CA: Legislation To Prohibit Business Charging Different Price for Similar Goods Based on Gender – IOTW Report

CA: Legislation To Prohibit Business Charging Different Price for Similar Goods Based on Gender

California Globe-
On March 25, Assembly Members Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Cristina Garcia amended their Assembly Bill 1287 related to gender-based pricing. The bill would add Section 51.14 to the Civil Code. Existing law, the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995, prohibits a business establishment from discriminating against a person because of the person’s gender with respect to the price charged for services of similar or like kind.

As introduced, the bill would have expressed the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would relate to ensuring that there is no gender-based pricing in California. Substantive amendments adopted on March 25 have now been added to the bill.

Section One of the bill would add Civil Code Section 51.14, which would become part of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The bill would define the following terms: “business” (any business that sells good in this state), “goods” (consumer products), and “substantially similar.” The definition of “substantially similar” is crucial to this proposed new law. It means two goods that exhibit the following four characteristics:

  • No substantial differences in the materials used in production
  • The intended use is similar
  • The functional design and features are similar
  • The brand is the same
  • Note that a difference in coloring among any of the goods is not to be construed as a substantial difference.

The bill would prohibit any person, firm, partnership, company, corporation, or business from charging a different price for any two goods that are substantially similar if those goods are priced differently based on the gender of the individuals for whom the goods are marketed and intended. Nonetheless, the new section of law would not prohibit price differences in goods or services that are based specifically on the following: more here

22 Comments on CA: Legislation To Prohibit Business Charging Different Price for Similar Goods Based on Gender

  1. Typical Libtards. Spend lots of money, time, and energy solving a problem that doesn’t exist. Maybe they should spend some money, time and energy and try and figure out how to keep businesses from leaving the state.

    13
  2. “Does that mean no more “Ladies Night” women drink free events?”

    Exactly!

    See, we women bitch a lot about ‘unfaiiiirrr’ but when it’s ladies’ night, divorce cases and child custody (usually) going their way even if they’re drunks or hookers, we stay pretty quiet, huh?

    You know why clothes and haircuts are more expensive?
    Because look at the detail. Oh, and if we’re going to complain about shavers- buy the men’s version (without all the ‘cute’ and emollients and scents) and STFU.

    And btw, I notice it’s a lot more women (all ages) on the phone while they’re driving. But, that would explain some of the unfair insurance rates, huh? lol

    Edit. Anonymous is correct. Young men pay more, even though young women are just as, or more, destructive on the road.

    5
  3. Libs are morons. The “women drink for free” example is a classic. Now they will have to pay full fare.

    In fact, I don’t even know what so-called “disparity” they are trying to resolve with this bill. What other sex disparities are there?

    2
  4. @MJA

    See, we women bitch a lot about ‘unfaiiiirrr’ but when it’s ladies’ night, divorce cases and child custody (usually) going their way even if they’re drunks or hookers, we stay pretty quiet, huh?”

    Don’t stop there, what about the disparity is criminal sentencing, easier accessibility to welfare benefits, collage scholarships, even hiring practices. And of course the level of veracity given to all she said/he said cases on college campuses where women are always believed and the guys get booted out without even a proper hearing. The simple unvarnished truth is that in our history there has never been a more protected more coddled more “privileged” group then women, white women being at the very highest wrung.

    3
  5. Since “gender” is a grammatical term, how’s that work?
    Humans have “sexes,” words have “gender.”
    My guess is that this is some way to extract more money from businesses’ wallets.
    Or it will establish another bureaucracy which is not answerable to the voters.

    izlamo delenda est …

    4
  6. The only place that has ‘gender based’ pricing is the dry cleaner. Some, not all. I pay more to have a jacket cleaned than my husband does, however, mine may have glass buttons, embroidery, be silk, etc. His jacket may be bigger yet mine requires specialty care. Big freakin’ deal. A law is needed for a $1 to 1.50 difference?

    Oh wait! I get it. In Commiefornicate men pay less for tampons than women.

    6
  7. @Cynic
    Women don’t have to pay for prostate exams nor do they have to deal with erectile dysfunction! Oh wait, some of them cause erectile dysfunction!

    2
  8. As a farmer this will be confusing.
    Is a bull calf worth as much as a heifer now?
    When I buy chicks can I still pay extra for pullets.
    Layer ration will cost the same as scratch feed?
    Do I Pay the same to neuter or spay a dog?

    1
  9. Only in California can you find enough incompetent and stupid people to make this a bill and a right. You cannot fix real problems (too hard) but making up problems that don’t exist soothes the unearned and oversize ego’s of the stupid.
    God I am glad I left that state a couple of years ago the incompetence is now some they parade with pride.

  10. strange, someone needs to alert our leaders. gender based abortions are legal in california, and of those most are black. hmm, male baby parts fetch more? the governments sinister embrace of evil.

Comments are closed.