The next Rosa Parks will be a straight, white male. They are now the most persecuted group in the west. 

I'm just observing what's going on in the world. And the change in 2015 was forced upon them, as they were being faced with several state investigations and lawsuits. They made it all go away, at least for a couple of years. Highly doubt  it's any different here. 

My point is the political climate has changed. What happened in 1991 doesn't change the fact that they were/are under a lot of pressure from PC warriors, more recently, as well as states that side with them. Like I said, in 2015 they were being threatened with state investigations and looming lawsuits from gay rights activists. They changed the policy to avoid that. No doubt, that is what happened here. They saw the writing on the wall and changed policy to not have to face it. 

I decided to come back here to lurk today and am somewhat relieved to see that the unmitigated snowflakery that composed the first couple pages of responses to my OP appears to have given way to a serious discussion. And that's pathetic.

Look people, I NEVER intended this to be a serious subject. I posted this thread cynically and with lavish doses of sarcasm as something to laugh at, as I felt it more than self-evident that ladies' night events are not exactly apartheid. I shared this same material on my Facebook wall and everyone laughed. I shared it on a heavily conservative-leaning message board composed almost entirely of old (50+) guys who proudly voted for Donald Trump and even practically all of them scoffed at this moron and branded him a "loon". But here I visit upon the next, they-tell-me-progressive-minded generation of young men and the general response is like 'Hmm, let's consider the potential academic merits of this litigation.' There are none! DUH! :P

Breathe with me!

So, first you falsely claim "for the record" that they weren't sued to accept girls and later on you backtrack, firstly to a 1991 ruling and later to a 1998 ruling. So if they weren't sued, those were ghost cases? It was decided in their favor, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a case. One even made it to the Supreme Court.

I never claimed that it was influencing that the Boy Scouts recently decided to allow girls to join. Neither do I think the man in the OP has much chance to win. But he does have the right to sue, just like those women did. He'll likely lose, but the lawsuit is legit.

An inequality is an inequality, no matter how small. Some reactions here pretty much show why we need men like the one the OP posted about because there is just so much hypocrisy and so many double standards that need to be combatted. People here openly recognize that ladies' nights, women-only events, etc. are sexist and discriminatory but judge them to be "acceptable". So how is that "equality" exactly?

I don't have anything against women having their own spaces or bars giving preferential treatment to women. What I DO have a problem with is feminists not accepting, not allowing, not tolerating the same but for men. Many examples have been cited - sports (Augusta National Golf Club), Boy Scouts, the moste elite and most physically demanding military positions, etc. have all opened up to women under feminist pressure. In the same time, women-only spaces have exploded. Women-only gyms, taxis, metro cars, women-only spaces at Berlin's 2018 New Year's celebrations, etc. This list is long and will seemingly only get longer.

But men are not allowed ANYTHING just for men. An absurd example, gay male bars/clubs cannot refuse female clients because feminists find that discrimatory. Yet lesbian bars often refuse men! I've read of cases where gay male bars started having so many female clients that it in turn attracted so many straight men that in the end, the bar/club stopped being a "gay" bar and became a regular bar. And the last time I was in one, I could not even tell it was a "gay" club as there were probably as many if not more women than men and I saw no flirting of any kind going on.

Are there any feminists here that can tell me how they'd feel about a male-only gym? A male-only bar/club? A male-only showing for an upcoming blockbuster movie? Somehow, I feel you'd be offended or at least find it "discriminatory" and "sexist".

To acknowledge inequality, to pass it off as petty and acceptable, and to insult and condem all those who dare speak up against it is the very reason why we need men like him, why we need the MRA movement (that contrary to what feminists would have you believe does not advocate for female oppression nor is it a movement of male c**ts "threatened" about the "rise in power" of women). It's the reason Trump won, the reason why extremist counter-movements are being created all over the world to combat political-correctness and hyprocrisy . As long as you persist in staying in your bubble, quick to insult, hypycritical, cherry-picking what offends you and what doesn't, equality will never be acheived.

This man may not become the next Rosa Parks, but he and other courageous men AND women will one day become known as having been at the forefront of the next big equalitarian movement.

Your fallacy is thinking that a 1998 ruling means anything nowadays. Rulings get challenged all the time.  Laws are interpreted differently by different lawyers/judges.  It's not set in stone. A new lawsuit would have brought about that challenge, as well as a media circus. Just easier to avoid it. 

Links please. 

Yes, it does. 

Legislators like to think that they grant rights.  But, they're wrong.  Whether or not a law claims something is a right makes no difference, philosophically speaking.  

Another way to think about it....

There are legal "rights" and there are human rights. 

Human rights are inalienable. They exist whether any government recognizes them or not.  A good example is free speech.  The right to speak freely exists.  If a government doesn't recognize it, and locks you up for saying something they don't like, they've violated your basic human rights.  

Legal "rights" are made up by guys in suits who think they're important.   A good example that we hear about in the USA these days is the "right" to an education.  That's not actually a right.  It cannot be, because it requires something from another person/entity.  The same can be said for healthcare, and many other things.  Those ain't rights in the philosophical sense.  They're only rights insofar as we allow the government to use doublespeak to convince us that they are.