Maybe I am over simplifying this or over common sensing this, but why is giving a special offer to someone discrimination?
Males are not being discriminated against. They are free to purchase the product at the normal price.
Males are being made to pay while other groups (specifically females) do not have to. When groups are not treated equally, that is discrimination, and even compromises such as "separate but equal" are not necessarily acceptable.
I am sorry but this is just another form of wanting a handout and having the mentality that is destroying our country.
In this specific case, yes, but the general case is another matter.
Everyone wants special treatment and if they don't get it they whine and cry.
But the person in question, swine though he may be for exploiting the issue purely for personal financial gain, is asking for equal treatment, not special treatment.
I have a 14, 4, and 1 year old child. Should my 14 year old sue the local zoo or movie place because my 1 year old gets in free? There is no difference in my zoo example and this range example except the world has not lost all it's common sense (yet) when it comes to age pricing.
Well, the age discrimination in your example has to do with how much value a person can theoretically derive from an experience. It matches common sense, and therefore makes business sense in encouraging parents to come to the zoo or movie theater with their very young children. Similarly, most athletic events are segregated based on gender for obvious, common sense reasons.
There can be reasons to justify sexual discrimination when it comes to paying range fees, but it is not as cut & dried as a 1-year-old not being able to fully enjoy a movie or women not being able to physically compete in a 100-meter dash against top male sprinters. If a woman can theoretically get as much out of a trip to the range as a man, then it could be argued that she should be required to pay the same amount. Yes, there are other considerations such as this group being underrepresented in shooting and needing some encouragement and introduction, and the right of private business owners to promote membership and potential paid visits in the future by offering targeted discounts, but what I'm addressing is the core issue of sexism and how unaware people seem to be about why they're reacting as they are. Maybe on some deep level, it is fundamentally wrong, as Ragnar pointed out, and not everybody here is using rational justifications as some of us have been doing.
There is a fine line between not allowing (discrimination) someone something and giving a promotion to someone. That fine line is called common sense
Then there is interpretation and application of the law, which is what this case will boil down to.
Next we will see all the people who are alergric to chicken sue mcdonalds because KFC gives discounts on chicken
Now this would definitely be a ridiculous grab for special treatment, but the case in question, ulterior motives notwithstanding, is about equal rights, which is supposedly one of the tenets of American society and philosophy.