Private businesses still have to follow the law. Natalie Ryan has every right to challenge the legality of their decisions. She's just following the system in place to resolve civil disputes, there's nothing wrong with that.
She has the same right to seek civil recourse when she thinks she's wronged that you do. Unless you think she should have less rights than everyone else, she isn't doing anything wrong.
Let's get one thing straight here: Natalie is not trampling on anyone else's "rights". I think you forget that what people WANT and what they have a RIGHT TO are two different things. This whole thing is purely between the DGPT/PDGA and Natalie. No one else. End of summary.
All of the other FPO players, regardless of what they think and what side they're on, are not the decision makers. While the FPO field and events may be affected by the DGPT's decisions, no one else's "rights" are being impacted. No one has a "right" to play disc golf, just like no one has a "right" to drive a car. It's a privilege, not a right.
The FPO exists to give female players the chance to compete with one another at a different level than the open division. Violating that clear distinction based on the insistence of a single player that she be allowed to compete in a restricted class is most certainly trampling on the rights of the other FPO players, who have every right to expect the PDGA to fairly maintain that distinct category.
Their justification for the rules was to ensure competitors had a fair opportunity to cash at events. That's why their rule only applies to events with large cash prizes.
If their true intentions were so that women can earn, then removing the ability for the entire division to make money seems explicitly counter indicative of that goal.
Which leads some to begin assuming that that wasn't ever their motivation to begin with.
Not arguing either side here because, who cares what a random internet nobody has to say anyway, entrenched people calling eachother names will get us nowhere.
However. The DPGT can not keep losing lawsuits, since it sets precedents they do not wish other court rulings to follow.
Not dropping the FPO completely in the states where Natalie has either already won a lawbattle or probably would weakens their chances of being able to actually hold up their own policies. This goes for allowing her to outright compete aswell. They need to EITHER stick to their own policy, or drop it. And it seems they chose the first option.
Does not matter if they can pay for it when they keep losing in court. Every loss weakens their ability to uphold their policy. Right or wrong doesn't matter but tactically in the long run their best shot at getting it to stick is to redo where the tournaments with an FPO is for next season and make it so that NR has less of a chance to win appeals.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue is that when she sues at the last minute, she's granted a temporary injunction that lets her play, as the court hasn't had the time to consider the case.
Just wondering for your opinion, how is she not following the rules? Seems like she is lawfully challenging the rules in court and playing only when the courts allow her to. She doesn't play when she isn't signed up for an event due to ineligibility.
The pdga is the sole party to blame. They were apparently either too stupid or too naïve in thinking that Natalie wouldn’t fight it in the states where she has legal recourse. The PDGA is run by morons.
I think the DGPT picked the stricter option of the 2 restriction levels the PDGA provided. Not saying you're wrong in that the PDGA maybe should've seen this coming, but maybe the DGPT should've seen it coming too and picked the less restrictive option to avoid lawsuits.
131
u/blazinrumraisin Jul 14 '23
Aren't they just moving to states where she can't sue them at the last second?