Comments on: Mother’s Day Stadium Promotion: What’s “Frivolous” About It?

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:20:06 +0000

Bob,

It might not make the news (much), but it makes the headlines here.

You may be right about the MSM, but they have so many problems as to be unsalvagable already, so that’s not news. Yes, sexism in this country is alive and wll, it just switched teams. (Same thing with racism.)

Around here, we’d be complaining equally if it was a woman sueing for not getting a commemorative jock-strap on Father’s Day.

By: wavemaker

wavemaker — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:23:47 +0000

I suppose that there is some judge somewhere in California who might have the courage and common sense to rule that the giving of a token gift does not constitute an “…accommodation, advantage, facility, privilege, or service…” that legislature intended to protect (if that’s not giving them too much credit).

But not on a 12(b)(6).

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:10:51 +0000

This probably wouldn’t even be in the news if the plaintiff were female. Whatever one may think of the merits of the instant case, the real news here is that men’s discrimination suits are frivolous. Few would dare suggest in public, and none in the mainstream media, that any such suit brought by a woman is frivolous. Discrimination against women is apparently never harmless or de minimis. Don’t get me wrong, I think this suit is stupid, and there are far bigger fish for men to fry (family court anybody?), but the unexamined bias of some of those complaining about it should be exposed.