Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When checking out a 55+ community in Delaware, I found this announcement on their events page for a Luau:
Ticket prices are $25 per person or $30 a couple.
Let me get this straight- a couple gets in for $15 a person but someone who has no spouse, SO, or a friend(may be new to the community) must pay $10 more????
What does this say to you? Well, to me it says singles are not welcome and will be treated like second class citizens. This is something that always irks me. Why should I have to pay more for the SAME thing just because I'm not married?? That's discrimination in my book!
I certainly plan to contact this community with my thoughts and I have already nixed it as a possible retirement home.
Vent away. But also think back 55 years. In those days, people who were married were paid more because they had family obligations. Such prices as the ones you quoted were not at all unusual and were based upon the fact that a certain amount of "gate" was needed to provide the event or entertainment and singles can be awkward to seat. I see it less as discrimination and more as likely catering to the predominant population.
Go and enjoy. You just might find the single who's meant for you and next time you can go together as a couple for $15 a head.
If you look many things don't apply to private owned events . Nothing i know of says anyhting about marriage sattus on discrimination. Just as for years the governamnt actually discriminated aginst married people o income tax forms and still do in many ways.m It was called the marriage penalty.
When checking out a 55+ community in Delaware, I found this announcement on their events page for a Luau:
Ticket prices are $25 per person or $30 a couple.
Let me get this straight- a couple gets in for $15 a person but someone who has no spouse, SO, or a friend(may be new to the community) must pay $10 more????
What does this say to you? Well, to me it says singles are not welcome and will be treated like second class citizens. This is something that always irks me. Why should I have to pay more for the SAME thing just because I'm not married?? That's discrimination in my book!
I certainly plan to contact this community with my thoughts and I have already nixed it as a possible retirement home.
I take such things as tantamount to saying singles are not welcome. It would be different if it was for a couple sharing a room compared to a single person in the same room. But for food and entertainment there shouldn't be a price difference. I wouldn't go either. Such establishments don't need my money to support crap like that. When going to a restaurant, couples don't get a hefty discount. When going to the theater, couples don't get a big discount.
As for the advice to eat it and go anyway because the love of your life is there - what a load of crap to justify blatant discrimination.
And the marriage penalty for taxes - another load of hooey. Single filers get taxed at a much higher rate than married or head of households. Singles pay more total tax for the same income than marrieds too. What it really is, is a single penalty. But you can't get political point unless you cry about how those poor families have such trouble. Nobody gives a hoot at how single people are getting the shaft - despite that fact that we are nearly half the population.
When checking out a 55+ community in Delaware, I found this announcement on their events page for a Luau:
Ticket prices are $25 per person or $30 a couple.
It's not discrimination, it's favoritism. Big difference. Discrimination would be if they said you couldn't get in because you were gay, or black, or white, et cetera.
It IS discrimination. However, it's (probably) not ILLEGAL discrimination. There are both federal laws and state laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. Unfortunately, the federal laws are limited in scope and in general, apply to housing and employment. State laws vary and I don't see any that would apply to this situation. Personally, I'd let management know I was mad as h*** and had posted its discriminatory policy on a national retiree forum.
Curmudgeon: Fifty-five years ago, married "people" were not paid more, married MEN were paid more. 'nuf said.
It IS discrimination. However, it's (probably) not ILLEGAL discrimination. There are both federal laws and state laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. Unfortunately, the federal laws are limited in scope and in general, apply to housing and employment. State laws vary and I don't see any that would apply to this situation. Personally, I'd let management know I was mad as h*** and had posted its discriminatory policy on a national retiree forum.
Curmudgeon: Fifty-five years ago, married "people" were not paid more, married MEN were paid more. 'nuf said.
True, that! MEN were paid more and had far more job opportunities open to them. I know how hard my wife struggled to break through the glass ceiling. But please get me started on the equal pay for equal work issue. As a former soldier and ex-cop I have my own ideas about that.
By the way, by definition it's favortism, not discrimination because it's applied evenly rather than to a "protected" class.
What about bars that advertise " ladies night" and offer reduced prices on drinks to females ?
yup, ------favoritism
( imagine the uproar if that reduced price was offered based on race instead of gender )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.