a judge is to settle disagreements. When both sides of a court case agree with the facts, then there is nothing to judge and it should not go to court at all. It should be settled out of court.
Good chance the defence will be forced to pay legal fees for both sides of the case - on top of damages.
You clearly didn’t read the article. A very typical, privileged response.
Although, you are experiencing the Ladies Lounge in the way it was intended.
Are you a legal expert? Is the fact that this is “art” not a more complex legal issue?
Is the fact that this is “art” not a more complex legal issue?
I’d say no. It’s a business, and it discriminates based on gender. Seems pretty black and white.
If they weren’t an actual business and didn’t make profits, then that would make more sense from an “it’s art” defense
Art is entitled to profit. Museums, cinema, theater, music concerts, all of those are art and are business. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories.
Yeah imagine movies or theatre shows costing money to see. Crazyness.
Plus this sort of bullshit clogs up dockets and takes time away from cases that actually need judicial intervention.
Pretty sure you don’t get paid time off work for a civil case you chose to bring.
Unless you mean using annual leave, in which case your boss can’t get fucked, it’s none of their business what you use it for.
MetaSynapse@kbin.social 9 months ago
Sounds like someone didn't read the full article:
PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 9 months ago
His opinions are too important for things like “reading articles”.