Respond to the post with the following. As the the plaintiffs' arguments written by Anne Davidow on behalf of Valentine Goesaert and the other plaintiffs. Hypothetically Would you (as your primary source author) agree are disagree with the statements being made? Why or why not? What is similar or different about the arguments? I disagree with what Justice Frankfurter's majority opinion in the Goesaert v. Cleary case writes. The reasoning used to uphold the Michigan law barring women from bartending, citing potential moral and social problems, appears to reinforce gender stereotypes rather than resolve any genuine legal issues. This opinion portrays a paternalistic stance, suggesting that women require protection in specific professions, which undermines efforts towards gender equality. Frankfurter's assertion that the legislature has the authority to make gender-based distinctions "in matters such as the regulation of the liquor traffic" fails to provide a sufficient justification for the discrimination. Moreover, it contradicts the principle of equal protection under the law by enforcing arbitrary distinctions that lack substantial relevance in achieving a legitimate state interest. Additionally, the allowance for women to work as waitresses in the same venues undermines the argument that bar-tending presents unique moral and social risks. This inconsistency exposes the underlying gender bias rather than a coherent legal rationale. Hence, this decision reflects an antiquate