Trump vs Sports

Nope. Originally Posted by grean

If fucking faggots can sue a baker for not baking a cake, a football fan can sure as hell sue a football franchise for not delivering a football game without political overtones, green weenie -- politics is not what they contracted for with the purchase of their ticket.

Dallas fan wanting suing NFL over the Bryant catch reversal has better chance. He has absolutely, no chances, by the way.

I watched the openning ceremony of last nights Packers/Bears game. As you know, Aaron Rogers had asked fans to lock arms in a show of unity.

During the Anthem, the cameras scanned all over the crowd, trying to find some fans who had followed Rogers' lead. They could' find just a few. The majority were standing at attention, with hands or hat on heart, or giving a military salute.

This is probably what the NFL is looking at more than anything. Fans don't like this. Fans pay the bills.

By the way, I just watched the openning. I turned over to re-runs of Versailles instead of watching the game.

The players have the right to protest, I have the right to change the channel.

If fucking faggots can sue a baker for not baking a cake, a football fan can sure as hell sue a football franchise for not delivering a football game without political overtones, green weenie -- politics is not what they contracted for with the purchase of their ticket. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well the former is involves constitutional rights. Football...doesn't.

Dallas fan wanting suing NFL over the Bryant catch reversal has better chance. He has absolutely, no chances, by the way. Originally Posted by grean

Each and every customer in this country has the right to sue a business if the service the business delivers doesn't match the service that was contracted for, green weenie. The customer has rights too, green weenie.

Rule 5, article 8
players are prohibited from wearing, displaying, or otherwise conveying personal messages either in writing or illustration, unless such message has been approved in advance by the League office. - I think this applies to pictures, signs and posters only ( either in writing or illustration)

The League will not grant permission for any club or player to wear, display, or otherwise convey messages, through helmet decals, arm bands, jersey patches, or other items affixed to game uniforms or equipment, which relate to political activities or causes, other non-football events, causes or campaigns, or charitable causes or campaigns. - I think this applies to the uniform and equipment only. (Through helmet decals, etc...affixed to game uniforms or equipment)

I think this is why they couldn't stop the players from kneeling. I could be wrong. That's just the way I understood it.

Each and every customer in this country has the right to sue a business if the service the business delivers doesn't match the service that was contracted for, green weenie.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Paid to see a football game. Got to see a football game. Where's the problem?

Paid to see a football game. Got to see a football game. Where's the problem? Originally Posted by grean

They in fact did pay see a football game, green weenie, not a political protest. Just like when a cop pays for a hamburger at a fast food joint. He expects to receive a hamburger that hasn't been spit on by some punk waiter that has issues with cops, green weenie.

Apples & Oranges.

Let's say it's tickets to a Charlie Daniels concert. As a bonus, another artist performs a surprise opening for Charlie. Some fans liked it others could have done without it. They all got to see Charlie perform.

Do you really see a fan getting very far in a law suit?

Apples & Oranges.

Let's say it's tickets to a Charlie Daniels concert. As a bonus, another artist performs a surprise opening for Charlie. Some fans liked it others could have done without it. They all got to see Charlie perform.

Do you really see a fan getting very far in a law suit? Originally Posted by grean

You'd be the one doing the "apples to oranges" comparison, green weenie. Charlie Daniels, and other performing artists, sell tickets to see Charlie Daniels and all of his warts -- the patron gets exactly what he pays for. Meanwhile, the NFL marketed their product as a football game -- not a political forum, green weenie.

You'd be the one doing the "apples to oranges" comparison, green weenie. Charlie Daniels, and other performing artists, sell tickets to see Charlie Daniels and all of his warts -- the patron gets exactly what he pays for. Meanwhile, the NFL marketed their product as a football game -- not a political forum, green weenie.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

They were not charged extra. The game started on time. What's the issue?

They were not charged extra. The game started on time. What's the issue? Originally Posted by grean

The issue is that player attitude wasn't part of the agreed contract when the patron purchased a ticket, green weenie. And it's no more acceptable in a football stadium than it would be from mouthy waitress with attitude in a restaurant, green weenie.

Show injury.

Show injury. Originally Posted by grean

One need only prove that player attitude and disrespect isn't part of the contracted deal, green weenie.

Well the former is involves constitutional rights. Football...doesn't. Originally Posted by grean

Is that your "legal" opinion? "No charge" I hope!

The purchase of a ticket involves a contractual transaction in which certain expectations are included and inferred in the agreement between the parties. So you buy a new Corvette for $60,000 and order a red one. They deliver you a rainbow colored corvette .. claiming the dealership has a "right" to make a "political statement!" According to your legal opinion ....

... you are SOL .. and stuck with the rainbow Vette!