Are they barring anyone from signing up based on their gender? No? Then the situation that you brought up doesn't serve as an accurate example of what they're talking about.

It's been in the news in one shape or form for years.  From the Boy Scouts being sued to let in girls to country clubs, social clubs, Rotary clubs, Elks clubs, and college clubs, among others, being sued or protested against to let in women.

Yes they are barring men (having a barrier) with higher prices based on their sex alone - I still argue for the freedom to do so.

The Boy Scouts certainly have been sued to allow girls to join.

Yea.  Personally, I think business should institute any policy they want, but they must be transparent about that policy so consumers can decide if they wish to do business with them or not.  The only problem I see today is that not only is there is not enough transparency for consumers to do so, but it also seems so lopsided.  Recently, there was a cafe owner who found out that a couple were handing out Pro-Life fliers.  They weren't doing it in the cafe, or even just outside it, but another customer pointed out who they were and he screamed at them to leave.  Nothing happened to him.  It wasn't a big story for days.  However, if it was the other way around, the owner was Pro-Life and the customer Pro-Abortion, it would have gotten much more attention and I can bet local officials would have made sure to press some kind of charges on the grounds of discrimination.

It also works in your favor if you are a protected class.  We have heard plenty about the white Christian bakers who have lost their business and/or had to pay large fines because they refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  Not refused them business, period, just that one item, on the grounds of religious beliefs.  However, some people have actually done the same to bakeries owned by Muslims, who also turn them down, yet we hear nothing about it.  No charges/fines are pressed.

Sure, it wasn't a specific lawsuit that caused them to change.  But, to say that they weren't forced is a little disingenuous.  In this PC climate, and the threat of looming lawsuits as the PC culture turned their full guns at them, there was really no other option.

Well said. 

My take on the issue is that they are both okay. I have no problems with a ladies only comedy event. In fact, as a husband and father of a daughter I support it 100%. On the flip side males should be allowed to exercise that very same right.

I also think many who are slamming the plaintiff here are missing the point. It's not that women want to hold female only events. It's the hypocrisy and the double standard at work here. There have been many lawsuits against all male organizations, in many instances successfully,  such as golf and athletic clubs, fraternities, even organizations such as the Boy Scouts (which is funny that now that they are going to allow females to join, the Girl Scouts are upset at them) because they don't allow female members. His lawsuit(s) should be cluing us all in on the absurdity of it all. Though the guy definitely doesn't rise anywhere near the level of Rosa Parks, I mean come on, hyperbole much? 

Whether it's a comedy show, a movie screening, a fraternity or sorority house or a club; you should have the right to invite who you want to and limit anyone you want to. 

Shouldn't this be in Nintendo discussion? I never knew they were dedicating Parks to certain characters alone.

Surely you can't be serious? A lawsuit from over 25 years ago? Have you even been watching the rise of the PC warriors/culture in just the last 5 years? People have lost their jobs for allegations, or for just voicing their own political opinions that weren't left enough, or for saying a phrase that the PC crowd misconstrued as offensive. Of course, they were under so much pressure they had to change. It was only a matter of time before the PCs were going to turn their full attention on them. 

The argument will be made its for religious reasons and it will go to the supreme court.

I only said they were sued, which is true.  A strawman isn't going to do you any good with that.  The rest of the argument is entirely on your side.