Exactly. If they were so proud of the word, why cover it up?

They clearly knew that they most likely would be asked to cover it up had they walked into the arena like that. So, they didn't. They waited until they got into their camera friendly seats and then took the tape off.

They could have simply recovered it when asked, and watched the rest of the game in peace.

We all agree with you, I think, but were talking about the homo thing here. If they threw you out for being a "homo"sexual(or an Afircan-American), they may not fare so well in that lawsuit. While anyone can add any unrealistic disclaimers(clauses) they want to, it doesn't mean they're legal. These guys were trying to skirt that(and were admittedly doing so by covering it), but I refute that they can kick you out "for anything", and win 100% of the time. I GUARANTEE there have been issues where ushers were in the wrong, and fans received something in return.

About 250 fans were thrown out of a Buffalo Bills game years ago for wearing 'Ron Mexico' jerseys/shirts to pick on Michael Vick.

Those fans got nothing but an apology from the team. That's it. No tickets, no compensation, nothing. It was reported in the news that one tried to sue, but no lawyer would take the case because they had no leg to stand on.

The fans were not thrown out for being gay. That would be another animal altogether, you're right there.

However, that didn't happen. They could have had the word FUCK on their shirts and been tossed for the same reason, and still have no recourse. A private business can eject you from the premises at any time and for any reason. Obviously this is not abused, because it would be bad for business.

I think we're still in total agreement, but I just find it to be an interesting issue. It seems the only thing that got them kicked was the word, "homo". If they had left it off their shirts, and acted flamboyantly enough to purvey the same meaning, would they have been kicked? I don't mean to harp on 'this incidence', but I'm intrigued by how big the grey area really is here. It kind of opens my eyes as to how easily gays can legally be discriminated against. The Canucks organization gets an A+ from me(for having the nads to predict motivation), but it's a shame that if the dickbags just took it down one notch(or had shittier seats not in the cameras) that it would be allowed to slide. Their government sadly doesn't even provide them that protection. That guy could walk around all day in that shit in public. Now that's a HUGE can of worms, so maybe we stop here.

My guess is that if the had left the word covered up, or covered it up when asked, they have been fine, as long as they weren't playing grab ass or anything like that.

I mean, this is the same organization that has two guys in green body suits harassing opposing players next the the penalty box. I'm guessing they are generally pretty lenient.

They may be able to toss the guy out,and i believe he was acting like a dick to make a scene..But I think the Canucks may have violated his civil rights..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_C ... d_Freedoms

Sorry. Doesn't apply.

The Canadian Charter of Rights, along with the United States Bill of Rights, applies to governmental action, not actions taken by private business.

Exhibit A : The Boy Scouts of America have a no gays policy. The Supreme Court has rules that it's perfectly legal for them to do that. (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale)

Not to mention the latest ruling which upheld the right of whack jobs to wield their, "God hates fags" signs at soldier's funerals.