5/14/06 - Normally, I'm a calm and dispassionate observer of the sports and societal landscape and only offer opinions if they are constructive. I always try to see the good in people and in events … OK, cut the nonsense. That's not me; that's never been me. It doesn't take a whole lot to get me to react to things and here's a trivial event that has all the gravitas of mouse droppings but it still has gotten me riled.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim are the respondents in a class action lawsuit because last year, on Mothers' Day, they gave out tote bags to women over the age of 18. When a man asked for one, they didn't give him one. That man has filed suit claiming that the Angels discriminated on the basis of sex and age. The suit seeks $4000 in damages for each and every male and each and every person of either gender under the age of 18 who attended that game last year.

I do not want to be accused of inciting violence on anyone so let me just say that I pray that there is a special room in Hell awaiting the plaintiff here – and any of the attorneys who are aiding and abetting him in this action – where the eternal tortures are cranked up to maximum intensity at all times. By trying to represent this as a “civil rights case”, this plaintiff is making a mockery of the situations faced by everyone who has faced real and palpable discrimination on the basis of gender or age or race or whatever. His civil rights were not violated. If in fact, the actions of the Angels actually did cause him to think less of himself as a result of not receiving a tote bag, then the Angels are to be commended because they got him thinking in the right direction.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim is a private business entity. When it seeks to attract and develop the interest and attention of a “target demographic”, the team is not seeking to deny civil rights to people outside the target demographic; it is doing business in a normal and acceptable way. And there is a simple fact that impinges on this case, which has not yet been overtaken by technology. I don't want to overwhelm anyone with the profound scientific concepts here so let me say this as simply as I can:

Mothers are the females of the species.

If – and I said IF – there is any kind of discrimination afoot here, it is in the celebration of Mothers' Day itself wherein only females over a certain age can be the honorees. Until a male conceives and bears and gives birth to a child or until a human being is conceived in a test tube in a laboratory and brought to a sentient and living state without the intervention of a woman, Mothers' Day is inherently discriminatory. But make no mistake here; the celebration of Mothers' Day is not something that makes life a living Hell for males or for females under the age where childbearing is possible. This is not a civil rights issue.

Now before anyone decides to send me a message telling me that this is an issue of principle and that the only way to throttle injustice in the world is to take on the “sacred cows” of societies around the world, let me say something else very clearly:

If you really think this action will significantly improve the human condition, you obviously have enough leisure time on your hands to expend your energies doing something that would be really beneficial to these causes. So, stop thinking about ways to justify this nonsense and go do something useful with yourself.

In case you think I'm over the top in my anger here, there is another factoid you need to know. The plaintiff in this case asked a person at the stadium for a tote bag last year and was told he could not have one. He then sent a letter to the Angels complaining about this slight; and reportedly, he received a letter of apology and he got four tote bags in the mail. So, how does he now claim a year after the fact that he is an “injured party”; he got what he asked for before filing the lawsuit.

If this action is allowed to succeed, then I want to add to my prayers that the judge who makes that ruling join with the plaintiff and his lawyers in that special room in Hell. Lawyers always talk about the “slippery slope” and what might happen if a certain practice is allowed to continue to exist. OK, let me give a couple of examples of things that might have to go away:

Lower bus/subway fares for children. After all, that would discriminate against people over a certain age.

Lower admission prices to movies for children. Same reasoning.

OB/GYN practices that do not treat men. Medical expertise and access denied to males.

Credit cards that award frequent flyer miles. Children under the age of 5 can't get the cards and couldn't redeem the miles themselves because they aren't allowed to fly alone.

Credit cards of any kind. Children can't have them.

Telemarketing jobs. Autistic people can't get them.

Smokejumper jobs. Paraplegics can't have them.

And by the way, even with the civil rights laws that are on the books, there are still discriminations that are perfectly permissible and, in fact, are sometimes demanded by law. Consider:

Drinking laws make it illegal for 15 year olds to go to a bar and have a couple of belts.

Drivers' licenses are not issued to 3 year olds.

Drivers' licenses are not issued to visually impaired folks.

Consider the La Leche League as a private organization. Its mission statement is “to help mothers worldwide to breastfeed through [a variety of activities] and to promote a better understanding of breastfeeding…” This organization will not provide any assistance of any pragmatic benefit to the plaintiff here but it is not an organization that should be attacked and destroyed as a civil rights abuser. The real “problem” in this context is that this plaintiff just can't breastfeed – whether or not he might want to.

If a restaurant or bar decides to market itself to gays and/or lesbians, that is not an act of discrimination against heterosexuals. It is a business decision made by the restaurant and bar regarding the clientele they seek. Where this kind of attraction of a target demographic could go over the line is if the restaurant/bar had a way to determine heterosexuality at the door and then denied access on that basis. In the case of the Angels, they simply chose not to give gifts to men on the basis that they are not mothers.

I do not know the law under which this suit has been filed. It is reportedly a state law in California not a Federal law. On the assumption that reporting is correct, let me say to the good people of California that they should pay close and careful attention to this matter. If this suit is successful, then each and every member of the legislature that passed that bill and whatever governor signed that bill into law should be ushered out of office at the next opportunity on a permanent basis. Those folks are clearly inept at crafting legislation that can be used to promote good will in such a way that the wording prevents the law from being manipulated. This action is the kind of nonsense that clutters up the courts of the land; this kind of action may actually do as much damage to the cause of equality and civil rights as whatever practices engendered the consideration of the law in the first place.

If I wish a Happy Mothers' Day to all people of maternal status today, does that make me a human rights abuser? Why not? After all, the plaintiff in this case would only be a partial recipient of my best wishes because the word, “mother”, only comprises half of the moniker I would prefer to hang on him. And if Mothers' Day is to be associated with civil rights and human rights abuse, shouldn't we all be rounding up those ne'er-do-wells at Hallmark for assisting all the awful people in the world who continue to perpetuate this plague on the human condition?

In the world of sports, lots of people have worked hard to further civil rights. Jackie Robinson, Curt Flood, Arthur Ashe and Billie Jean King come quickly to mind. Somehow, I don't think that Curt Flood and Billie Jean King will be lining up to file amicus curiae briefs with the court in favor of the plaintiff here.

This legal action is stupid. But there is a real value in stupidity. Stupidity serves to educate the less stupid. So, let's all join the ranks of the “less stupid”.

But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

<< Back to the Topical Rants Index

= Home = Recent = Topical = Wagers =
= Archives = Pros = Scores = Contact =