Ed Parrot wrote:
>While I recognize the value of this line of
>reasoning in ADA cases, I don't think is appropriate to apply to a
>professional sport. I understand that the even if court members agreed
with
>this, they may not have felt that legally they could "alter" the ADA
without
>constitutional justification. But to me that begs the question of what
>"common sense" really would dictate.
In the case of professional sports, you have to remember that the sport
itself is somewhat secondary - the primary part of professional sports is
*professional*. Pro sports are primarily responsible to the marketplace -
and "common sense" cannot exist independent of the effect of any decision
on the marketplace.
To that extent, I just don't think that the marketplace that Pro Golf sells
to really gives a hoot about the ADA, in general. In fact, many of the
country club types who run and fund the PGA probably deeply resent the ADA
because of the costs and inconveniences that accomodations cause their
businesses, and because of their basic dislike of government regulation.
Thus, battling against Casey Martin and the court probably seemed like the
most "common sense" approach to a sport which plays to a highly
conservative fan base.
Phil
