[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. 
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]