Off-day discrimination at Safeco story has legs
DMZ · May 29, 2008 at 11:00 am · Filed Under Mariners
Yup. Story of the off-day. Regardless of whether this is part of the M’s general-if-oft-unenforced anti-affection policy or they’ve got a secret no-gay policy or it’s all exaggerated, this is a really, really bad story for the M’s and they’re handling it pretty ineptly so far.
update: Lauren points out how a classier organization handled a similar problem
Comments
110 Responses to “Off-day discrimination at Safeco story has legs”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
USSM uses and recommends
I don’t understand how this is bad for the Mariners. This is just another example of how a same-sex couple feels they are being discriminated against. It just happened to occur at Safeco. But does it have anything to do with the Mariners?
(Excuse for Richie Sexson’s poor hitting was that he was distracted by two bombshell lesbians…)
1- It shows that the Mariners were discriminating against lesbians…discrimination is wrong…not good for the team…
Umm… seriously, however you feel about homosexuality, I think you would understand that having this story out there in a town with a substantial gay population is bad for the team’s image.
There’s no way, if the story in the article is true, that it’s NOT a case of discrimination. You can give your sweety a peck at the ball park if you’re hetero, without a doubt. Although it sounds like it was driven by a fan complaint, not by the staff. Basically the staff was put in a very awkward position by a fan that was uptight about two girls kissing. Tough spot, I suppose, but simply referring to the “affection” policy is B.S. Everyone knows the policy isn’t applied to heteros unless they’re practically boinking.
1 – the bias in your post is striking.
I think American Airlines had a similar incident a few years ago – IIRC correctly, the whole flight crew got into it with a gay couple and threatened to make a diversionary landing to put them off of the plane. The corporate response was almost identical to what the M’s are saying here – basically saying that it was an anti-PDA policy instead of an anti-gay policy.
I don’t know what became of it – I don’t think there were any serious repurcussions for AA (not sure if they were sued or anything like that). Not that it’s an exact proxy (different lines of business and whatnot), but I wouldn’t be surprised for this to have a similar, muted effect. It definitely tarnishes them in the public eye, but I’d be pretty surprised if they reverse their stance on this to be honest.
If they’re being singled out for an “inappropriate” public display of affection (which I’m not sure I’d say goes on “all the time” at Safeco, but I’ve seen it several times in my own personal experience and no ushers or anyone else approached the people involved) when hetero couples aren’t, then I don’t think that it’s the case that they just “feel” discriminated against.
If the policy states no PDAs, period, then it needs to be evenly enforced regardless of the genders of those involved.
The grounds for the other fan complaining is pretty laughable, too. You don’t want to have to explain it to your kid? If your child is so sheltered that they can’t handle seeing two women smooch, you shouldn’t be taking them out in public.
A security guard certainly shouldn’t be threatening to toss someone out of the stadium based on that. If I’d been that security guard, I would’ve offered to reseat the lady who had the problem with it to another section (there’s enough seats available to make that feasible, and it would’ve been a much better way to defuse the situation).
Frankly, I’d put the discrimination not on the staff, but on the mother. Were it a straight couple, I doubt the complaint would be filed just because they AREN’T filed game-in, game-out. As the rule is technically in effect, any complaint must be dealt with. The mother put the staff in an awkward situation, and now Safeco has to answer for her inability to explain that sometimes mommies love other mommies instead of daddies to her little kid. Kick her out of the stadium, I’m sure they have discrimination policies.
I saw the couple in question being interviewed on TV last night. What I found persuasive was all the pictures they took that night of male-female couples kissing all around them at the ballpark — and nobody doing anything about it.
The Mariners are busted, dead to rights. I realize forthrightness is in direction violation of organization policy, but the blustering and obfuscation on display so far from Rebecca Hale, et al, is pathetic.
See this user comment on the previous thread…
I’ll admit it’s definitely bad PR for the M’s, but it may have been blown out of proportion – I definitely wouldn’t call it a case of discrimination on their part. Just generally uneven enforcement of a generally vague rule. I feel bad for the poor usher who was getting it from both sides.
Damn, I see couples kissing all the time at Safeco. Of course, they are usually drunk collegiate heterosexuals, having a grope between taking cell phone calls.
I think the issue, #1, is that discrimination is, you know… illegal? And selective enforcement of conduct rules would fall under that category.
JerBear: Unfortunately, it’s akin to speeding. You see people do it all around you and think they’re assholes, but when you get pulled over, it’s unfair to be singled out. However, this plays into the DWB category just because there were outside influences affecting the enforcement.
The security at Safeco are often heavy handed.
Two years ago I got kicked out because I approached an elderly security guard and told him to calm down, we’re all just having fun. (He was going nuts every time people stood up, screaming at folks to sit down, really off his rocker.) He told me to sit down, so I asked him what his name was. He refused to give it to me, so I grabbed his badge and flipped it over to look at it. This put him over the edge. He shrieked “Stop hitting me!” and ran off. The entire section was shocked.
Needless to say, moments later the head of security came over with a phalanx of Seattle’s finest. Folks stood up and tried to explain that I had done nothing wrong. Security folks were all over, yelling “You wanna be next? You? You?”
To their credit, the police were very cool. They whispered to me that “Hey, we’ve got a situation here, and we just need to move you, okay? We’re sorry.” Funnily enough, the three ladies I was with were all at the bar, so the police made be take all their purses with me. Two sections away they said “You know the way out, right?” and thanked me for cooperating. I watched the rest of the game from the 100 level.
In my case I wrote a letter of complaint and the M’s responded immediately, apologizing, and checked in with me two weeks later to make sure the head of security had called and apologized. So management are aware that the security folks can be out of hand. It’s curious, no, sad that they haven’t responded appropirately to this episode.
Yeah, I’m not saying it’s not unfair – just that I definitely don’t think it’s intentional bias on the Mariner’s part. As you say, it was the influence of another fan that caused the “discrimination”. Given the situation, what’s the usher supposed to do?
Just for the record I gave my fiance a peck on the lips at yesterday’s game without incident.
I think there needs to be more making out…our offense is no fun to watch…
I don’t hold the Mariners accountable at all. Unfortunately, I’m not public opinion, and public opinion generally ignores nuances. I just hope this plays out well for them.
Not overreact to a pretty baseless fan complaint?
Alternately, like I said, the usher or whoever could have offered to reseat the person who was complaining to a different section.
“Ma’am, I apologize that this has created an uncomfortable situation for you; while the actions you’re complaining about are technically in violation of the stadium’s code of conduct, it’s not something that we can necessarily prevent from happening in a crowd of tens of thousands of people. If you feel that it’s impairing your ability to enjoy the game, I’d be happy to see if there’s an opportunity to reseat you to an equal or better seat. Would that be acceptable? Also, would your son like a baseball card?”
Honestly, I’m not sure I’d say that the Safeco employee was necessarily showing their own personal, or an organizational, bias; but it really doesn’t matter.
The way this was handled creates an APPEARANCE of bias, and that’s the part that’s problematic. People who interact so closely with the public on a daily basis need to know how to handle these things so they don’t end up in the local papers.
I’m pretty sure that Sibrina was recently kicked off of MTV’s “A Shot at Love with Tila Tequilla.” I think the bigger issue here is how the other girl she was kissing feels knowing she is just a rebound?
It gets harder and harder to even like the Ms organization.
I already hated those power tripping ushers to being with.
is there the reverse policy at Storm games?
Your typical m’s fan at the game loves to complain to ushers. I yelled out to Barry Bonds that he was a “frickin cheater” (no steroids discussion, please), and a few minutes later an usher came down to tell me that there have been “complaints that i was swearing,” and to please stop or leave.”
when I tried to explain my usage of the word “frickin” as opposed to the other word, a man two rows behind me exclaimed, “Yes you did! You said the F word!”
…
Ushers have a thankless job, I admit that, but it’s just annoying that they’re being asked to police the stadium for things like this, and the original post.
#21: TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THERE!!!
Although this is the fault I believe of both the Mariners staff and the mom who called the lesbian couple out.
It was the fault of the Mariners staff because they could’ve at least explained to the mother questioning the lesbian couple that they weren’t making out with each other or taking their kissing too far and it wasn’t the Mariners policy to target same sex couples, so because of that there was nothing the Mariners could do about it. At the very least, that Mariners employee should’ve had a better interpretation of the rule about “inappropriate signs of affection”.
And conversely, it was the fault of the mother for not being tolerant and smart enough to figure out a way to explain to her kid what was going on and why. Which makes this incident a classic example of why some parts of this country aren’t ready for gay marriage yet. Aside from the fact some people are just intolerant, other parents just can’t figure out a way to explain it to children.
And that’s all I can really say about that.
BTW: I am completely straight.
A comment on the Slog post about this pointed to the right way to handle the aftermath of this, courtesy of the Dodgers…
http://www.canoe.ca/BaseballArchive/aug23_dod.html
This is just another example of why it is less and less fun to go to a game at Safeco every day. They have gone so overboard trying to sanitize everything for the kids and the uptight people that it isn’t worth the hassle (not to mention the exorbitant costs) to go.
I am not allowed to kiss my wife, or boo loudly, or wear a t-shirt with the word “Sucks” on it, or drink more than 2 beers (like I could afford to drink many more at $8.50 per), or stand up and cheer. Maybe I could just send the Mariners a check to cover what I would have spent at the ballpark and stay the home? I am sure they would be just fine with that. They are not interested in fans having a good time. They just want my money and my obedience. Fuck them.
a caller is talking about it being a double-standard in that they have “the kiss cam” at Safeco– has any one seen that there? I think of it as just a Key Arena thing
anyone sent that to Rebecca Hale?
I was going to ask whether the Mariners do a kiss cam at Safeco.
I don’t remember ever seeing one
BTW: I am completely straight.
I live for the day when everyone feels comfortable making supportive comments without having to issue a qualifier. It’s the equivalent of “I think people of color should have equal housing rights. By the way, I’m white!”
The real loser in this whole thing is that kid, who gets to grow up in a world where people loving each other is wrong if not performed up to mom’s narrow standards.
And, pragmatically, I’m with DMZ on this one — how foolish are the M’s marketing/PR people to not recognize that they are marginalizing a rather significant part of Seattle’s population?
I’m a little disappointed. It would have been a humorously difficult situation to get out of if they did. Especially since about half the time, kiss cams stop jokingly on two guys or opposing players.
Just the other night, they had one in Anaheim and showed the Tigers’ TV announcers. It’s always funny until they have to follow with a disclaimer that explains why two men might kiss.
and unlike a number of other teams, have never hosted a Pride night
This really seems like it was caused by the happenstance collision of a couple of bigots than an organizational failing. Every time I’ve ever had/seen trouble with ushers at Safeco it has been initiated by someone’s bizarre complaint.
If there is an organizational failing here it seems to be a neglect in properly training ushers how to deal with complaints beyond threatening to throw the accused party out of the game.
Yeah, RoninX, that may well be. But can you imagine the M’s organization ever reacting in such an awesome way as the Dodgers? Maybe I’m basing this on the fact that I don’t think I’ve ever heard something that sounds that honest or sincere coming from the M’s at all, regardless of topic.
wow! I’m officially a Dodgers fan!
This is the part I blame the Mariners for.
People whose primary job is dealing with the public need to know how to defuse situations like these, not turn them into something that blows up in the newspaper.
And I agree, the Dodgers’ response was exactly how i would’ve liked to see the Mariners respond.
UNBELIEVABLE!!! The first sign of discrimination at SafeCo Stadium and it has to be because of a Lesbian couple!!! When will the Mariner Organization learn how to discriminate as well between players who can HIT and those who CAN’T?? Or between players who deserve large contracts and those who don’t (coughvidrocough)???
As for me, I’m all for a PDA Policy as long as it is evenly applied to all.
Side note: Does the M’s PDA policy also apply to players patting the behind of another player? How does a mom explain that one to a child?
Ridiculous. A peck is one thing, making out is another. In any case, there’s a policy in place. The usher was only trying to help… I mean take the PDA elsewhere…geez.
#38 That’s classic. Hilarious…
Soooo… the Dodgers tossed a lesbian couple without even an explanation, even allowing their straight friends to remain even though they’d done the same thing. Then, weeks later, they issue an apology, and THIS is supposed to be an example of a classy organization? That’s remarkable.
The couple in Seattle do not appear to have been asked to leave, merely ‘threatened’ with removal. I totally agree, that’s beyond the pale and they should probably get free tickets to another game. But how is this ‘worse’ in any sense than what the Dodgers usher did? THAT’S an even clearer example of discrimination, and the team is lucky that the victims are apparently uninterested in pursuing a case.
Regarding the so called “affection policy”, I’m reminded of baseball’s official statements (via Commisioner Landis et al) prior to Jackie Robinson that there were no blacks that were good enough to play major league baseball. Double standard that they tried to cover up with PR. Similar in some respects to what we see happening here.
Although I would have to say that Safeco has some of the rudest ushers in any baseball park (At least compared to the half a dozen major league parks and a half dozen minor league parks I have visited, not counting spring training, so I do have some reference point). So from that perspective, this doesn’t surprise me much, but the discrimination angle adds fuel to it.
I’m not sure if you didn’t see the rest of what they did or not, but essentially, the Dodgers admitted that they were in the wrong, were taking steps to ensure it didn’t happen again, and then gave out free tickets for all.
I don’t think anyone expects that every usher’s going to be perfect, or resolve these disputes well. The expectation is that an organization will enforce their rules equally, without discrimination, and seek to improve when they error.
The Dodgers said “yeah, we blew it”.
Come on Lauren, its not like the Ms have 1000s of empty seats just waiting to be filled on a nightly basis… wait a second… maybe I need to stop watching my 95 tapes every night at 7:05.
Combining all of the ideas listed a bove, I believe a simple majority vote on each case of stadium PDA could settle the matter. Each couple is featured on the big screen–more boos than cheers and they have to stop; more cheers than boos, and congratulations, you get to keep kissing.
I went to a game a few years ago with folks from the Seattle Rep (my wife worked there) and we were party to another instance where it seemed there was some discrimination.
A gay member of our party was wearing an Indians hat and let’s just say he was cheering in a manner which made his sexual orientation obvious. When drunk hicks nearby started repeatedly yelling at him ‘Cleveland F*g!’ ushers were alerted and they proceeded to remove our Cleveland cheering friend along with the instigators. They said he had to leave because they couldn’t insure his safety. Can you imagine them doing that to a heterosexual Yankee fan?
I understand that in many circumstances, it’s just easiest for ushers to remove all parties involved in an altercation since justice is hard to dish out correctly in a quick and efficient manner, but this was a case where everyone in our area (not just our group) was asking them to remove the drunk bigots and was shocked at the outcome.
Is that Dodgers story really from 2000? I think that’s even more impressive.
At the risk of being flamed to a char, does anyone (besides me) think that this might have been a publicity stunt by Sirbrina?
Was it really a peck on the cheek?
Did the mom really say that it was about not wanting to tell her son about lesbians?
All we have at this point are comments by a person who is going to be on a reality TV show.
Of course, I did not see the linked video…maybe these questions are answered there.
The real loser in this whole thing is that kid, who gets to grow up in a world where people loving each other is wrong if not performed up to mom’s narrow standards.
Um, deriding a mother merely because her standards are different than yours is just as bad as an usher threatening to eject a homosexual couple. Suppose she feels the behavior she was witnessing is morally objectionable. Are you then saying she shouldn’t be allowed to raise her own son 1) as she thinks best, and 2) in accordance with her own values and beliefs?
The blame for this incident belongs wholly to the Mariners’ organization.
PR like this is bad, regardless of where you are. Moreso here or a place like San Francisco more than others, because of the large gay population. The reason teams give to charity, send players to schools, and have that flea infested moose do corporate functions is about PR more than anything else.
You want people to think happy thoughts about your team when they are deciding how to spend their money.
What the Dodgers did was fantastic for PR. You act fast, and make the offended party feel all warm and fuzzy. The Mariners could easily afford to give away 10,000 tickets right now, with attendance down.
bv – I had sort of the same thoughts. I think she was already on the reality show, actually. I googled her, and the first thing to come up was a magazine cover she was on.
It wouldn’t be a huge shock if she was trying to extend her 15 minutes. But, regardless, the M’s should not be sitting back thinking that. Just make a good faith effort to be apologetic in front of the media.
Raising your children in accordance with your own values and beliefs is your right.
Expecting others to adhere to those values and beliefs, and adjust their behavior in a public place to suit those values and beliefs, is not.
I think that attempting to shelter your children to the degree that this mother apparently was (and I agree about the credibility concerns regarding the reality-show girl, but I’m not inclined to discount her story out of hand based on the information we have now) does them an enormous disservice, but if you want to do it in private, that’s your right.
But if you’re out in public, you’re going to see behavior that doesn’t meet your moral standards, and part of learning to become an adult is realizing and accepting that.
“The expectation is that an organization will enforce their rules equally, without discrimination, and seek to improve when they error.”
True, but we don’t yet have any evidence that the M’s aren’t doing this. I’m shocked at how the Dodgers usher behaved; the initial offense was ten times worse than what went on here (for crying out loud, they weren’t kicked out!), and we have some indication that the M’s are trying to gather some evidence and take the appropriate action.
Expecting others to adhere to those values and beliefs, and adjust their behavior in a public place to suit those values and beliefs, is not.
I agree entirely, which is why the usher should have handled the situation differently, as you suggested. I was merely objecting to drjeff’s comment.
Carson … you are right. The M’s response (from a PR perspective) should be independent of the motives of Sirbrina (if in fact she had any other than a simple PDA).
To add on to #55:
The M’s response should *probably* be independent of the facts of the case.
Even if the story were fabricated, the question is out there: do the M’s (and/or those hired by the M’s) discriminate as alleged?
Given that this is what happens when two women kiss, I am trying to conjecture what would happen if two men were kissing in the stadium. Sadly, the probability of physical harm is probably non-negligible.
Milendriel – I agree with you, but then I agree with Jeff Nye’s retort.
Basically, this could go back and forth until we reach the conclusion that when you are in public, you should neither chastise people for their beliefs or teach your kids what is right and wrong when many people around you may disagree. 40,000 people at a baseball game are all going to be different.
Would it be okay if this mother saw the girl wearing the Star of David and told her son, out loud, that Jews are evil when he asks what it is? I hope not.
The chances that the lady’s kid actually questioned what they were doing is probably low. The lady likely just said that to get what she wanted from the usher. This all goes back to the Mariners needing to properly train their staff.
“displays of affection are not appropriate in a public family setting.”-Mariner policy
Taking a step back from the specific incident, is this a recipe for an emotionally healthy society? Families, presumably created by “affection,” must not witness displays of affection in public, because it may offend their sensibilities? No wonder we live in the therapeutic age.
Carson – Yeah, definitely. If the usher handles the incident differently, there’s no story here. I was just pointing out that I don’t think the mother is at fault at all in this situation, and it’s definitely not right for someone to call her narrow-minded.
firova2- Well, the problem is that public displays of affection often are more “display” than “affection.” I don’t think anyone is offended by a chaste kiss or hug or arm around the shoulder, but doing things beyond that simply because you’re in public isn’t okay.
I think, in this day and age, it’s perfectly fine to call her narrow-minded, and I have no qualms with placing a fair amount of the blame on the mother.
The notion that discrimination based on sexual preference is somehow more acceptable than discriminating based on race or other criteria drives me insane (and I agree with whoever said earlier in the thread that it’s sad that we have to make these disclaimers, but I say this as a straight male).
However, it is her child to raise as she so chooses, up to and including passing along her narrow-mindedness; that right doesn’t extend to dictating the behavior of others in a public space.
Do the Mariners define what a “public display of affection” is? Is there a certain amount of bodily contact, including specific parts of the body, and a certain duration which concact is maintained that classifies a “display” as “affectionate?”
Furthermore, what about verbal displays of affection. One can certainly use speech to display affection. Are they OK? No more wedding proposals on the big screen. (Actually, this is a good thing.)
And does it matter to whom the affection is directed? What if the mother in question kisses her child? Could the lesbian couple, provided their were acting and behaving apathetically toward one another and had an empty seat between them, ask for the mother and child to be removed if they didn’t stop displaying their affection?
This policy is dumb.
I agree with this whole-heartedly, by the way.
The issue of whether the mother should have a problem with girls kissing each other is really a side issue; the problem with having a policy like this is exactly what Tek points out.
Wherever you choose to draw the line, someone is going to think that you should’ve chosen to draw it somewhere else.
From the article:
mmmm…I’m with bv and Carson, this smells fishy to me- but shame on the Ms for allowing themselves to get caught in the middle.
Have you really thought through what that conspiracy theory would involve, though?
I’m no more a fan of reality shows than anyone else, but to think this is a publicity stunt would require not only knowing that there was someone in the area who would react so strongly to a pretty mild same-gender PDA that they’d feel the need to involve stadium staff, but ALSO knowing that the likely responder would go so far as to tell them they’d have to leave if they didn’t stop.
I don’t buy it. I suppose it’s POSSIBLE that everyone involved was scripted and/or paid to react the way they did, but I shave with Occam’s razor.
Just when you thought you couldn’t be anymore pissed off by how this organization behaves …
Suppose she feels the behavior she was witnessing is morally objectionable. Are you then saying she shouldn’t be allowed to raise her own son 1) as she thinks best, and 2) in accordance with her own values and beliefs?
Where did I say that she shouldn’t be allowed to raise her child in accordance with her own values? She’s welcome to raise her child as she sees fit. I simply stated that I felt sorry for the kid. If she saw a black guy kissing a white woman, and complained, or told her kid that it was bad, I guess that would also be within her rights. I’d still feel sorry for the kid who was being raised by someone so narrow-minded.
but I shave with Occam’s razor.
A while back, I saw someone’s blog-name was “Occam’s Wad Of Bloody Tissue.” I thought that was pretty awesome.
And, as for publicity stunts, I think that there would have been far less subtle ways to get caught making out with a girl – and more well-attended than an M’s game!
I’m thinking more along the lines that it wasn’t just “a peck” that set this whole thing in motion. Shows like A Shot at Love are chalk full of hyper-sexual publicity hounds who seem to thrive on drop-of-a-hat confrontation, so color me skeptical about the whole “we weren’t even doing anything” routine.
I may not be prejudiced against lesbians, but after getting sucked into the second season of Rock of Love by my girlfried, I now find myself totally prejudiced against reality show dating contestants.
66 – It wouldn’t really be that hard. All you would need is a third lady friend walk up to the usher and complain about the lesbians making out. Could have made the whole thing up about having a son.
“but ALSO knowing that the likely responder would go so far as to tell them they’d have to leave if they didn’t stop.”
Well, to be fair here, all we have are Guerrero’s comments. We don’t know that a security guard ever spoke to her. Seems an odd thing to make up, sure. But Occam’s razor could just as easily come to the conclusion that the PR stunt involved is just making stuff up.
Clearly the homosexuals are trying to ram their agenda down the throats of middle class America, this time by forcing a heterosexual mother to use an usher to force others in the stadium to conform to her values.
Oh, I dunno. Rachel Ray. Scarf. Dunkin Donuts. Michelle Malikin.
I rest my case.
The notion that discrimination based on sexual preference is somehow more acceptable than discriminating based on race or other criteria drives me insane
I never stated or implied this–yes, discrimination is never acceptable. What I am saying, however, is that, as a moral issue, I think it’s legitimate for someone to believe homosexuality is wrong. There is NO moral justification for racism. So yeah, there’s a distinction to be made, which is why I don’t think it’s reasonable to call the mother narrow-minded. To me, this is where the creed of tolerance crossses the line into hypocrisy. Isn’t calling someone narrow-minded because their beliefs differ from yours inherently intolerant? It’s not like we’re talking about an issue where the views can be factually supported; for instance, calling someone narrow-minded for thinking Jose Vidro is a good DH because he batted .300 last season is justified, though there are more tactful ways to enlighten someone. Given that we’re discussing a moral/religious issue, and also given that tolerance likes freedom of religion, tolerance should consider both viewpoints as equal, which invalidates assertions of narrow-mindedness in either direction.
Again, the way the couple was treated by the usher at the Mariners game was wrong. I’ll concede that the mother may have been wrong to complain, but she may have been justified–we can’t know her motives. If she didn’t want to see PDA, that’s legitimate, as it is against stadium rules. If she didn’t want her son to see behavior that conflicts with her beliefs and wanted the usher to make the couple stop, that’s NOT legitimate (and I agree that sheltering children isn’t good for them). If she didn’t want her son to see behavior that conflicts with her beliefs and wanted the usher to move her and her son, that’s totally okay.
I disagree, but I don’t mind agreeing to disagree on this one.
Sorry if my post seemed accusatory towards you, I was speaking in a broader sense and should’ve made that clearer in my post.
Jeff Nye- Yeah, I figured you were speaking more generally, but I wasn’t sure. It’s nice that we can have a civil discussion about these kinds of things on a baseball blog. And my bit about Vidro was topical.
I think it’s legitimate for someone to believe homosexuality is wrong. There is NO moral justification for racism.
I can’t find any moral (or legitimate) justification for discrimination against same-sex couples, either, but I’m with Jeff – I will simply agree to disagree with you on this one, because neither of us is likely to budge.
It’s very possible to find a behavior immoral without discriminating against the person exhibiting the behavior.
Lets be careful to avoid confusing the issue……
drjeff- Again, to clarify, I agree there’s no justification whatsoever for discrimination against same-sex couples. I was talking about justification of views, not actions. As far as views go, I was merely opining that someone who says “I think homosexuality is wrong” can at least support their view with reasoning based on their religion/morality, while someone who says “I think some races are better than others” can’t. If you disagree with that, it’s cool.
Yeah, terry, that’s the point I was making.
Jeff Nye – My though was not that this was a staged publicity stunt. I was more thinking that the ignorant mother really did take issue to the PDA, and this chick hoped to extend her fifteen minutes of fame by taking it public.
My thought*
Carson – Yeah, it’s hard to feel sympathy for her, since according to the story, she refused to stop even before the security guard made it an orientation issue.
80 – The Nazis didn’t wake up one morning and take an irrational dislike of Jews, they believed they were acting in accordance with the views of philosophers such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Indeed, almost anything can be dressed up in the guise of logic and reason, but that doesn’t make a prejudice more rational than any other. I’m not sure why you would make your point about views on homosexuality unless that’s what you’re trying to imply.
Godwin’s Law has been invoked!
I’m with you bunk. Social Darwinism was a widely accepted theory for a long long time as well. I understand what Milendriel is trying to say, but prejudice is immoral no matter how you justify or frame it. Sure, everyone is prejudiced – that’s how humans think. We group things into categories and label them, but I don’t see how justifying racism, ageism, sexism, or any-other-ism is immoral, while homophobia, as long as not imposed on others, is an OK view to have.
Who exactly is advocating that homosexuals should be feared and therefore discriminated against on that basis?
I think it’s legitimate for someone to believe homosexuality is wrong. There is NO moral justification for racism.
Afraid I don’t see it that way. There were Bible verses used to justify every kind of racial discrimination as well, so you could argue that those views were/are “morally justified” for the same reasons anti-gay garbage is “morally justified.”
If a parent viewed a heterosexual, interracial peck, and didn’t feel she/he wanted her child to date outside his/her race, would he be justified in having the “offensive” kissers moved, tossed, or otherwise told to stop? Even with the old Biblical justifications used 50 years ago to argue against interracial marriage? I don’t think so either. But it’s the same logic as what the M’s used this weekend.
I’ve pecked my wife at Safeco Field quite often over 7 years together at the Kingdome and Safeco, and have never had a word of protest about it. My gay friends should not have any less of a right than I do.
If the facts are as Guerrero says, I’d have trouble holding onto my 16-game package unless the M’s apologize to her and her date.
85 – I had a feeling someone would bring up the most misused law on the internet. Godwin’s law is actually concerned with making comparisons between the Nazis and other individuals, not citing them as an example of racism. Nazi ideology is possibly the most obvious example in human history of racism dressed up in the guise of logical principle.
Thanks, bunk, soapbox, teacherrefpoet, for eloquently countering milendriel’s argument so that I don’t have to ineloquently try.
Just so no one has any preconceived notions about my, I’m androgynous, multicellular, and some have called me a thespian, but that’s only when I’m drunk.
Please don’t judge.
74 – I’ll be honest; I have no idea what case you’re resting.
That is an incredible story, btw. That ad was really pulled?
Agree w/88, but the agree-to-disagree principle is probably best for this baseball blog.
the amount of assumptions in this thread, from people both for and against the concept of discrimination is pretty off-the-charts.
We know they kissed.
We know they were same sex.
We know a mother complained.
We know the usher who had the complaint filed acted according to team rules.
We don’t know how much they kissed. We don’t know this is a PR stunt, we don’t know what kind of argument really transpired beyond hearsay, and we don’t how many other complaints get filed for PDA daily.
Fingering the mariners for discrimination is just ridiculous. The usher acted because a complaint was filed. Period. We don’t know how many other complaints get filed to that usher, nor how many that usher responds to. The mother filed a complaint because two women were kissing. Period. We don’t know how many games she’s gone to or how many complaints she’s filed against heterosexual couples kissing.
There’s a huge lack of information here to point fingers, and the only things we know that were inappropriate is that they broke the PDA rule, and the mother didn’t want her son to see women kissing. I see absolutely nothing wrong that the usher did, as s/he was just following the rules. Discrimination training doesn’t stop you from telling a couple to stop kissing because they’re getting complaints.
I’m sure every single side could have handled this better. And I’m sure every single side could have handled it worse. But we don’t know.
That’s OK…I get that all the time…
(yeah it’s for real. I was sorta getting to the point that people complain about all sorts of stupid things, and authorities react stupidly to these stupid complaints. If Dunkin DOnuts did that to a very innocuous scarf, than I have no problem believing the Safeco staff did that to a peck on the cheek).
What a story, and when you see many ballparks (including Safeco from time to time) hosting the between-innings the kiss your partner game, so I don’t see how this could be such an issue.
I personally blame this on the majority of Mariners fans (definitely not anyone who visits ussmariner.com), but the fans who’s favorite player (and only Mariner they’ve ever heard of) is Ichiro.
Ha, my buddies and I painted our chests for Rauuuuul Ibanez a few home games back, and we were asked to remain permanently seated due to our frequent (and apparently unusual) standing up and cheering the team.
ManageWA- No one on this blog is “for” discrimination.
bunk, soapbox, teacher, Jeff Nye, drjeff, Lauren- Okay, once again… thinking a behavior is wrong does not constitute being prejudiced against people who do that behavior, and it certainly doesn’t amount to advocating or perpetrating discrimination against them. For example, I think doing drugs is wrong. I have a good friend who used to do drugs. Did I hate her while she was doing them? Did I avoid her while she was doing them? No, and no. I was very supportive of her.
We don’t know if the mother in the story is prejudiced. In fact, we don’t even know if she’s against same-sex relationships. Maybe she wants to wait until her son is older to explain them to him. But, even if she is against same-sex relationships, that doesn’t constitute prejudice against homosexuals. All we have is the word of a girl with a possible motive to make the story as big as possible. Someone suggested on this blog that Ichiro was dogging it on the Molina double and was rightfully rebuked because we can’t know his motives. We can’t know the mother’s motives either. Since I consider these situations analogous, forgive me for not rushing to judgment against a woman who has been given no voice in this story. Calling her “narrow-minded” is doing just that.
Wait, let me get this straight:
and
Why is it okay to speculate about the girl’s motives, but not the mother’s?
As far as prejudice goes, no, thinking someone’s behavior is wrong isn’t the same as demonstrating prejudice against them; but having security people approach them to try to force them to change their behavior in a public space sure as heck is.
I don’t care if the mother wants to wait until her child is older, or whatever other altruistic motive you want to assign to her while speculating that the girl is just someone trying to “extend her 15 minutes of fame” as someone said earlier in this comment thread.
The fact is that it it’s wrong for one person to extend their morals onto another in a public space, and it’s equally wrong to apply a policy like this so selectively that it could even APPEAR to be discriminatory against same-sex couples.
I didn’t read the article except for the first line, and I didn’t read any of the responses.
But I was at the game with my friend and his girlfriend on Monday, he kissed her, and some lady came up and yelled at them about the code of conduct.
Jeff, it’s fine to speculate about both, but calling the mother narrow-minded goes beyond speculation. That’s judgment, just like saying Ichiro was dogging it is judgment. I didn’t call the girl an attention whore, did I?
Well, we do KNOW a few things in this case.
We know that the mother could’ve taken it upon herself and moved, or asked an usher to reseat her.
We know that the mother could’ve simply told her child to pay attention to the game, or that it’s not polite to worry about what other people are doing with each other.
We know that the mother could’ve approached the couple and said “You know, my child is with me and he’s very curious about what you two are doing; I don’t know that the ballpark is the best place to have that conversation. Would you mind dialing it back a little?”
We know, instead, that the mother chose to demand that Safeco Field personnel interfere on her behalf and embarass two people in public who weren’t doing anything that hetero couples don’t do in Safeco Field all the time.
I think there’s a pretty good case for calling the mother narrow-minded.
Also:
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Safeco Field personnel are being told to crack down on this every time they see it, regardless of genders involved, now that this story is out there.
We really struggle when there is no game. I read the article and see 90-something posts. There has been a lot of philosophical discussion about a worthwhile topic, but it’s just a news article. I’m think I’m agreeing with ManageWA. I have questions. Have you ever been misquoted or taken out of context by a reporter? Isn’t the only source Ms. Guerrero? How can we devote this kind of time to this article? Can you see all the conjecture that’s been created? We’re talking about Nazis and parenting, and intolerance, and publicity stunts, and how does this relate to the M’s?
Ms. Guerrero said she only “pecked” her partner. Have you ever listened to kids explain what they did to someone? “Barely pushed” or something like that? Who is the source for the story? She said the usher told her there had been a complaint and told her to stop. She told the usher she wouldn’t. The M’s announce at every game if you feel someone is violating the policy to tell an usher. Ms. Guerrero said the usher told Ms. her to stop. Who made the choice here?
I’m having a hard time being a fan these days, but the M’s say they’ll interview people involved and they’d never target same sex couples. I’m okay with that for a start. I’m surprised at the time spent on this story. I can’t believe I read all the posts. Maybe we should have a post where everyone creates hypothetical situations where the M’s FO do things wrong. Is this story really a legitimate reason to be critical of the Mariners?
Sorry for the long post. I really liked how Bedard threw last night. Maybe we’ll be be like the ‘59 White Sox or the ‘64 Dodgers- winning lots of games 1-0 or 2-1.
We know that the mother could’ve taken it upon herself and moved, or asked an usher to reseat her.
We don’t know if she did or didn’t, though.
We know that the mother could’ve simply told her child to pay attention to the game, or that it’s not polite to worry about what other people are doing with each other.
Ditto.
We know, instead, that the mother chose to demand that Safeco Field personnel interfere on her behalf and embarass two people in public who weren’t doing anything that hetero couples don’t do in Safeco Field all the time.
We already agree that if she wanted the girls to stop because their behavior goes against her beliefs, she’s wrong. But that makes her wrong, not narrow-minded. You’re making a dispositional attribution (and a very broad one at that) based on a single incident. There’s no case to be made that she habitually discriminates against homosexuals, nor even that she’s prejudiced against them at all. She wants to raise her children a certain way and maybe she didn’t think about the situation as deeply as we are. There’s also no evidence that she “demanded” anything. She may have been extremely civil.
Sure, it’s possible that the mother is really the innocent, misunderstood victim in all of this, and that she really is a fair-minded and non-prejudiced person who has no problems with homosexuality.
If you can present me with evidence to show that, I’m willing to rethink my position, but until then, I’m comfortable with making a reasonable judgment based on the information I do have.
Because the simple hypothesis of this being someone who thinks homosexuality should still be kept in closets is a lot more likely than the convoluted “but maybe” scenarios that people keep bringing up, and it frankly makes me a little queasy how willing people are to try to explain away her actions as “not really that big of a deal”, or even ACCEPTABLE.
So, in summation, it’s probably time for me to bow out of this comment thread.
I appreciate Jeff Nye’s thoughtful posts and I read what he wrote about what we know. Those are reasonable assumptions and suggestions, but but we don’t even know if there was a mother. How do we know if she’s wrong, or narrow-minded, or habitually discriminates? Who’s fault is it if we don’t even know what or if anything happened?
Jeff Nye- No, the simple hypothesis is that she saw behavior that was against the stadium rules and complained. She’s a thirdhand source in this story. How would you feel if someone judged you based on what someone said someone said you said? I’ve already outlined that I agree with you IF her motives were what you think they were. But I don’t agree we have nearly enough information to make that judgment, and it makes ME queasy that people have such a low threshhold for denigrating the character of others.
Does this rule refer to the whole ballpark or just the designated family seating areas, where you are not supposed to drink alcohol?
No.
Because people have misapplied Bible verses in the past does not invalidate all other moral judgements that might be based upon biblical teachings.
We won’t agree on this, Terry, and I’m not sure this is the venue for this discussion, but to be fair, I did not say (and don’t believe) that “all other moral judgements” based on the Bible are invalid. I do think anti-gay ideas are, however, and I think in this case, the interracial dating metaphor is accurate.
The Bible couldn’t be clearer concerning the spiritual significance of the “biblical union between a man and a wife” and the context in which sex is meaningful. In a religious sense, marriage and it’s associated relations is very much an act of worship.
I’m not arguing it’s appropriate to demand conformity to a Biblical standard in America (my right to worship as I see fit is essentially derived from a principle that suggests it’s not appropriate for me to demand others conform to my beliefs).
I’m simply arguing that those that apply such a Biblical standard in their personal daily lives are not bigots by default nor should it be assumed that they de facto discriminate against those which do not apply similar standards in their own lives.
Where this mother crossed the line was when she apparently used the usher to bully others into conforming to her ideals.
88
I sincerely hope your post is being sent in some form to the Mariners’ FO. Maybe if they start losing ticket sales (with specific explanations, otherwise they’ll just think people stopped going because of this horribly untalented team), they’ll listen.