Planet Fitness: Lawsuit Waiting to Happen?

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination?

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Do what fat people do. Claim your lifestyle and body type are a medical condition. Sue for discrimination against people with “bigorexia”.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Do what fat people do. Claim your lifestyle and body type are a medical condition. Sue for discrimination against people with “bigorexia”.[/quote]

Lol

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Ya that is kinda how I always saw it. High end restaurants won’t serve you if you are wearing a backwards hat or haven’t showered in days, etc… I don’t hear about them getting sued constantly.

[quote]TommyGunz32 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Ya that is kinda how I always saw it. High end restaurants won’t serve you if you are wearing a backwards hat or haven’t showered in days, etc… I don’t hear about them getting sued constantly.
[/quote]

Do they advertise and include language labeling such people as lower class?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TommyGunz32 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Ya that is kinda how I always saw it. High end restaurants won’t serve you if you are wearing a backwards hat or haven’t showered in days, etc… I don’t hear about them getting sued constantly.
[/quote]

Do they advertise and include language labeling such people as lower class?[/quote]

Good point. Still not discriminating on race, religion, age, sex or sexual orientation.

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TommyGunz32 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Ya that is kinda how I always saw it. High end restaurants won’t serve you if you are wearing a backwards hat or haven’t showered in days, etc… I don’t hear about them getting sued constantly.
[/quote]

Do they advertise and include language labeling such people as lower class?[/quote]

Good point. Still not discriminating on race, religion, age, sex or sexual orientation. [/quote]

Claim you worshiped the iron then.

But our current “protections” go far beyond those categories in other areas. You can’t put up a sign saying “no retards” even though that doesn’t fall into those categories either.

Zyzz died?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TommyGunz32 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Ya that is kinda how I always saw it. High end restaurants won’t serve you if you are wearing a backwards hat or haven’t showered in days, etc… I don’t hear about them getting sued constantly.
[/quote]

Do they advertise and include language labeling such people as lower class?[/quote]

Not explicitly, They will say formal dress code etc. and I have seen places basically say families not welcome (kids). I just don’t see them getting sued anytime soon.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]TommyGunz32 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Ya that is kinda how I always saw it. High end restaurants won’t serve you if you are wearing a backwards hat or haven’t showered in days, etc… I don’t hear about them getting sued constantly.
[/quote]

Do they advertise and include language labeling such people as lower class?[/quote]

Good point. Still not discriminating on race, religion, age, sex or sexual orientation. [/quote]

Claim you worshiped the iron then.

But our current “protections” go far beyond those categories in other areas. You can’t put up a sign saying “no retards” even though that doesn’t fall into those categories either.[/quote]

Another good point, even though in East Tennessee that would mean half the population would not get service. :slight_smile:

I think really where the line is crossed for PF is when they actually “label” and advertise that fact. While a good business plan for them they would be better suited to NOT highlight this area of there business model.

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]

No, it’s not.

You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.

The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.

I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
I agree RV.

Would you like for me to represent you?[/quote]

He won’t be suing anyone, he said it would take a SERIOUS lifter.[/quote]

Oh, your right, im not a serious lifter. lol bhaahahahahahahahaha

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]

No, it’s not.

You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.

The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.

I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]

This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Why would anyone more muscular than a 5th grader go there in the first place?[/quote]

Exactly.

Although I must admit the commercial gym I joined this year has some stupid policies against do-rags, bandanas, and cargo shorts.

[quote]dshroy wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]

No, it’s not.

You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.

The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.

I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]
This is your first post on T Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]

LOL! Funniest post of the week!

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

wow, am I not being clear here. I do not belong to nor have I ever belonged to Planet Fitness, I made this thread since seeing all the crap online about PF. and their bias towards bodybuilders.

[quote]TommyGunz32 wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Good luck with that, RV.

Anyone who signs their contract agrees with their policy (whether they’ve read the fine print or not). [/quote]

Not if you went in there to sign up and they basically told you, we don’t like your kind.[/quote]

However do not business have the right to refuse service? Then it would up to that “discriminated” individual to prove the discrimination? [/quote]

Ya that is kinda how I always saw it. High end restaurants won’t serve you if you are wearing a backwards hat or haven’t showered in days, etc… I don’t hear about them getting sued constantly.
[/quote]

Thats different. that is them simply enforcing a dress code or code of conduct. but that same restuarant can’t tell a black man he can’t come in. nor can Pf tell a bodybuilder he can’t join solely based on his physical appearance.

[quote]dshroy wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]

No, it’s not.

You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.

The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.

I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]

This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]

You missed “disparate.”

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]dshroy wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]roguevampire wrote:
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of appearance. [/quote]

No, it’s not.

You can’t discriminate against a “protected class” based on a person being (or percieved to being) part of a protected class.

The protected classes are: sex, race, religion, national origin, veterans, sometimes age, and sometimes disability.

I suppose you could find out if this had a disparet impact on men and possibly veterans, but it would be a stretch.[/quote]

This is your first post on T-Nation, and you already have a spelling error. It’s supposed to be “perceived”, not “percieved”. Welcome to T Nation, asshole.
[/quote]

I gave him a pass on that one, as it is correct, if used in the latin context. I don’t want to be overbearing. He’s still a fucking asshole though.
You missed “disparate.”[/quote]