Jump to content
Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:41
Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:47
Posted 06 March 2013 - 02:50
Posted 06 March 2013 - 17:31
Posted 06 March 2013 - 17:50
It's $25 bucks. Get over it people. That money helps keep places like this open and available to the public.
Posted 06 March 2013 - 17:53
You missed this part:
"The museum's rent-free lease with the city mandates that it open its doors to the public for free on multiple days a week, although it is permitted to ask for a voluntary fee."
Posted 06 March 2013 - 17:57
I got the point, just think it is stupid to sue over $25. Just money taken away from the museum and then it for sure won't be free. People are just to sue happy.
If you go to someplace and enjoy the experience, or been there multiple times or with several people, then don't be a cheap ass and shell out $25.
Posted 06 March 2013 - 17:59
Nobody cares about the price. The problem is that the museum is deceiving people into thinking they're required to pay.
They have that strict deal with the city, so if they are coaxing people into thinking otherwise, then that's a problem.
Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:52
I got the point, just think it is stupid to sue over $25.
Posted 07 March 2013 - 01:56
Posted 07 March 2013 - 04:24
Signs should clearly say, Free admission, Donations welcome
Posted 07 March 2013 - 13:54
Posted 07 March 2013 - 18:59
Posted 07 March 2013 - 19:15
Pulled right from the website:
Fee includes same-day admission to the Main Building and The Cloisters museum and gardens. There is no extra charge for entrance to exhibitions.
Recommended Adults $25 Seniors (65 and older) $17 Students $12* Members (Join Now) Free Children under 12 (accompanied by an adult) Free
To help cover the costs of exhibitions, we ask that you please pay the full recommended amount.
Seems very simple to understand that you are not required to pay for admission, they are even saying please...
Posted 07 March 2013 - 20:13
Umm.. did you actually read the article. It clearly says that they were mislead, not that they didnt let them in (considering right in the article it says "two Czech tourists who purchased single-day admissions")
What they do is say you don't have to pay but not let you in if you did not pay. That's what the lawsuit is about.