NFL at it again, new bag policy (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

In terms of the idea of individual freedom, there is nothing being legally violated here. You are an individual person who by buying an individual ticket to a presentation put on by an independant organization. When a person goes to a game, he or she is entering into a contract with the organization. If a person does not like the restrictions that the entity is placing on seeing the presentation, that person simply does not agree to the terms..i.e. not show up to the games.

Don't confuse the fact that 70,000 other people are in attendence make it public or "government" event or even more dicey the fact the many if not most of the stadiums have some (if not all) amount of tax payer funding still does not mean that the party putting on the event, "the NFL," does not have the right to restrict your behavior at the event.

There is no true violation of individual freedoms, just people who need to figure out what's more important (short or long term) the ability to carry a reasonable sized backpack into a football stadium or the enjoyment of being at the stadium that openly tells individuals to only bring keys, ID and a ticket to the event(slight exaggeration).

I think this line of reasoning is flawed. OK, there are no constitutional rights being violated here, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that these restrictions represent an impingement on the more amorphous concept of liberty.

We are giving over more and more control of the operation of the country to corporations. By our laws, those corporations are not bound to provide constitutional rights, so every time we sign a contract (and purchasing a ticket is signing a contract) we are handing over some of our liberty. Part of the job of the government is to "promote the general welfare and insure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our [children]". That's more than a control on the power of government; it's also a mandate towards the use of that power for the public good, including placing restrictions on what clauses corporations can put into a contract.

Does this fall into the "there oughta be a law" category? Maybe not. But the restriction on liberty is a valid concern. Here's a definition:

liberty: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint

c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

e : the power of choice

Liberty can be restricted by governmental or corporate actors.

 

[Thunderlips]

In the end, the NFL has a right to determine what you are allowed to take into the game. If you don't like it. Give up your tickets....I'll be glad to take them off of your hands.

 

[bostonfred]

Somehow this went from people needing hemmorhoid cushions to nazi germany.

 

[ducktales]

In the end, the NFL has a right to determine what you are allowed to take into the game. If you don't like it. Give up your tickets....I'll be glad to take them off of your hands.

who is saying they don't ? We also have the right to complain about it and not go if they still decide to go through with it despite our objections. Only a fool wouldn't object to this and support an organization that is willing to take away your liberty for $$

 

[Thunderlips]

In the end, the NFL has a right to determine what you are allowed to take into the game. If you don't like it. Give up your tickets....I'll be glad to take them off of your hands.

who is saying they don't ? We also have the right to complain about it and not go if they still decide to go through with it despite our objections. Only a fool wouldn't object to this and support an organization that is willing to take away your liberty for $$

If they have the right to do so ( as you claim) then how is it about "taking liberty away".? Would my liberty be took away if WAL-MART prevented me from setting up a table in front of their store, on their property to sell yard sale stuff? Is my liberty taken away because my movie theater won't let me bring in a case of beer and a hoagie?

 

[ducktales]

In the end, the NFL has a right to determine what you are allowed to take into the game. If you don't like it. Give up your tickets....I'll be glad to take them off of your hands.

who is saying they don't ? We also have the right to complain about it and not go if they still decide to go through with it despite our objections. Only a fool wouldn't object to this and support an organization that is willing to take away your liberty for $$

If they have the right to do so ( as you claim) then how is it about "taking liberty away".? Would my liberty be took away if WAL-MART prevented me from setting up a table in front of their store, on their property to sell yard sale stuff? Is my liberty taken away because my movie theater won't let me bring in a case of beer and a hoagie?

As one guy posted the definition before --I dont think you read it-- I'll post it again

liberty: the quality or state of being free:

a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint

c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

e : the power of choice

 

[Donny Loved Bowling]

It's not a blatant money grab until the NFL puts out a line of officially licensed "gameday satchels" in every team's colors, advertising them as "stadium compliant," allowing every fan to "fight terrorism in style."

Coming soon to a store near you!

 

[Leonidas]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

BUT, in my opinion, only brainwashed sheep believe that it will make the stadium safe. As a concept what is happening is the same thing as actual assaults on Liberty by government and it seems clear to me (and apparently to others) that the people who are voicing support for this policy are most likely the same people who support the government's policies that infringe upon Liberty in the name of safety.

 

[CalBear]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

 

[squistion]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

What if it were transvestite Mennonite midgets?

What does discrimination that is unlawful in most states (in the case of gender or ethnicity) for a business that is open to the public have to do with this change in policy? I don't believe that people who bring backpacks into stadium events are considered a protected minority class under any laws or statutes.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

 

[msommer]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

Let's worry about that when it is on the table instead of letting everything be on the slippery slope

 

[ex-ghost]

It's not a blatant money grab until the NFL puts out a line of officially licensed "gameday satchels" in every team's colors, advertising them as "stadium compliant," allowing every fan to "fight terrorism in style."Coming soon to a store near you!

Close, without the fighting terrorism in style part:

Official NFL team logo clear plastic tote bags are available through club merchandise outlets or at nflshop.com

 

[CalBear]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

What if it were transvestite Mennonite midgets?

What does discrimination that is unlawful in most states (in the case of gender or ethnicity) for a business that is open to the public have to do with this change in policy? I don't believe that people who bring backpacks into stadium events are considered a protected minority class under any laws or statutes.

It used to be legal to deny access to blacks, or to force them to use different facilities. Was that not a limitation on their liberty? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

 

[squistion]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

What if it were transvestite Mennonite midgets?

What does discrimination that is unlawful in most states (in the case of gender or ethnicity) for a business that is open to the public have to do with this change in policy? I don't believe that people who bring backpacks into stadium events are considered a protected minority class under any laws or statutes.

It used to be legal to deny access to blacks, or to force them to use different facilities. Was that not a limitation on their liberty? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the change in policy that we are talking about here. It is an absurd leap to compare a private business that prevents people from bringing a backpack into a stadium with institutionalized segregation and discrimination against a racial minority. As Leonidas noted above, this is not a liberty issue.

 

[coolnerd]

In terms of the idea of individual freedom, there is nothing being legally violated here. You are an individual person who by buying an individual ticket to a presentation put on by an independant organization. When a person goes to a game, he or she is entering into a contract with the organization. If a person does not like the restrictions that the entity is placing on seeing the presentation, that person simply does not agree to the terms..i.e. not show up to the games.

Don't confuse the fact that 70,000 other people are in attendence make it public or "government" event or even more dicey the fact the many if not most of the stadiums have some (if not all) amount of tax payer funding still does not mean that the party putting on the event, "the NFL," does not have the right to restrict your behavior at the event.

There is no true violation of individual freedoms, just people who need to figure out what's more important (short or long term) the ability to carry a reasonable sized backpack into a football stadium or the enjoyment of being at the stadium that openly tells individuals to only bring keys, ID and a ticket to the event(slight exaggeration).

I think this line of reasoning is flawed. OK, there are no constitutional rights being violated here, but I think it's reasonable to suggest that these restrictions represent an impingement on the more amorphous concept of liberty.

We are giving over more and more control of the operation of the country to corporations. By our laws, those corporations are not bound to provide constitutional rights, so every time we sign a contract (and purchasing a ticket is signing a contract) we are handing over some of our liberty. Part of the job of the government is to "promote the general welfare and insure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our [children]". That's more than a control on the power of government; it's also a mandate towards the use of that power for the public good, including placing restrictions on what clauses corporations can put into a contract.

Does this fall into the "there oughta be a law" category? Maybe not. But the restriction on liberty is a valid concern. Here's a definition:

liberty: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint

c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control

d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

e : the power of choice

Liberty can be restricted by governmental or corporate actors.

It is the practical way to think about it. We only have the illusions of true liberty (which you nicely defined) in this country. I can choose to avoid places with poliies that make my lack of liberty more apparent, but i am usually only taking my business elsewhere or in this case not enjoying an event that I would have otherwise.

 

[MAC_32]

Good for the NFL and its fans. No one should be worried about safety when going to a sporting event.

took way too long for this post to be made.

so you weren't safe before? The backpacks and etc weren't inspected before?

i believe in picking and choosing my battles. This is not a fight I wish to pick. If you feel like your civil liberties are being violated then stay home and watch.

 

[Gawain]

Good for the NFL and its fans. No one should be worried about safety when going to a sporting event.

took way too long for this post to be made.

so you weren't safe before? The backpacks and etc weren't inspected before?

i believe in picking and choosing my battles. This is not a fight I wish to pick. If you feel like your civil liberties are being violated then stay home and watch.

First they came for the fanny packs and I did not speak up because I did not wear a fanny pack.

Then they came for the flasks and I did not speak up because I did not drink from a flask.

Then they came for the seat cushions and I did not speak up because my bottom has natural insulation.

And then they came for MAC-32 and there was no one left to speak for him.

 

[Tool]

I thought all stadiums had these rules already. I live in Boston and am pretty sure all these rules are already in place.

 

[CalBear]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

What if it were transvestite Mennonite midgets?

What does discrimination that is unlawful in most states (in the case of gender or ethnicity) for a business that is open to the public have to do with this change in policy? I don't believe that people who bring backpacks into stadium events are considered a protected minority class under any laws or statutes.

It used to be legal to deny access to blacks, or to force them to use different facilities. Was that not a limitation on their liberty? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the change in policy that we are talking about here. It is an absurd leap to compare a private business that prevents people from bringing a backpack into a stadium with institutionalized segregation and discrimination against a racial minority. As Leonidas noted above, this is not a liberty issue.

Of course it has something to do with it. The argument you're making is that it's legal for a corporation to place arbitrary restrictions on what you can bring in, therefore it's not a restriction on liberty. That's a fallacious argument. By any reasonable definition of the term, being required to put your stuff in clear plastic is a restriction on liberty. "You can choose not to go to a football game" is about as strong an argument as "gays can marry, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex."

 

[ghostguy123]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

What if it were transvestite Mennonite midgets?

What does discrimination that is unlawful in most states (in the case of gender or ethnicity) for a business that is open to the public have to do with this change in policy? I don't believe that people who bring backpacks into stadium events are considered a protected minority class under any laws or statutes.

It used to be legal to deny access to blacks, or to force them to use different facilities. Was that not a limitation on their liberty? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the change in policy that we are talking about here. It is an absurd leap to compare a private business that prevents people from bringing a backpack into a stadium with institutionalized segregation and discrimination against a racial minority. As Leonidas noted above, this is not a liberty issue.

Of course it has something to do with it. The argument you're making is that it's legal for a corporation to place arbitrary restrictions on what you can bring in, therefore it's not a restriction on liberty. That's a fallacious argument. By any reasonable definition of the term, being required to put your stuff in clear plastic is a restriction on liberty. "You can choose not to go to a football game" is about as strong an argument as "gays can marry, they just need to marry someone of the opposite sex."

I could see them banning really fat guys from getting in. I mean, you ever sit next to a real fat guy?? Or have two fat guys on your left and right?? I would say that impedes my ability to do a lot of things, in which case according to you, it a direct violation of my liberty to 1) move as I please. 2) it restrains me, 3) I don't have a choice to sit somewhere else, 4) I can't enjoy the event.

In case you didn't catch my sarcasm.....I don't think this is any kind of violation of liberty at all. In this thread I see comparisons to black people not having rights and gay marriage..............um...................take it to the extreme much???

Does the NFL hope to make some extra money by making more restrictions on what you can bring in, and making it harder to sneak stuff in??? Of course they are. More power to them for it. Not to mention their ARE actual safety issues, though I think that's just a very small part of it.

Does it make it slightly more annoying for some people?? I guess so, but it also will probably make lines move faster which is a plus. Most people I know who go to games will not be affected in any kind of negative way by this since nobody I know brings bags, computers, satchels, fanny packs, or whatever other kinds of luggage or whatever they are restricting. Keys, wallet, phone..........move along sir.

But if you want to say this is a violation of your liberty, well, then pretty much every rule/policy in the world is a violation of your liberty, especially if you want to go by the definition of liberty as "the power to do as one pleases".

All this means is it's harder to sneak in stuff that they don't allow.

 

[Phenix]

If you buy tickets for any NFL game after the Lockout anyways, you are foolish.

If you pay all that money to go to the game to sit around drunk people who act childish while paying $10 for a beer and dog, $20 for a shirt that would be $5 at WalMart and thats after paying $15 to park and walk a mile to get to the stadium. Do you really care if you have to buy a clear bag for $10 (Thats a guess on the low end?) After all you were already had by the system when you dropped money for a game you can see at home or over a $3 beer at Buffalo Wild Wings, with replays and better coverage.

 

[Mario Kart]

You mad, bro? How is this infringing on your essential liberties? I want to carry a gun but I cannot carry a gun in most public places, i.e. stores, stadiums, parks. I want to smoke in a building yet I cannot due to health concerns for others.

Where the hell do you live that you can't carry a gun in stores or parks?

I'm fairly well versed in the various states' carry laws and I cannot figure out where you are referring to.

Um, most, if not all states, allow the business owner to put a sign in the window that guns are not allowed on their premises, even if the person has a concealed carry license. Also, most, if not all, government buildings are the same way. Carry your gun all you want but when you cross the boundary of someone's business, your concealed carry license stops.

 

[massraider]

Grrr, this makes me so angry, that I am going to do absolutely nothing about it.

 

[KellysHeroes]

It's not a blatant money grab until the NFL puts out a line of officially licensed "gameday satchels" in every team's colors, advertising them as "stadium compliant," allowing every fan to "fight terrorism in style."Coming soon to a store near you!

read link in OP, they did that

 

[gianmarco]

This is the last year I'm doing fantasy football as I'm officially protesting the NFL and their dumb policies.

see you next year

 

[Pipes]

If you buy tickets for any NFL game after the Lockout anyways, you are foolish. If you pay all that money to go to the game to sit around drunk people who act childish while paying $10 for a beer and dog, $20 for a shirt that would be $5 at WalMart and thats after paying $15 to park and walk a mile to get to the stadium. Do you really care if you have to buy a clear bag for $10 (Thats a guess on the low end?) After all you were already had by the system when you dropped money for a game you can see at home or over a $3 beer at Buffalo Wild Wings, with replays and better coverage.

Disagree. Some places like GB and Pitt, just to name a couple, have great game day atmospheres that just can't be replicated at home. It's definitely an expensive day but once or twice a year is worth it.

 

[ratbast]

The Nazi references are so ignorant you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Grandma wont let you wear your shoes in the house. Concerts wont let you bring a knife. Stadiums wont let you bring backpacks.

If people stopped going to the movies because their popcorn is too expensive, they may lower the price. Grandma may let you wear your shoes if you and your sisters never visited. And if you feel a backpack should come with you into the stadium, well don't buy a ticket until they change the policy. Then again you may never go to the movies, grandma's house or a stadium again.

I for one don't want backpacks anywhere near me at a stadium event. The finish line of the Boston Marathon was bombed folks, the people involved with these events are going to do everything they can to not let that happen. Do you suggest they do nothing? Vote differently? Get real.

 

[ratbast]

They are also making money off of their televised events as well so if you are protesting you cant actually watch. Just like if you opposed cellphones but your land line was Verizon, heck that wasn't very smart, was it?

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

They are also making money off of their televised events as well so if you are protesting you cant actually watch. Just like if you opposed cellphones but your land line was Verizon, heck that wasn't very smart, was it?

Not really a direct correlation. The NFL makes a lot more from you taking your family to the game than they do from you watching on broadcast TV or even the Ticket.

 

[Leonidas]

No, this is not a Liberty issue. As mentioned it is (more or less) a private business deciding what rules will be in place on their property. They have every right to say you can't bring a bag or full size purse or backpack or whatever, and we have every right to say **** you, and refuse to go.

What if they decided that, since terrorists are almost always male, they were going to ban men from the stadiums? Would that be a liberty issue? What if it were Arab-looking men? What if it were fat guys?

Personally I think they should be able to do that. I realize it is illegal, and I realize that what you are presenting here is a pretty solid red herring. But, well, I think they should be able to do that if they want. This is for entirely PRIVATE people/companies, though. So this actually might not apply to NFL stadiums. If public funds were used to, say, help build the stadium...this is all a no-go

 

[ducktales]

Good for the NFL and its fans. No one should be worried about safety when going to a sporting event.

took way too long for this post to be made.

so you weren't safe before? The backpacks and etc weren't inspected before?

i believe in picking and choosing my battles. This is not a fight I wish to pick. If you feel like your civil liberties are being violated then stay home and watch.

Being apathetic is what allows corporations/government to abuse us –“for our own good”--. Being able to look around –evaluate and think--, is what separates us from farm animals –who sits around getting fatter and better for the slaughter--. When we become apathetic/ignorant or complacent as they are --farm animals-- that will only motivate them to do more fleecing flocking from whoever happens to be in charge at the time – HINT it will never be someone looking out for our interests, because cowards are manipulated by fear--.

Think about it, in the last ten years how many deaths have we suffered on our homeland --very few, and very few before we had all these invasive laws--? Now think about how many deaths veterans have had in past wars to obtain freedom? We are going to give up all these freedoms in the name of safety? Whoever is fine with that is a disgrace to anyone that ever shed blood in the name of freedom, cowards.

 

[squistion]

The Nazi references are so ignorant you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Grandma wont let you wear your shoes in the house. Concerts wont let you bring a knife. Stadiums wont let you bring backpacks.

If people stopped going to the movies because their popcorn is too expensive, they may lower the price. Grandma may let you wear your shoes if you and your sisters never visited. And if you feel a backpack should come with you into the stadium, well don't buy a ticket until they change the policy. Then again you may never go to the movies, grandma's house or a stadium again.

I for one don't want backpacks anywhere near me at a stadium event. The finish line of the Boston Marathon was bombed folks, the people involved with these events are going to do everything they can to not let that happen. Do you suggest they do nothing? Vote differently? Get real.

I think you're the ignorant one

"Never forget that everything hitler did in Germany was legal" - Martin Luther King

Um...yes...after essentially making himself dictator and then making/remaking the laws as dictator, so that nothing that he did was illegal.

And I doubt that the Holocaust was legal, but since most of the executions happened outside of Germany you may be technically correct/

A most brilliant analogy to the NFL prohibiting people from bringing in backpacks to stadiums. Keep up the good work.

 

[johnb]

I don't necessarily think this will help safety but I think it's a shame that people can't go watch the end of the Boston Marathon safely either.

But some of you are taking this over the top. Imagine the following:

You go to an amusement park with paddleboats. They own the land, a large number of people use it, and in order to rent a boat, they ask that you wear a lifevest. It's to make the activity safer and probably reduce their liability. You may feel that you are an adult and that you can swim and falling into a small body of water isn't going to cause you to drown. But it's rule. If you break it, you probably won't be throw in jail but you may be asked to leave or never come back. It's not your right or liberty to not wear a lifevest. It's a rule for a certain activity in a certain place that certainly isn't under your jurisdiction, control, or legal authority.

The purse in a stadium conundrum will never make it to the Supreme Court. Absolutely ridiculous this is being compared to some of the civil rights problems this country has faced. You can leave the Gucci or Prada at home, but you can't change the color of your skin.

Get a grip.

 

[ratbast]

They are also making money off of their televised events as well so if you are protesting you cant actually watch. Just like if you opposed cellphones but your land line was Verizon, heck that wasn't very smart, was it?

Not really a direct correlation. The NFL makes a lot more from you taking your family to the game than they do from you watching on broadcast TV or even the Ticket.

Sure it is a direct correlation. Both are money makers for the NFL and I am not sure you are even correct. The Krafts make more money on the Patriots live events but the NFL probably brings in more money on all other facets. The point is staying home isnt going to do anything, because you are still buying the product and people without seat cushion issues will still go to the game.

 

[Thunderlips]

They are also making money off of their televised events as well so if you are protesting you cant actually watch. Just like if you opposed cellphones but your land line was Verizon, heck that wasn't very smart, was it?

Not really a direct correlation. The NFL makes a lot more from you taking your family to the game than they do from you watching on broadcast TV or even the Ticket.

Heh?

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

 

[Leonidas]

I don't necessarily think this will help safety but I think it's a shame that people can't go watch the end of the Boston Marathon safely either.

But some of you are taking this over the top. Imagine the following:

You go to an amusement park with paddleboats. They own the land, a large number of people use it, and in order to rent a boat, they ask that you wear a lifevest. It's to make the activity safer and probably reduce their liability. You may feel that you are an adult and that you can swim and falling into a small body of water isn't going to cause you to drown. But it's rule. If you break it, you probably won't be throw in jail but you may be asked to leave or never come back. It's not your right or liberty to not wear a lifevest. It's a rule for a certain activity in a certain place that certainly isn't under your jurisdiction, control, or legal authority.

The purse in a stadium conundrum will never make it to the Supreme Court. Absolutely ridiculous this is being compared to some of the civil rights problems this country has faced. You can leave the Gucci or Prada at home, but you can't change the color of your skin.

Get a grip.

The fact that you are using so much puffery in your post, such as "leave the Gucci or Prada at home", indicates that you are not very confident in your position or your points.

 

[johnb]

I don't necessarily think this will help safety but I think it's a shame that people can't go watch the end of the Boston Marathon safely either.

But some of you are taking this over the top. Imagine the following:

You go to an amusement park with paddleboats. They own the land, a large number of people use it, and in order to rent a boat, they ask that you wear a lifevest. It's to make the activity safer and probably reduce their liability. You may feel that you are an adult and that you can swim and falling into a small body of water isn't going to cause you to drown. But it's rule. If you break it, you probably won't be throw in jail but you may be asked to leave or never come back. It's not your right or liberty to not wear a lifevest. It's a rule for a certain activity in a certain place that certainly isn't under your jurisdiction, control, or legal authority.

The purse in a stadium conundrum will never make it to the Supreme Court. Absolutely ridiculous this is being compared to some of the civil rights problems this country has faced. You can leave the Gucci or Prada at home, but you can't change the color of your skin.

Get a grip.

The fact that you are using so much puffery in your post, such as "leave the Gucci or Prada at home", indicates that you are not very confident in your position or your points.

Yes. It couldn't possibly be because I'm disgusted by the fact that carrying a purse into an NFL game is being stacked up against segregation.

I'm extremely confident that if you took this to a judge, they would laugh you out of the room. But much beyond that, I find it so entirely insensitive and disrespectful of people to take items that have shaped our nation and that people have died for and try to compare it to carrying a personal item into a sporting event.

 

[Leonidas]

I don't necessarily think this will help safety but I think it's a shame that people can't go watch the end of the Boston Marathon safely either.

But some of you are taking this over the top. Imagine the following:

You go to an amusement park with paddleboats. They own the land, a large number of people use it, and in order to rent a boat, they ask that you wear a lifevest. It's to make the activity safer and probably reduce their liability. You may feel that you are an adult and that you can swim and falling into a small body of water isn't going to cause you to drown. But it's rule. If you break it, you probably won't be throw in jail but you may be asked to leave or never come back. It's not your right or liberty to not wear a lifevest. It's a rule for a certain activity in a certain place that certainly isn't under your jurisdiction, control, or legal authority.

The purse in a stadium conundrum will never make it to the Supreme Court. Absolutely ridiculous this is being compared to some of the civil rights problems this country has faced. You can leave the Gucci or Prada at home, but you can't change the color of your skin.

Get a grip.

The fact that you are using so much puffery in your post, such as "leave the Gucci or Prada at home", indicates that you are not very confident in your position or your points.

Yes. It couldn't possibly be because I'm disgusted by the fact that carrying a purse into an NFL game is being stacked up against segregation.

I'm extremely confident that if you took this to a judge, they would laugh you out of the room. But much beyond that, I find it so entirely insensitive and disrespectful of people to take items that have shaped our nation and that people have died for and try to compare it to carrying a personal item into a sporting event.

Because purses are the only item affected by this policy.

 

[johnb]

I don't necessarily think this will help safety but I think it's a shame that people can't go watch the end of the Boston Marathon safely either.

But some of you are taking this over the top. Imagine the following:

You go to an amusement park with paddleboats. They own the land, a large number of people use it, and in order to rent a boat, they ask that you wear a lifevest. It's to make the activity safer and probably reduce their liability. You may feel that you are an adult and that you can swim and falling into a small body of water isn't going to cause you to drown. But it's rule. If you break it, you probably won't be throw in jail but you may be asked to leave or never come back. It's not your right or liberty to not wear a lifevest. It's a rule for a certain activity in a certain place that certainly isn't under your jurisdiction, control, or legal authority.

The purse in a stadium conundrum will never make it to the Supreme Court. Absolutely ridiculous this is being compared to some of the civil rights problems this country has faced. You can leave the Gucci or Prada at home, but you can't change the color of your skin.

Get a grip.

The fact that you are using so much puffery in your post, such as "leave the Gucci or Prada at home", indicates that you are not very confident in your position or your points.

Yes. It couldn't possibly be because I'm disgusted by the fact that carrying a purse into an NFL game is being stacked up against segregation.

I'm extremely confident that if you took this to a judge, they would laugh you out of the room. But much beyond that, I find it so entirely insensitive and disrespectful of people to take items that have shaped our nation and that people have died for and try to compare it to carrying a personal item into a sporting event.

Because purses are the only item affected by this policy.

Who cares? It's one example. Also, you yourself stated this isn't a liberty issue, i.e. we agree on the point I'm making.

It doesn't change anything whether you are talking about a purse or a camera bag. It's a private entity providing a service. They can enforce rules as they please. Consumers have the choice not to show up so ANY of their personal items are unfairly judged by a security guard.

 

[ghostguy123]

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. Very true.

However, just because some if you don't like it and don't think its right......doesn't mean it isn't right.

 

[Mario Kart]

Look, if you are going to say dumb things at least be polite, but if you're going to be rude laced with idiocy expect to be called dumb every time.

Now if you cry after this expect to be called a cry baby.

If you can't handle this perhaps you should get off the internet and join a feminist book club --god knows you need to read more--

Look in a mirror, dude.

"You can't bring a bag into our stadium anymore."

[ducktales] This is insane, you are taking my liberties away, this is racism, I'm going to sue, we're going to the Supreme Court, you will pay NFL, you are a terrible organization, security vs. liberty, people of the United States, we are losing our freedoms because we cannot bring a bag into their stadium, I say revolt, this is what happened with Hitler's Germany, four legs bad, two legs good. [/ducktales]

Grow up.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

They are also making money off of their televised events as well so if you are protesting you cant actually watch. Just like if you opposed cellphones but your land line was Verizon, heck that wasn't very smart, was it?

Not really a direct correlation. The NFL makes a lot more from you taking your family to the game than they do from you watching on broadcast TV or even the Ticket.

Heh?

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

Not sure what your point is.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

They are also making money off of their televised events as well so if you are protesting you cant actually watch. Just like if you opposed cellphones but your land line was Verizon, heck that wasn't very smart, was it?

Not really a direct correlation. The NFL makes a lot more from you taking your family to the game than they do from you watching on broadcast TV or even the Ticket.

Sure it is a direct correlation. Both are money makers for the NFL and I am not sure you are even correct. The Krafts make more money on the Patriots live events but the NFL probably brings in more money on all other facets. The point is staying home isnt going to do anything, because you are still buying the product and people without seat cushion issues will still go to the game.

The NFL is its franchises.I don't think the difference between whether the teams playing are getting money from the gate or from revenue sharing through the league is significant to my point. More money goes to the NFL from a fan that attends the game than from a fan that stays home.

And there is no guarantee that another fan will go. Attendance dropped every year from 2008 to 2011. 2012 was a slight improvement from 2011, but still lower than the NFL used to draw. It has been a big concern for the league which is why Goodell has been trying to improve the stadium experience by doing things like insisting every stadium has wifi and that they all show all the replays available to fans at home.

IMO, not allowing seat cushions is a step in the opposite direction.

 

[ghostguy123]

The NFL is its franchises.I don't think the difference between whether the teams playing are getting money from the gate or from revenue sharing through the league is significant to my point. More money goes to the NFL from a fan that attends the game than from a fan that stays home.

And there is no guarantee that another fan will go. Attendance dropped every year from 2008 to 2011. 2012 was a slight improvement from 2011, but still lower than the NFL used to draw. It has been a big concern for the league which is why Goodell has been trying to improve the stadium experience by doing things like insisting every stadium has wifi and that they all show all the replays available to fans at home.

IMO, not allowing seat cushions is a step in the opposite direction.

I dont think the NFL cares at all about "fan experience". They care about making money. The only reason they would try and improve the fan experience is if they thought it would make them more money, so if they actually do try and improve your experience at the game, the only reason they are doing it is to make more money.

I really have no problem with that.

Also, not that I am trying to imply anything here, just a simple question to ask people....................what on earth do you bring in a backpack to a football game?? I mean, what items do you need to bring that have to be placed inside of a backpack for a 3 hour game?? Is this even an actual issue?? Or are people jsut complaining because of some perceived "rights" being violated?? Just wondering.

Long live liberty

 

[Thunderlips]

They are also making money off of their televised events as well so if you are protesting you cant actually watch. Just like if you opposed cellphones but your land line was Verizon, heck that wasn't very smart, was it?

Not really a direct correlation. The NFL makes a lot more from you taking your family to the game than they do from you watching on broadcast TV or even the Ticket.

Heh?

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html

Not sure what your point is.

The point is is that 2/3 of the revenue comes from TV...not from the gate. The NFL might be the only sport in the world where it could be played in an empty stadium and still be as financially successful.

 

[ducktales]

Look, if you are going to say dumb things at least be polite, but if you're going to be rude laced with idiocy expect to be called dumb every time.

Now if you cry after this expect to be called a cry baby.

If you can't handle this perhaps you should get off the internet and join a feminist book club --god knows you need to read more--

Look in a mirror, dude.

"You can't bring a bag into our stadium anymore."

[ducktales] This is insane, you are taking my liberties away, this is racism, I'm going to sue, we're going to the Supreme Court, you will pay NFL, you are a terrible organization, security vs. liberty, people of the United States, we are losing our freedoms because we cannot bring a bag into their stadium, I say revolt, this is what happened with Hitler's Germany, four legs bad, two legs good. [/ducktales]

Grow up.

classic straw man fallacy, only used by the desperate and only works on the squistions of the world

 

[MAC_32]

Some people just like to complain for the sake of complaining.

 

[ducktales]

Some people like to wear a blindfold over their eyes that says fight terrorism

 

[Jason Wood]

As a long time season ticket holder, this rule doesn't bother me at all. We tail gate and never bring stuff into the game. No skin of my back, and if it increases the speed with which we can get into the stadium, I'm all for it..