There are a ton of laws preventing this behavior by venues. Basically if you sell tickets to the public, you HAVE to let the ticket holders in, barring bad behavior at the gate or contraband. The idea that something is private means you can do whatever you want is very naive.
> if she doesn't like this policy she can start her own Christmas Spectacular show.
She can also just sue and demand hearings about licenses that further prevent this kind of behavior (i.e. public venue, hospitality, zoning, liquor, food and beverage, etc...). From a social/business standpoint, punishing lawyers for working for an opposing firm is very small minded.
Also facial recognition telling gate agents who a member of the public works for is scummy.
I was banned entry [Chicago Theater] (not formally but at the door which was weird as that I was not trying to progress in) for refusing to encase my phone in the yonder pouch. Once denied, I requested a full refund of my ticket. I don't recall having the notice when I bought the ticket and the the ticket didn't state the phone casing. (This was chris rock)
1. How much time would this take
2. How willing would attorneys be willing to persue this?
3. How many attorneys can you actually contact about this? (This deals with the entertainment industry.. they're very well funded and very aggressive.
---- Then it came down is.. is it worth reaching out to the IL Attorney General about this? I didn't because I was exhausted by then and they probably wouldn't take it up due to the complexity of the transaction.
This situation simply is: A third party holder of tickets (TM) issueing a ticket to a show venue (Chris Rock+MSG|Chicago Theater), rejecting entry to an individual (me) with a ticket, but preventing me from being able to honor the ticket (due to rules from the Chris Rock group to the venue). And the whole case involves a group v 1 conversation involving all parties except for TM.
Pissing off a mom and pop store and getting banned from that one location is one thing, but treading on the toe of an enormous corporation and being met with this just doesn't sit right with me.
It’s a gross system.
Tickets are contracts!
How can they prove this isn’t some bogus way to account for oversold seats? What if an airline did the same on oversold flights?
Then I suppose it will come down to whether the ticket terms included a clause that the purchaser/attendee was not employed by a firm involved in a lawsuit against MSGE.
Ticket master also has anti-chargeback clauses as well.
Listen, if you’re going to be a pedantic law critic, at least be iron clad.
Instead of taking to the streets (or social media) in righteous anger, I suggest considering your economic support right now, of companies that build and operate societal surveillance machinery; that build and operate companies that rely on indentured servitude; companies that build and operate private shopping areas with pleasing music and eye-catching ads while paving the living earth and hiring private snoopers. worthy of scrutiny and operating widely today in your town, no?
Legally, under established precedent, it does not, though a legal doctrine that as creations of the state through law corporations are bound by the same due process and equal protection rules that would affect all other state organs would be interesting, as would the corollary that foreign corporations, as creations of foreign states, are arms of their governments, and that their agents, including employees and domestic subsidiaries and their employees, are agents of foreign governments subject to all the rules and restrictions applicable thereto would be interesting.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that this is outside of their legal rights.
Things can be undesirable without being illegal, and just as MSG can legally punish this lawyer for distant connection to a lawsuit against them without violating the law, other people can note the behavior, criticize it, and even punish MSG for it in their business relations without violating the law.
Sure they can do this without anyone getting sued, but they can still face consequences for doing it (like people not going to see the Rockettes).
People like the OP seem to forget that legality is not the ultimate moral code.
I’m just saying people who lean on “the law is this, they are in the right” ignore a major part of society and commerce to their own detriment.
The idea that the law is just a bunch of words and your job is to advocate for them to change if it improves your life in any way is not a great guiding principle.
This is a very easy thing to say as a member of majority groups, but American (and South African and European, and...) history has shown that this attitude leads to some of the most grotesque outcomes in history.
And where does it end? Should subsidies and variable tax rates be illegal (hope you're not a member of a church or a supporter of the arts!)? Those are control mechanisms the government uses to influence behaviors.
Should federal employment be illegal? I don't think most Soldiers would risk their lives if not for the paycheck/benefits.
Is the problem only with mandates?
That's not what happened though. They sold admission to a person and then rejected it because that person works for a firm that has an open case against another company that they're conglomerated with.
It smells like retaliation to me, but I guess it will come down to what the courts decide.
It can be a good thing while we regularly and objectively evaluate a principle's worth. We humans have a history of allowing principles to obtain rigidity and the diminished outcomes that follow. We also tend to allow principle creep w/o sufficient examination.
Best of all possible outcomes.
Jim Crow laws were passed and enforced by the government. There are countless examples of businesses having no choice but to discriminate because government told them to.
The government itself determined that segregation was A-OK as long as things were "separate but equal."