5 ms·
"It’s a dystopian, shocking act of repression" oh no won't someone think of all those poor little helpless lawyers.
by superchroma 4y ago
"It’s a dystopian, shocking act of repression"
oh no
won't someone think of all those poor little helpless lawyers.
- sarchertech 4y agoIt’s the lawyers right now. Next up it’s anyone who works for any company involved in litigation with them. Then it’s anyone who leaves a bad yelp review.
- superchroma 4y agoI already am afraid of leaving people who have wronged me bad reviews on Google and other services when they know my address. That aside, to use the classic stick reserved for complaining conservatives, it's a private company and venue and they have a right to choose who they want in there.
- sarchertech 4y agoThey may or may not be free to choose that depending on what the liquor authority says. They certainly aren’t free to deny someone they’ve already sold a ticket to without cause. A ticket is a contract. But beyond those points, we already make distinctions between private spaces and spaces open to the public that happen to be privately owned. When you invite in the public you waive some of your rights to free association. I see no reason why we can’t add further restrictions beyond the currently protected classes. If you want to build a completely privately funded members only stadium, have at it.
- superchroma 4y agoWell, the smart thing to do would be to preclude ticket sales to those individuals, but as it's contracted out I guess this is the next best way.
- sarchertech 4y agoIf they’re fine blatantly flaunting the law and violating contracts sure I guess.
- superchroma 4y agoIf they issue you a refund it should be fine tbh.
- sarchertech 4y agoThat depends on the liquor board’s interpretation of their policy. And it depends on whether the ticket holder can prove they suffered damages beyond the cost of the ticket. Or whether a group of people in a class action lawsuit can do so. At least one law firm has already successfully sued to overturn their ban.
- ww-picard-do 4y agoIs the snark necessary?
- LeonB 4y ago[flagged]
- ww-picard-do 4y agoare you saying that i'm being snarky?
- superchroma 4y agoI honestly don't see why this is newsworthy whilst the social climate still celebrates conservatives being booted off various social media sites. It's a private company doing what they want; you have no god given right to attend Madison Square Garden. As progressives snarkily tell the conservatives, if these lawyers want a arena so bad, they should make one for themselves.
- kthejoker2 4y ago> I don't see why this is newsworthy Yes you do, that's why you're posting here. As you note, it is completely of a piece with social media bans. It is obviously newsworthy because it now extends that sort of "ideological ban" to a physical space. Presumably the rights God inconveniently forgot to give us were enhanced by our rights as private citizens and taxpayers? MSG is not a members only club, there are laws about venues which are generally open to the public, and we also have civil court for contracts like buying tickets to concerts. We will see what a jury of our peers will say. But I don't think progressive snark or bad jokes about lawyers will be in the court arguments.
- ww-picard-do 4y agoIt is not at all clear what you are trying say. What does any of this have to do with ideology (conservatives vs. progressives)? She purchased a ticket to an event and was denied entrance. That is contract and the courts may agree with her.
- LeonB 4y ago“First they came for the lawyers “ (Obviously they didn’t come for the lawyers first - the lawyers were the first who were strong enough to pick a fight over it or know how to respond - it’s shrapnel holes in returned bombers)