The Constitutional Right for Hot Chicks to Party

09/09/2010 05:56 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Several days ago, the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right for bars and nightclubs to enact "Ladies Night," a promotional night--usually on a weekly basis--designed to grant women discounted drinks, and occasionally even free entry into the exclusive lounges. Such a landmark civil rights case stands proudly in the annals of legal history along with the decisions of Brown vs. Board of Ed and Roe vs. Wade. This historic ruling has been reprinted below for the probing of future legal scholars and the general benefit of the public.

Hollander vs. Copacabana Night Club

After reviewing the facts of both parties, The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals hereby affirms that hot chicks will party all night. The sanctioning of Ladies Night supports the terms advocated in motion 580 F. Supposition 2d-335, wherein women shall be allowed and encouraged to "shake their tail feathers" under the complete protection of the Constitution. Mr. Hollander argues that the decreased admission price for women on Ladies Night is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court responds by citing that Mr. Hollander is gay.

The explicit intention of Ladies Night is clear: to increase the proportion of females to males in a designated party zone, thus enhancing its 'awesomeness' and preserving one's inalienable liberty of having "a freakin' epic-ass night." Eliminating this liberty would reduce the Copacabana Night Club to a porcus familius (sausage-fest), and henceforth make it a lame crap-hole where the court would never want to hang. (See The People vs. Lotus Night Lounge).

Hollander requests that the court apply the same principles of strict scrutiny as it would in race based discrimination. The court denies the motion, and reminds the plaintiff of the two-prong test--established in Baker vs Oinkster Bar and Grill--to distinguish who should be allowed into clubs i.e. fine honeys versus who should not i.e. busted hoes.

  • A fine honey is a woman exhibiting a firm, perky, bust and/or a backside of robust proportions. She may also boast "a pair legs that just won't quit [being legs]." In summary, the court concurs that a fine honey has got it going on. She shall be allowed into any and all public establishments at any moment, regardless of whether they are full, empty, or even open. If given the opportunity, the court will habeas her corpus under the fullest extent of the law.

  • For the definition of a busted ho, we cite Chief Justice Roger Taney's description in 1858 as a woman "bearing the complexion of, or resembling that of a gorilla's anus." The busted ho's frizzy hear, snaggletooth, and unconscionable harelip would most undoubtedly exude a cloud of gloom over all public party zones. She may only enter as the ugly friend of a fine honey, and even then, must confine herself to an empty corner of the bar, facing the wall for the duration of the night. Note: A woman missing a limb does not automatically classify her as a busted ho as such an axiom stands in clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plus, the court once had a three-way with this super hot chick who happened to have a prosthetic leg.
  • Even in light of Mr. Hollander's claims of Ladies Night breaching the 14th Amendment, we must assert that all races of fine honeys are permitted into clubs. Copacabana, moreover, has not demonstrated racial discrimination of any form; White, black, Asian, Latin, Pacific Islander, the court maintains empirical proof that there be fly bitches all over the world. This racial equality enforces fair entrance for all U.S citizens, and lets the fellas getta taste of the rainbow-- if you know what the court is saying. (the court extends you a high-five).

    We recognize the impetus for Mr. Hollander's litigation likely stems from a frustration over the fact that no self-respecting club would allow him past its velvet ropes. Under motion US 376 3fd: Article VI, the court resolves the following: 1) Mr. Hollander is a loser, and 2) the court would never be caught dead hanging with him.

    In conclusion, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Mr. Hollander's claims of gender discrimination. A public incentive for women to get crunked in a room full of strangers has been a hallmark of our national identity since Thomas Jefferson instituted Tuesday as 'Hussies Night' at Monticello. The court applauds the Copacabana's efforts in maintaining that strong tradition.

    Finally, while the court's here, it reminds you that gays cannot marry and Mexicans must present ID cards at all times while in Arizona.