Posted on 07/28/2006 7:24:33 PM PDT by Cagey
And hopefully Mr Johnson will be in attendance.
I disagree. A Bucs game is a private venue. You don't want to be patted down, don't go.
This has been going on forever at concerts, it isn't a freedom issue, anyone who doesn't want to go to the event isn't frisked, but the owner or lessee has the right (or should) to refuse entry to anyone they wish.
This is not Naziville USA.
They check bags, fine, but don't hang this judge for erring on the side of civil liberties.
See my post# 16 that follows. You believe you have an expensive fountainpen in your pocket...and the security guy counters that it's a dagger and it must be surrendered. The whole private property thing gets a little tedious.
~ Blue Jays ~
You don't have to surrender the pen, you just don't go into the venue. I carry a pocketknife, I know enough not to carry it anywhere where I would be frisked.
They are really trying to destroy America, aren't they? Even if flies in the face just plain common sense.
They often say "no outside food or beverages" so what is your response to a person with hypoglycemia who must carry protein or a diabetic who must carry glucose? The knuckleheads who work the door at these places don't know nuance.
Do you see my point? Management of these venues will try virtually everything (even put people with medical conditions at risk) in the attempt to sell another soda or bottle of water. Searching womens' handbags at movie theaters? You don't seriously support that technique, do you? Do you honestly believe that increases your security when you take your kids to see a Harry Potter movie?
~ Blue Jays ~
What is so hard to understand. It is a private event, they can make their own rules. You don't like their rules don't go. Why should the government be allowed to intrude on a private transaction between a consumer and a venue? If a person needs the sugar that badly, they have to fork over the money for the concessions. Or should the owners be required to give free tickets to people who can't afford them?
So: we've just announced to terrorist cells out there planning destruction and mayhem: hey, you won't be patted down at the gates to stadiums packing 60 thousand people!
Maybe the Constitition is a suicide pact after all. The judge seems to think so...
They are going into a private establishment, this has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Actually, I think you can thank James Madison.
It's my belief that you're being intentionally obtuse to be contrarian. In your example, what if you were carrying a small pocketknife that you've carried (legally) for decades and are told is not accepted at the museum for which you've paid in advance to see a special exhibit? Your choice is to sacrifice the sentimental knife or toss the ticket in the garbage. Do you see my point?
We can't have malls, retailers, sporting venues, concert halls, theaters, and restaurants just randomly deciding what they think is permitted and what isn't permitted.
~ Blue Jays ~
Are those not privately owned places? It seems to me that deciding what is permitted in your building is part of that pesky property rights thing.
You answered the question and I see you're being intentionally obtuse.
A diabetic cannot "wait" for sugar identically to the same way a cardiac patient cannot "wait" for nitroglycerin tablets if they feel heart fluctuations. A concert promoter shouldn't be permitted to refuse entry to someone with pills in their pocket because they "think" it might be a recreational/illegal drug.
~ Blue Jays ~
All right, one vote against private property rights. I don't see what is being obtuse about defending those.
So you feel retailers should be permitted to refuse entry to black people simply because they're involved in an inordinate amount of property theft? This is where the "private property" thing loses steam.
~ Blue Jays ~
No, actually, you can thank the "living constitution" of dumb leftists who have no problem banning prayer at school graduations, smoking in restaurants, gun ownership, but can find nothing reasonable about wanting to pat people down who are entering a tightly packed arena when we're at war with fanatics.
Discriminating on the basis of skin color is unpopular, but it is part of that "freedom of association" thing. So yes, I do believe you should be free do be a dick if you want to be.
What are the limits on the use of private property? Who should set them? Where does it stop and why should it stop where you say it should stop?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.