Posted on 01/13/2014 7:19:01 PM PST by This Just In
I would pay good money to watch either the Niners or Hawks play a team of lawyers.
Since every play would be challenged it would take forever.
No, I’m describing free enterprise within a free market.
“I find it rather humorous. Seattle vs California.”
Even worse. It’s Seattle, WA, OR, MT, ID, AK, HI and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta over California.
Since when did geography become a protected class?
Technically the Constitutional protections of geography were included in the ratification of the constitution in 1789. Additional protections were added when the 14th amendment was ratified.
The only question in this case would be whether the use of the Government owned and operated stadium by the Seahawks would require that the Seahawks provide the same protections to out of state visitors that would apply if the government itself were selling the tickets.
In this case since the rights of the Seahawks are in the form of a leaseholder to the seats, any sale of tickets would be in the form of a sub lease of government property and as such, the Seahawks would be held to the same standard that would apply to the State.
Since the State could not so flagrantly discriminate against the Citizens of California, the leaseholder to State property cannot do so either.
That is utter nonsense. Absent some provision in their lease agreement requiring the Seahawks to sell to all comers, there is no requirement to do so. Private companies do not become quasi-governmental entities simply because they lease public property.
I'm shocked that Freepers would support forcing a private company to sell their product to customers the company does not want to serve. Particularly where the compnay could make a strong argument that doing so would harm the company (stadium loudness/etc. has become a significant part of the Seahawks brand).
How long have you been an attorney?
Long enough.
I take that to mean you are not an attorney.
So you are talking about the way things ought to be rather than the way they are.
True, they ought to be able to sell tickets to just the people they want to sell them to, but the reality is that they are bound by all kinds of regulations and laws due to the fact that they are selling Public access to a government owned and operated facility.
That is the reality. It sucks, but that’s the situation we live under.
“True, they ought to be able to sell tickets to just the people they want to sell them to, but the reality is that they are bound by all kinds of regulations and laws due to the fact that they are selling Public access to a government owned and operated facility.”
In today’s litigious society, I’m sure we’ll see a lawsuit if there’s the slightest validity to what you’re saying. In fact, we may well see one even if there’s no validity to your position...
Regardless, I’m betting that suit is a losing proposition for the plaintiff.
I'm sure it is a moot point in that no Californian will be able to prove they were barred from purchasing a specific ticket because all tickets were sold out in 11 minutes.
In order to prevail you would need to prove both active discrimination and damages.
Frankly I think the whole thing was just a publicity stunt to stick it to the SF Fudgepacker fans.
It will probably backfire because the FudgePackers will be psyched up to stick it to the Sea Hawks where the sun doesn't shine.
Personally I don't care about the game. I'll be spending my day entertaining my granddaughter.
Wrong. I am an attorney. Are you?
You are speaking of how you think thinks might be, rather than the way they are. You talk of “all kinds of regulations and laws” that apply (and you previously referred to provisions in the lease), yet you have not cited a single law or regulation, or contractual provision, that prohibits them from doing what they are doing.
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.