Discrimination in gyms...yes, really.

Jstas

It's not what you think though!

It's about "meathead" discrimination.

I heard a morning show talking about this on the radio this morning. I got to work and noticed my cellphone blinking. I check the messages and one is an email from a news feed about a similar story. Then I'm reading Slate.com while eatin' mah donut and drinkin' mah coffee and noticed this article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2293368/

It made me wonder, is this such a big problem that it requires all this hubbub? I mean, so what if Planet Fitness wants to cater to a certain demographic. They don't really make money off of the meatheads who pay the membership fee that everyone else does and then spend several hours a day in the gym, every day. They also tend to alienate other customers with their over-bearing mannerisms and behavior, whether they are bullying others or not. So there is valid premise for their actions.

But what gets me is that these meatheads are offended by the Planet Fitness ad campaign. I really don't understand the ire. Even though I myself do not go to gyms, I have frequented establishments at various times in my life that were near or next to a gym of one sort or another. Even though I rarely had interaction with people from the gyms, I gotta say, the public behavior I saw from the type of people that Planet Fitness supposedly portrays in a bad light was deplorable and I can honestly see where Planet Fitness is coming from.

Now, if the ad is meant to be satirical and single out the absolute worst offenders then, I think alot of people should get off their high horse and maybe laugh at themselves a little bit. To put it in perspective, the Acura ad blasting audiophiles with the silliness. Same idea here, laugh at it or get offended, one takes way more energy and time than it's worth. The other at least puts a smile on your face.

So if Planet Fitness has an ad campaign singling out the poor behavior of those that everyone has had some level of negative contact with or experience with in their lives in or out of a gym, why the outrage? Is it a stereotype? Yeah, I guess so. But you know what? That microcosm of the "Gym Rat" subculture does actually exist, whether the people who make up that microcosm want to accept it or not. It obviously causes the vast majority of Planet Fitness' clientele to be put off to actually coming to the gym. Yeah, maybe those people need a thicker skin but why do people go to a gym to begin with? To improve their health and themselves. Therefore, they are in a vulnerable state to begin with and someone being nasty to them for having a different physical shape is down right grade-school-ish.

The most amazing thing is that these "meatheads" are boycotting Planet Fitness, talking about lawsuits and so on and so forth. Thing is, Planet Fitness never actually says that these specific individuals cannot go to their gym or join the gym for that matter. They just require those people to behave like everyone else at the gym. If they can't then they would rather not have that specific type of person's business than deal with the repercussions that come from the negative impact the poor behaviors of those individuals have on the rest of the clientele.

Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno. I'm failing to see the issue that the extreme bodybuilders have here. I don't think it's there and I think they are just throwing a tantrum because at least one part of the cultural segment that they have aligned their lives to has rejected them. Not for the fitness aspect but for the personality conflicts.

I'll stop now though. I guess. I just can't believe the amount of press this stupid BS is getting when there are other, much more real instances of discrimination out there with much more devastating of an impact to people to take this silliness seriously. In my view, what it all boils down to is that a small percentage of gym goers have been told that they can't go to a gym that likely doesn't have the level of equipment they need anyway and they should go to any number of alternative options elsewhere that can better serve their needs both physically and mentally. If I were in that boat, I'd take the hint and go elsewhere instead of wasting time on the Internet and complaining about the issue to news outlets or even bothering to threaten to go whine to lawyer after lawyer until I find some poor schmuck so down on his luck that he'll take any case he can get his hands on just to make his next BMW payment before "Operation Repo" comes knocking at the door.

bobman1235

I wonder if anyone's sued "Curves" for only allowing women...

Jstas

bobman1235 wrote: »

I wonder if anyone's sued "Curves" for only allowing women...

Or Living Well Lady or Lucille Roberts or...

Disallow women from a gym and there'd be similar uproar to "meathead discrimination". Especially if it was a national chain. It'd just be a larger, louder contingent of the overall population. But if it was an all-guy gym and women successfully fought the discrimination suit and gained entrance to the gym, they'd complain about all the macho runnin' around and how the guys monopolize everything and how the place smells like sweaty guy parts all the time. Then "Gary's Gym for Guys" would all of a sudden disallow guys from going to avoid another frivolous lawsuit from a pack of angry fat chicks who don't want their (non)sensibilities offended by those immature, macho boys over there. Don't you know girls mature faster than boys?

But hey, ya gotta sue for your rights 'cause they'll take all of them if you let them! 'Cause, you know, there aren't like 90 other gyms local, regional, national or even international that you couldn't go to or anything and put the offending gym out of business through lack of patronage.

And people wonder why I'd rather spend my time with cars and electronics.

Joe08867

I don't consider this discrimination myself. If it were a Race thing than I would have a problem. But not providing service to an individual that doesn't fit a criteria is fine by me. Like having to wear a Jacket at certain restaurants. If you don't wear it you don't eat there.

I use to frequent several different Gyms at different times in my life. I have seen the Musclehead mentality at work and honestly it can be disturbing. But for some it is beyond getting healthy it is a way of life. They are so into it that they don't understand a casual fan or participant.

I worked out because of football and sports in school and found great benefit in it for my need but I never had the need to get RIPPED and honestly these guys and gals seem like extremists to me. But to each his own. They just need to find the place that will cater to there need and attitude.

Ron-P

Life is full of discrimination no matter who you are, what you are, what you do...etc. People just need to accept it and get over it.

Jstas

Ron-P wrote: »

Life is full of discrimination no matter who you are, what you are, what you do...etc. People just need to accept it and get over it.

I am offended by that.

jinjuku

Besides all the grunting screaming as they lift they'll be dealing HGH and such in your locker rooms.

The old body builder mantra: "you can't bake a cake without the right ingredients":rolleyes:

I understand gyms where dumbells max out at 70 lbs.

amulford

I might not be too bright, ok? But I can move heavy tings...

BlueFox

I never understood the legality of women only gyms. If I opened a gym and said "Whites only", or "Catholics only", or "Heterosexual only", or any permutation of the three examples I would be shutdown within a week. Yet, for gyms, sex discrimination is apparently okay.

RuSsMaN

It's rampant here in Texas (just North of Mexico if you didn't know). It's reverse discrimination here, we've got a whole chain of 'La Fitness', apparently just for people of Spanish and Mexican descent. I'm waiting for 'La McDonalds' and 'La WalMart' to open up.

You won't find me in a gym anyway, I've got a bicycle, and decent neighborhood to walk around, I know how to do pushups etc.

Cheers,
Russ

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

I never understood the legality of women only gyms. If I opened a gym and said "Whites only", or "Catholics only", or "Heterosexual only", or any permutation of the three examples I would be shutdown within a week. Yet, for gyms, sex discrimination is apparently okay.

Discrimination is a bit of a stretch. But I did a bit of research on it and apparently there have been a bunch of lawsuits by similarly uptight dudes with varying levels of success. But if you honestly dont' see the rationale behind female-only g yms, and how they are different from "whites only" gyms, you're loco.


http://fitbiz.tv/2011/04/are-women-only-gyms-guilty-of-discrimination/

cnh

I think an issue here might also be potential 'steroid' use and what that does to the 'personality'? Perhaps? Most average or unfit individuals and especially some women, are often intimidated by overly masculine displays of ego (I've heard as much from most of my female colleagues).

I usually frequent our college gym or work with my home equipment. But some of my female colleagues actually 'pay' for a subscription to a gym like P Fitness because they are uncomfortable working out when our students are in the gym--it's especially difficult for them when the football team is training. An I can understand that...it's a guy thing. The boys get in there, their coach has them on a competitive strength training program....cleans, B Presses, Dead-lifts, heavy squats...a lot of dude sweat and grunting and team 'bonding'. Quite an array of 'ritualistic' masculine behavior for a social scientist to observe. lol And if you can't hold your own in that environment--it can be intimidating. It does not have to be, but lets face it....many 'academics' are nerds.

However...it should be added that faculty has priority over most of the equipment M-F from 12-1:30PM! So I, have trouble understanding why you would choose to PAY when you have FREE access to a very 'well' equipped facility?

Discrimination? Who knows...it's probably in the eyes of the beholder.

cnh

exalted512

Really? Who cares. They want to cater to their market, let them be.

Although someone I know was complaining about PF the other day because they were serving free pizza. Guess its a sure way to make sure your customers keep coming back...make them fat!
-Cody

exalted512

RuSsMaN wrote: »

It's rampant here in Texas (just North of Mexico if you didn't know). It's reverse discrimination here, we've got a whole chain of 'La Fitness', apparently just for people of Spanish and Mexican descent. I'm waiting for 'La McDonalds' and 'La WalMart' to open up.

You won't find me in a gym anyway, I've got a bicycle, and decent neighborhood to walk around, I know how to pushups etc.

Cheers,
Russ

I loved that stuff. I'm white and was in the minority in my school. When it came time to start applying for scholarships, 1/4 of them were for hispanics only. If someone started a white only scholarship...it'd be the end of the world and they'd be racist.
-Cody

ohskigod

I never understood anyone of any group complaining of discrimination in this way. If someone dont want my money. They don t get my money. how hard is that?

At the same time n I can see how some find the meatheads annoying. You can spot the guys rocking the roofs from 100 paces. If your arms are bigger than my legs. You might be a juice head. At the same time if they don't bother me directly I dont care. There are some at my gym but health issues and ball shrinkage is there problem. Not mine.

BlueFox

bobman1235 wrote: »

Discrimination is a bit of a stretch. But I did a bit of research on it and apparently there have been a bunch of lawsuits by similarly uptight dudes with varying levels of success. But if you honestly dont' see the rationale behind female-only g yms, and how they are different from "whites only" gyms, you're loco.


http://fitbiz.tv/2011/04/are-women-only-gyms-guilty-of-discrimination/

Sorry. Your article makes the case that it is discrimination. It isn't as if somebody wants a coed locker room or bathroom.

"But for many women?s rights advocates, women only gyms and men only gyms open up the door for further discrimination against women in other areas. Many activist groups claim this could actually be a step back for women?s rights!"

Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it seems okay in one sense does not justify it.

However, I really do not care. I was just curious as to how something so obviously discriminatory was legal. Apparently, it isn't.

Think about it. What if somebody wanted a women only resturant. Is that okay? Why not? It is a slippery slope trying to rationalize discrimination.

bobman1235

I didn't post the article to back up my point, I only posted it because it outlined the lawsuits that had happened.

"Slippery slope" arguments are for people who can't think, and need everything put into little easily distinguishable boxes. This situation is not a slippery slope. It's an exception to a rule. Every rule has exceptions. Rational people then rationally decide if they are reasonable exceptions. Irrational (or stupid) people pretend everything is exactly the same. The same people who insist that you have to ID 75-year old men at bars, because i fyou have to card one person you have to card everyone. Idiotic.

ohskigod

Equating a womens only gym with real discrimination? And we wonder why these problems persist. It's like saying cracking a racial joke and dragging a man by a chain tied to a pickup truck and dragging him until he is dead solely because of the color of his skin is equally under the same badge of "racism".

Apparently the guy that cracks the joke is the bigger and easier target. When Eric holder called us cowards for not talking about race issues. He was to a degree right......but not for the reasons he thinks

ohskigod

Oh. And after reading that article. My work out habits would probably be frowned on. No heavy breathing during a workout? WTF is that ? Excessive sweating? I'll stick with gold's. I will not lose sleep that I am being discriminated against

Jstas

BlueFox wrote: »

Sorry. Your article makes the case that it is discrimination. It isn't as if somebody wants a coed locker room or bathroom.

"But for many women?s rights advocates, women only gyms and men only gyms open up the door for further discrimination against women in other areas. Many activist groups claim this could actually be a step back for women?s rights!"

Discrimination is discrimination. Whether it seems okay in one sense does not justify it.

However, I really do not care. I was just curious as to how something so obviously discriminatory was legal. Apparently, it isn't.

Think about it. What if somebody wanted a women only resturant. Is that okay? Why not? It is a slippery slope trying to rationalize discrimination.

You know what? The BSA said no homosexuals. **** rights groups were up in arms, brought suit and everything. Went all the way to the Supreme Court. The SC said that the Boy Scouts were entirely within their rights, as a private organization, to restrict membership as they see fit. Any law, policy or injunction against a private organization to force something such as a private organization's membership criteria may uphold the discriminated rights but violates the rights of the organization and therefore is illegal.

A restaurant, a gym or any other private institution reserves the same rights to restrict membership on whatever grounds they see fit. The ONLY way I have seen something like that overturned is when the membership criteria causes measurable damages to the discriminated group/individual. Rarely does that happen and usually the government can only intercede if the organization is receiving direct federal funding to support the organization itself. Since an organization cannot be charged with criminal charges, civil charges are the only way that things can be brought against the organization.

BlueFox

Jstas wrote: »

A restaurant, a gym or any other private institution reserves the same rights to restrict membership on whatever grounds they see fit.

Correct. And a public business has to follow the same laws as any other business.

mrbigbluelight

I've been discriminated against in many fitness center because of my physique.

Jstas

ohskigod wrote: »

Equating a womens only gym with real discrimination?

Well, honestly dude, it literally is. The reason it gets upheld is because places like Curves cite the fragility of the psyche of women struggling with weight issues to not be put on display for others to view/mock/torment because of the damaging effects it has. That and they play the "feeble women" card even though at the same time all of their brochures and membership recruiting info talk about women's rights and empowered women and other feminine movement stuff. So in order to keep out the supposed perverts that run the streets everywhere, they have decided that no man can be trusted in any way shape or form and banished them from even walking in the doors. If anything, a place like Curves is preying on the self-esteem issues they are telling the women they are protecting them from.

Trust me, I know this because my ex joined a Curves and didn't have a decent credit rating to gain a membership. So I had to sign for the membership and I wasn't even allowed to walk in to door to put my name on a paper. I had to wait outside while she brought the papers to me and used my credit card for the membership. I never even saw the person's face who took my money. BTW, her membership lasted about 3 months. When I got a letter in the mail asking me where I'd been and to come back, they missed me I then found out she hadn't been going since 2 weeks after the membership was started and I canceled it promptly.

ohskigod wrote: »

And we wonder why these problems persist.

Why do these problems persist? Because we constantly yell at each other about equality when it is clear that we aren't equal. We want equal treatment but if we expect those who currently get piles upon piles of concessions, handouts and other breaks to actually work to get ahead, we are discriminatory in our practices. It doesn't matter if it's about nationality, gender, race, religion or whatever. The problem persists because we want equal rights for all but insist on exploiting our differences to gain that equality. When we do that there is nothing equal about it.

Ron-P is right. Discrimination will never go away because we will never be equal. Someone will always be stronger, prettier, smarter, faster, richer, whatever. No amount of laws forcing a single "minority" group to be recognized and conceded to will ever get past that because they are deliberately made to single out that minority group and make them special and that goes against the idea that all men (and women) are created equal by deliberately instituting a legally decreed inequality.

amulford

I've been discriminated against in many fitness center because of my physique.

Being laughed at or made fun of is not the same as being discriminated against. Just thought you should know...

Jstas

BlueFox wrote: »

Correct. And a public business has to follow the same laws as any other business.

You are contradicting yourself.

I know what you're trying to say in that a public business cannot discriminate for any reason yet you try to postulate that idea by saying they have to follow the same laws as any other business. Yet this is in response to a post I have made where I have clearly shown that "any other business" can limit membership/clientele as it sees fit.

So which is it? Are you saying that a public business is not allowed to refuse business based on any criteria ('cause that's wrong) or are you saying that public business can refuse business in any way they see fit?

Also, do me a favor and define "public business" for me so that you can't mutate your argument to fit your needs. Just want to make sure we're going to play with the same deck if you really want to take this to the table.

Jstas

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

I've been discriminated against in many fitness center because of my physique.

Well, I, for one, am completely and utterly offended by your physique.

I wholly support amulford making fun of you and laughing at you because of it.

Just thought you should know.

And knowing is half the battle!

G.I. JOOOOOOEEEE!!!!

Sami

RuSsMaN wrote: »

It's reverse discrimination here, we've got a whole chain of 'La Fitness', apparently just for people of Spanish and Mexican descent. I'm waiting for 'La McDonalds' and 'La WalMart' to open up.

Good one, Russ! L.A. Fitness, founded in Los Angeles, California...

RuSsMaN

Thought I buzzed the tower on that one Sami.

BlueFox

Jstas wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself.

I know what you're trying to say in that a public business cannot discriminate for any reason yet you try to postulate that idea by saying they have to follow the same laws as any other business. Yet this is in response to a post I have made where I have clearly shown that "any other business" can limit membership/clientele as it sees fit.

My statement was in regard to your referring to "private" entities. "A restaurant, a gym or any other private institution...."

So which is it? Are you saying that a public business is not allowed to refuse business based on any criteria ('cause that's wrong) or are you saying that public business can refuse business in any way they see fit?

No, I am saying that a public business cannot discriminate based on race, sex, or religion. The last I heard that was the law.

Also, do me a favor and define "public business" for me so that you can't mutate your argument to fit your needs. Just want to make sure we're going to play with the same deck if you really want to take this to the table.

For this discussion, a public business is one that is open to the public. Anybody can walk in and engage in the business, and the business cannot discriminate on the patron based on the Civil right's Act, and any other law baring discrimination based on race, sex, or religion.

I suppose you could split hairs and say that a gym for women is not a business, but rather is a private club. However, I suspect the law has different definitions as to what constitutes a business, and what constitutes a private club.

"In determining whether a private entity qualifies as a private club under title II [of the Civil Rights Act], courts have considered such factors as the degree of member control of club operations, the selectivity of the membership selection process, whether substantial membership fees are charged, whether the entity is operated on a nonprofit basis, the extent to which the facilities are open to the public, the degree of public funding."

http://www.gaspoftexas.com/privateclubs.html

Anyway, as I said earlier I was just curious as to how these business were able to apparently break the law.

Jstas

BlueFox wrote: »

My statement was in regard to your referring to "private" entities. "A restaurant, a gym or any other private institution...."

They are private. Just because they are a public place that invites public patrons in to the establishment does not mean that they are public institutions. They are still private parties with private property and they still retain private party rights. Hence the reason places like Golf Clubs, or restaurants or even car dealerships can force patrons to adhere to things like dress codes and escape scrutiny as having discriminatory practices. Then again, the Civil Rights Act doesn't protect against that. I'll get in to that in a minute.

BlueFox wrote: »

No, I am saying that a public business cannot discriminate based on race, sex, or religion. The last I heard that was the law.

Yes, actually, they can. What they cannot do is segregate patrons or disallow similar services like bathroom usage based on those criteria. If they are going to allow public access to their establishment then all patrons are to afford the same services and facilities. However, they are allowed to base business upon discriminating criteria such as dress, behavior, age, even criminal record. They are even allowed to disbar a patron based on gender. However, if they are, say, a clothing store for men, they cannot disallow women based on the fact that they are women. Even women would have a desire to purchase men's clothing for several valid reasons. However, a "Gentleman's Club" is a "public business" according to your definition and they can bar a patron entry based on gender for the sole reason that the establishment does not cater to that gender and it can cause a disruption that could be detrimental, even dangerous to the business and it's patrons. Then again, if they register the business as a club then that's all the need to do to circumvent the CRA. It's been held up before and the rules are vague on such things which is why they go before a judge and jury to determine if the interpretation of the law is in the correct spirit or actually illegal.

BlueFox wrote: »

For this discussion, a public business is one that is open to the public. Anybody can walk in and engage in the business, and the business cannot discriminate on the patron based on the Civil right's Act, and any other law baring discrimination based on race, sex, or religion.

Well, if that is your definition then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that entirely isn't true:

...outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation. It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations"). Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

It doesn't specifically say much about allowing access. It speaks more about getting rid of segregation and other laws focused more on political and property rights. Yes, it can apply to someone barring access to a "public business" but because of the vagueness of the Act in that concern, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to not only disprove the inevitable claims by the business owner that the specific reasons for disallowing access spelled out in the CRA were not the reason for disallowing access but also that the plantiff's rights were violated with ensuing damage. What the act actually protects against is this:

Title I
Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

Title II
Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

Title III
Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity.

Title IV
Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

Title V
Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

Title VI
Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency can lose its federal funding.

Title VII
...prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin...also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.

Title VIII
Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

Title IX
made it easier to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges and all-white juries to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists who could not get a fair trial in state courts.

Title X
Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

Title XI
Gives the Jury rights to put any proceeding for criminal contempt arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Civil Rights Act, on trial, and if convicted, can be fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for more than six months.

Title II covers your "definition" and basically states that it's open to interpretation. It may state that "hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce" but it's been successfully tried in previous cases where barring of patrons is left to the discretion of the business if the business is not engaged is interstate commerce. It gets even more vague when the business falls under the "public accommodations" part (like a hardware store or a lingerie store). Specific things like location and proximity to interstate travel avenues like airports, interstates and train stations were instrumental in the rulings for or against enforcing the act in specific instances. Types of business also matter. Since no definitive distinction of what qualifies a "private" organization of any kind is listed aside from clubs being singled out specifically, it is up to the person bringing suit to provide the burden of proof that the Act was violated and they were harmed in some way resulting from that violation. Like I said, that is not so easy to do.

But in regards to a club (i.e.: gentleman's, health, youth, car, whatever) the Act does not apply and actually upholds their right to have discriminatory membership policies. Hence the reason places like Curves, Lucille Roberts, Living Well Lady and Planet Fitness can be entirely within their legal rights on restricting membership. Is it morally and ethically right? Depends on how you look at it. Is it legally right? Most certainly so.

BlueFox wrote: »

I suppose you could split hairs and say that a gym for women is not a business, but rather is a private club. However, I suspect the law has different definitions as to what constitutes a business, and what constitutes a private club.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 spells it out. It's not splitting hairs. It is specifically protected because it is a "club". Just because it has publicly accessible membership doesn't mean it's not exempt. The BSA has publicly accessible membership and the ruling was place in their favor and has been upheld multiple times in multiple appeals.

BlueFox wrote: »

"In determining whether a private entity qualifies as a private club under title II [of the Civil Rights Act], courts have considered such factors as the degree of member control of club operations, the selectivity of the membership selection process, whether substantial membership fees are charged, whether the entity is operated on a nonprofit basis, the extent to which the facilities are open to the public, the degree of public funding."

http://www.gaspoftexas.com/privateclubs.html

Anyway, as I said earlier I was just curious as to how these business were able to apparently break the law.

You're curious but you just posted your answer right there?

It's not your interpretation that matters. The only way it matters is if you feel your rights protected by the CRA of '64 were violated and you take your case to court, successfully argue to your benefit and the law is subsequently amended to reflect the decision in your favor that conflicted with the original definition within the wording of the Act. until you actually do that, the only relevant interpretation(s) is/are the ones upheld or thrown out in the various court cases challenging the CRA of '64.

In this instance, it sucks but all the above mentioned health clubs are within their rights.

And yeah RuSsMaN, I don't really care if it's a "dissertation" or not. I took the entire gamut of business law in college because it's pertinent to my security background. We spent several weeks on the CRA and went over dozens of cases regarding it. And no F1nut, I'm not a lawyer but I'm far from "not knowing ****" about it.

steveinaz

Gyms certainly do discriminate. I was pumping out a set on the bench press; sat up, lit up a smoke---and they THREW me out! What kinda crap is that? Bad enough there wasn't an ashtray in the place....