Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2017, 03:56 PM
 
60 posts, read 41,247 times
Reputation: 119

Advertisements

Seeing that the Red Sox are a private organization(even though the lines are blurred as Im sure their stadium was tax funded), what would your next course of action be. A person was just banned for life from the stadium for using the N word. I actually agree with that, if I had a private company I would do the same. However, at this point I would ban anybody, anytime that used the N word in he park. Strict 100 percent enforcement, no tolerance. So on what grounds will the Red Sox justify selectively banning some who do use the word and some that dont? Is that not discrimination in and of itself?






https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/re...031206853.html

 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:01 PM
 
6,617 posts, read 5,014,844 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibiscusharry View Post
Seeing that the Red Sox are a private organization(even though the lines are blurred as Im sure their stadium was tax funded), what would your next course of action be. A person was just banned for life from the stadium for using the N word. I actually agree with that, if I had a private company I would do the same. However, at this point I would ban anybody, anytime that used the N word in he park. Strict 100 percent enforcement, no tolerance. So on what grounds will the Red Sox justify selectively banning some who do use the word and some that dont? Is that not discrimination in and of itself?



https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/re...031206853.html
The n word directed at a performer. He didn't just walk by a security guard and said the n word to a passerby. kinda different.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:35 PM
 
9,889 posts, read 7,223,915 times
Reputation: 11479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibiscusharry View Post
Seeing that the Red Sox are a private organization(even though the lines are blurred as Im sure their stadium was tax funded), what would your next course of action be. A person was just banned for life from the stadium for using the N word. I actually agree with that, if I had a private company I would do the same. However, at this point I would ban anybody, anytime that used the N word in he park. Strict 100 percent enforcement, no tolerance. So on what grounds will the Red Sox justify selectively banning some who do use the word and some that dont? Is that not discrimination in and of itself?

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/re...031206853.html
They don't selectively ban - it applies to everyone equally.

By the way, Fenway Park was not tax funded. It's 105 years old - no such thing as tax funded sports facilities back then.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
30,392 posts, read 19,184,321 times
Reputation: 26297
You can't openly violate the Liberal Fascist PC code in Boston and not be called out for a public flogging.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:38 PM
 
45,237 posts, read 26,470,793 times
Reputation: 24997
On private property it should be the call of ownership to set terms of admittance, but I think stadiums built with tax money should be treated as public property. Having said that, the Red Sox should have no authority to evict anyone. If they want control they should build their own stadium on private property.
Also, why did the Red Sox organization apologize, when no one representing it used the word and what the race of the person who used the verboten word?
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,317 posts, read 26,236,916 times
Reputation: 15654
Ex Knick Charles Oakley was banned from MSG for less, stadiums have banned people in the past but pretty tough to do that for someone that just attends a few games.


Was this a season ticket holder?


The European soccer fans are much worse the way they treat minorities, particularly England.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:41 PM
 
6,617 posts, read 5,014,844 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
On private property it should be the call of ownership to set terms of admittance, but I think stadiums built with tax money should be treated as public property. Having said that, the Red Sox should have no authority to evict anyone. If they want control they should build their own stadium on private property.
Also, why did the Red Sox organization apologize, when no one representing it used the word and what the race of the person who used the verboten word?
They signed a lease with the city which allows them to operate the park at their discretion, do think they are squatting?
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:47 PM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,775 posts, read 18,840,914 times
Reputation: 22625
Let's face it, the guy was a moron. If he just would have adjusted his tongue a bit and reshaped his mouth, he could have said "cracker" and nobody would have given it a second thought. Sooner or later, you have to learn how to control your mouth. Thought is still free at this point, but speech is not.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:48 PM
 
24,421 posts, read 23,084,509 times
Reputation: 15029
Bostonians may be racists, but at least they aren't homophobes. The Patriots prove that.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 04:51 PM
 
4,800 posts, read 3,511,878 times
Reputation: 2301
Its a word. organization needs to decide if one word is bad, than they all are.. Cursing is cursing. Calling someone a name is derogatory. So, state what words you can and cant say within the organization. And enforce it.
But, before real, blacks can call each other it. Whites can call each other certain words , so forth and so on..
We as a society dont hold anyone accountable, so why should they.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top