Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by SB39, Apr 27, 2014.
I hope he has a case and wins.
Aww ... jealous!
This has been an interesting discussion.
I think this is a good point- in that those public structures have been paid by local taxes (as opposed to federal tax). So this would be the incentive to exercise favoritism as that is economically beneficial, and to me that's a plausible argument.
Yeah..... uh, I don't think so. However, I'll admit that my wife refers to me as her oldest child.
The key to rulings regarding discrimination and interpretation of the Civil Rights Act is usually whether there's a legitimate business reason for refusal of service or goods. To me, it seems obvious on its face that there's a legitimate business reason for discrimination on basis of residence (that is, the home team is more likely to play well in the presence of its own fans, which will generate increased interest and revenue).
That wouldn't be the case if, say, the Seahawks put a similar quota on Hispanics (a specifically protected category anyways) or women - so I suspect that this will be an open-shut case.
I don't know if he will get anything but it will be interesting to see how this goes because it could determine if teams can do this again in the future.
It would be nice if the NFL itself disallowed such crap. They won't though, because it only influences the economy of the host city and not the NFL itself. The NFL might not make the most money ASAP if they put the quality of the product first, but the long term profits and longevity would be much greater. The short-sightedness caused by greed will be the eventual undoing of the NFL, and perhaps of the human race as well.
The guy talks about 'economic discrimination'. In my place of business the accounts that do a very large amount of business with us get the best prices, those that do a lot get good prices, and those that do the least pay the most. Is that illegal too?
As far as public subsidies and tax money, as already noted that is a moot point since the taxpayers in those regions (city of Seattle, King County, state of Washington) were able to purchase those tickets.
Lastly I can't even find a "Federal Consumer Fraud Act", which he also brings up. In terms of fraud, there has been none in terms of his ability to purchase tickets; how is what the Seahawks did fraudulent? If he's referring to Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act, that has nothing to do with this case. If he's referring to the Bureau of Consumer Protection investigating fraud, again - what did they do that was fraudulent?
This must be something that only affects playoff tickets. During the regular season a certain amount of tickets are reserved for the visiting team. Unused tickets are turned in a few days before the game.
I can't believe the person who is suing could not have picked up tickets from a ticket agency if he
was willing to pay a premium price.
On a similar note, last year i tried to buy single game seats in Atlanta when the Sox came to town. The Braves, knowing that Atlanta is full of Sox fans, made is so that the only way non-season ticket holders could buy tickets for any of the three Sox games was part of a ten game ticket package which included stellar Monday night match-ups between the Braves and the Marlins, and such. I was so pissed!
I think maybe if it is a pubically built stadium, you might be able to get away with only having people who live in the tax base that paid for the stadium buy seats, other than that, it does sound like discrimination.
I agree. (That means duck.)
One has every right to not sell to people from Roxbury. (Or Harlem, or South Central L.A., or the south side of Chicago [that's the, um, "urban", area of Chicago, right?])
Oh, before anyone accuses me of racism, this is sarcasm. Oh, before anyone accuses Harrison of racism, he did not say this, I twisted his words using the tool of sarcasm.
It might not seem like discrimination, but with the right lawyer...
"It was the best way to keep 'dem yankees out. You know some of dem might be uppity blacks."
As for Seattle, maybe they just wanted to keep out dem queer San Franscians out.
My ex-wife refers to me as the "defendant"...
My ex refers to me as her "bank"
The suit will be tossed out. Businesses can serve whomever they want to serve as long as they comply with any applicable laws regarding discrimination on the basis of religion, race or ethnicity. There's nothing in any law of which I'm aware that would add geography to that list.
That said, the premise that someone who doesn't live in a specific set of zip- or area-codes can't be a fan of a particular team ignores 21st century (even 20th century) communications and certainly ignores the globalization of sport. For example, I live in New York City, but am a rabid Pats fan. Does that mean I wouldn't be able to buy tickets to a Pats playoff game in Foxboro?
This guy should be forced to pay for the court fees for wasting our time with this stupid lawsuit.
Interstate Commerce Clause says hello
This isn't true. There are specifically protected categories that discriminating on the basis of is always unlawful - as you said, those are religion, race, color, and national origin.
However, in a place of public accommodation like a stadium, arena, or restaurant, it is also unlawful to refuse service based on arbitrary discrimination that serves no legitimate business purpose. This is because places of public accommodation are subject to equal protection laws due to the nature of the product or service being provided (contrast this to a nightclub, which can legally discriminate arbitrarily so long as it is not discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, or religion).
For example, the Seahawks could not lawfully choose to sell tickets only to men even though sex and gender are not specifically protected categories because that would be an arbitrary refusal of service to women with no legitimate business rationale.
However, I think discriminating in ticket sales based on geography serves a legitimate business purpose for the home team, since a friendly crowd helps a team and victories increase a team's revenue potential.
It's definitely a more complicated legal issue than it seems on its face, and a good Constitutional attorney could put up a good case as to why it was arbitrary refusal of service, but I just don't think the case is as strong as the case for it being a legitimate business reason.
"Your honor, my client is not racist, he just doesn't like Harlem: that they are black is just a co=incidence."
In banking it was called "Red lining."
While red lining was/is indeed a practice that needed to end, I don't see how a policy of limiting ticket sales to the state of Washington could be considered discrimination based on race, color, gender, religion or national origin.
Separate names with a comma.