united-states
Short Answer
Is it legal for an app to exclude men entirely based on gender and
deny them access under the United States Law?
This is legal under federal law, and is probably legal in most (if not all) states. But, I haven't done a state by state analysis of this issue under state law in every U.S. state.
Long Answer
There are two main issues that have to be analysed.
First, is the app a "public accommodation", which is the only relevant regulated activity the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and most state non-discrimination laws such as Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-34-601, et seq.
It isn't clear that an app, which is not a "place" qualifies. If the app is viewed as a "private club" it is similarly not a public accommodation.
The case law on this subject is mixed.
The chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc. (December 2024) that websites and virtual-only businesses are not subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA, although some trial court judges have ruled otherwise. Other trial court judges have reached the same conclusion. The federal government enforcement officials have taken the position that the websites and online businesses are subject to the ADA. A 2024 law review article which addresses that question, notes that this question is currently the subject of a circuit split in the federal appellate courts.
Cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) wouldn't necessarily be binding as applies to federal and state laws regulating discrimination on other grounds in places of public accommodations, but they would be persuasive authority.
So, the correct answer to the question of whether the app is a public accommodation is not at all clear.
Second, if it is a public accommodation, does it violate the law?
The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in public accommodations, but does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodations.
So, even if the app were a public accommodation, this wouldn't be prohibited in federal law. Other parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in other contexts, such as employment, but those portions of the act are clearly not applicable to an app.
In the example of Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-34-601(2)(a), discrimination on the basis of sex is prohibited in public accommodations:
It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or
indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a
group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status,
national origin, or ancestry the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to
publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written,
electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that
indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of
public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an
individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of
public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or
undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status,
national origin, or ancestry.
But, this statute also contains a relevant exception at C.R.S. § 24-34-601(3) which states:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a
discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place
of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction
has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public
accommodation.
In the case of the Tea App, assuming for sake of argument that it is a public accommodation, this exception in Colorado law would probably apply, so again, it would not be prohibited.
