1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Christian Protestors Get the Boot from Ballpark Security During Phillies Game

Discussion in 'The OT' started by HappyGoLucky, Aug 11, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    (Note: what I find amazing is that, even when the news item is being reported by a decidedly biased source, even THEY can't make it sound any better. The group was in the wrong, and now they're acting like crybabies.)

    Five members of a Philadelphia-based Christian activist group were thrown out of a Philadelphia Phillies game on Tuesday night. The group was there to protest what had been billed as "Gay Community Day" at Citizens Bank Park.

    http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/102004c.asp
     
  2. Ray_Clum

    Ray_Clum Hall Of Fame

    1,131
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    Regardless of your opinion of their statements, if the stadium is publically owned, then they were well within there rights and it is a Free Speech issue (and the ACLU will help the Christians in this matter). If the stadium is privately owned, then they should have done what the security guards wanted them to do in the first place.
     
  3. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Stadiums might be owned by the government, but they are leased by the sports franchise for their events (although many times at a price far below actual cost). Thus I imagine they are considered more on the side of private property than public forum.

    I know the courts have ruled that protest OUTSIDE a stadium are quite legal, as long as it doesn't incite a riot.

    And that brings to mind the likely defense here... the people were in effect shouting "fire" in a theater, and ejecting them was thus appropriate.
     
  4. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    This is what generally happens when unruly people try to incite others at a ball game. They are asked to leave. Sometimes they are helped to leave.
     
  5. BuckeyeChris

    BuckeyeChris Icon/Supporter

    1,127
    0
    Apr 20, 2004
    Probably the most appropriate form of protest would have been for them to protest outside the stadium and not interfere with those people who paid money to watch the game. Outside of Jacobs Field for just about every Indians game, you will find people protesting the team's use of the name Indians. They make their point, but they don't bother anyone.
     
  6. Tusk

    Tusk Back in the Game DBSTalk Gold Club

    738
    1
    Nov 14, 2002
    It was a banner, not stun guns, air horns, "paint on mink", etc. I don't see how that incited a riot. It is not like yelling "fire" in a theater because no one would panic when they read the banner. People tried to take their banner and they tried to hold on to it. Security knocked one of the people down and forced them to leave. That seems extreme to me.

    Regardless of the message, people should have a right to hold up a banner at a sports park as long as it is not vulgar or indecent.
     
  7. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The banner was designed to be "in your face." It was designed to incite a response. The protesters wanted a confrontation. Confrontations provide publicity. Although they don't seem to have gotten much since the Philadelphia Inquirer doesn't seem to have considered it "newsworthy."
     
  8. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    By law, if Security asked them to take down the banner or leave, they only have those options. There is no right to be there, they are there, regardless of paying for a ticket, at the mercy of the ticket issuer. Buying the ticket is the equivilent of signing a contract which states that.
     
  9. Paladin

    Paladin Banned User

    574
    0
    Jun 20, 2004
    If roles were reversed, I really doubt you would have the same opinion.
     
  10. JBKing

    JBKing Hall Of Fame

    1,332
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    :rolling: :thats: !rolling
     
  11. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Their banner was designed to incite, they knew that before ever going inside. Any claim they (or you) try to make to say otherwise is simply absurd. Security asked them politely to remove the banner and they refused. What happened next was their own fault and they do not have a 1st Amendment argument. Those around them should file a civil suit against them for being disruptive to the enjoyment of the game.

    If you go waving a red flag at a bull, is it the bull's fault if you get trampled? If you stand in a shark tank and cut yourself, is it the shark's fault if you are bitten?

    How about walking into a bar and begin protesting alcohol? Think you'd get to stay there long?

    Next time the Braves have a religious-themed night, should a group of athiests drape banners saying "There is no God" and threaten to sue should they be asked to leave?

    These were stupid stupid people in the wrong place making the wrong statement. They got off very easy, I think. They should have been charged with inciting a riot, disturbing the peace, and anything else that could be thought appropriate. So they don't like that the Phillies have a theme night for gay people. Boo hoo.
     
  12. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Actually, I would have the exact same opinion. The Atlanta Braves also have theme nights. I know they have several theme nights reflecting religious groups, and I would never consider protesting those, it just wouldn't be appropriate. These people at the Phillies game were wrong, they know they were wrong, and they got off easy. They have no grounds for any kind of lawsuit.
     
  13. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    If the people in this matter had an actual case, the ACLU would most definitely consider their case, as they have done in many other instances. I bet you've never gone to the ACLU website and actually looked at their archive of cases, have you? Only someone who is completely uninformed would laugh at the suggestion.

    Now, since these people have no grounds for any suit or legal action, it is unlikely the ACLU or anyone else (maybe a money-hungry attorney who doesn't care, perhaps) would take such a case.
     
  14. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    It was a banner, not stun guns, air horns, "paint on mink", etc. I don't see how that incited a riot.

    From the article, it appears they were asked to leave only after it had caused a reaction and folks were trying to tear it down. Therefore, yes, ejecting the disturbance seems warranted before a riot could start.
     
  15. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    so if a group at Disneyworld hold a sign saying "gay pride" and some families with young children try to grab the sign -- you would be in favor of disney security throwing the gay pride people out of the park?

    .... didn't think so - liberals rarely have the same zeal if its one of their special interest groups. Sort of like that school child who was called a name - it was an outrage until it was revealed the child was white and not black as the person had supposed
     
  16. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Another thought to consider: The gay community is always preaching tolerence - meaning they want to be tolerated. Perhaps they should practice what they preach and learn a little tolerance too -- and exercise a little self control in the matter. The banner had a very simple message and the ones threatening to riot are the ones at fault.
     
  17. Jason Kragt

    Jason Kragt Legend

    187
    0
    Dec 19, 2002
    So what are we being asked to tolerate? Discrimination? Hate crimes? Violence against us? Where do you draw the line?

    Come to think of it, we did tolerate those things in the past. We have since decided that we will not sacrafice our constitutional, legal and human rights in order to appease those that demonstrate hate toward us.
     
  18. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    The banner had a very simple message and the ones threatening to riot are the ones at fault.

    I'd have to agree there.

    However put it this way... suppose you are a lone black man in the middle of a KKK rally. Which group is easier to remove to prevent a lynching?

    A baseball game isn't a public forum. The security could remove anyone they thought caused a problem.

    And no, this isn't just something that happens to those who aren't politically correct. Bush for instance has had hecklers removed as well.

    http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/07/land_of_the_free_except_near_bush.html
     
  19. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Most times anyone who might possibly be a heckler isn't allowed within miles of Bush. Unlike Kerry who allows anyone to come to his rallies.
     
  20. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Most stadiums and arenas have policies against banners that are too derogatory. In Portland, we had a case where a woman was ejected from a Blazer game because she displayed a banner sayin "Fire Witsek" (the teams GM).

    When I was in college and Purdue played in the Rose Bowl against USC. We had a sign that said "Puncture the Trojans!". When the stadium management finally figured out the symbolism (and after a TV camera caught it), they made us take it down.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page