Don't Talk about God in California

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well unless the mall is public property (I hate that phrase) the owner has full rights to ask (and then forcibly remove) anyone off his property as he wishes. I still believe if someone owned the mall that he should be able to be as prejudice as he wants when discriminating against a customer, it would hurt his business because companies would not want to be associated with that owner and customers would not want to shop there.

As well, someone could open a mall next door and be like, Yeah that dude over there doesn’t like black people, but all the black people are welcome here and we have cheaper prices.

So, it’s not profitable to be prejudice, however that does not mean that they cannot be or will not be. It’s their loss, we should not make them accept people they do not working/shopping on their property, that is ridiculous.

22

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
I have to say it is not entirely clear whether or not the mall has violated the constitution by limiting free speech in their facility. It seems debatable. I am interested in what the higher courts in California have to say about it, and to be honest, I think it could go either way.

That being said, I think the intention behind the rule wasn’t so much to restrict your average youth minister as it was to prevent the Fred Phelps crowd from stopping by. But it is questionably constitutional if you only allow “positive” statements about religion, and not “negative” statements.[/quote]

The 9th Circuit is the most Liberal court in the whole country, when you think you have seen extreme Leftism, they will show you some shit that lets you know that you have not yet seen the end of their tunnel. [/quote]

Examples?
[/quote]

A conservative Supreme Court and this:

Makes it pretty clear that the 9th is 1) making decisions contrary to the conservative policies in the S Ct, or 2) full of loonies who don’t have any idea about the law. Or both.

23

Dude I shop at that Mall, less than 2 miles from my house. It’s a very conservative County with over 60% Republican of registered voters.

24

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
I have to say it is not entirely clear whether or not the mall has violated the constitution by limiting free speech in their facility. It seems debatable. I am interested in what the higher courts in California have to say about it, and to be honest, I think it could go either way.

That being said, I think the intention behind the rule wasn’t so much to restrict your average youth minister as it was to prevent the Fred Phelps crowd from stopping by. But it is questionably constitutional if you only allow “positive” statements about religion, and not “negative” statements.[/quote]

The 9th Circuit is the most Liberal court in the whole country, when you think you have seen extreme Leftism, they will show you some shit that lets you know that you have not yet seen the end of their tunnel. [/quote]

Examples?
[/quote]

A conservative Supreme Court and this:

Makes it pretty clear that the 9th is 1) making decisions contrary to the conservative policies in the S Ct, or 2) full of loonies who don’t have any idea about the law. Or both.[/quote]

Actually, according to the link you provided, this has more to do with the size of the court than anything else, not any particular left/right tendency. As the author states, “as a court grows larger, it is increasingly likely to issue extreme decisions.” These decisions do not necessarily swing to the left or right.

25

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:
I have to say it is not entirely clear whether or not the mall has violated the constitution by limiting free speech in their facility. It seems debatable. I am interested in what the higher courts in California have to say about it, and to be honest, I think it could go either way.

That being said, I think the intention behind the rule wasn’t so much to restrict your average youth minister as it was to prevent the Fred Phelps crowd from stopping by. But it is questionably constitutional if you only allow “positive” statements about religion, and not “negative” statements.[/quote]

The 9th Circuit is the most Liberal court in the whole country, when you think you have seen extreme Leftism, they will show you some shit that lets you know that you have not yet seen the end of their tunnel. [/quote]

Examples?
[/quote]

A conservative Supreme Court and this:

Makes it pretty clear that the 9th is 1) making decisions contrary to the conservative policies in the S Ct, or 2) full of loonies who don’t have any idea about the law. Or both.[/quote]

Actually, according to the link you provided, this has more to do with the size of the court than anything else, not any particular left/right tendency. As the author states, “as a court grows larger, it is increasingly likely to issue extreme decisions.” These decisions do not necessarily swing to the left or right.
[/quote]

Last year, the S Ct overturned 15 of 16 9th Circuit cases. While they, for the most part, only accept cases that might need to be overturned and so most cases that go before the Ct are overturned, they are accepting 1-5 cases from other Circuits and overturning them at around 76% on average. The size of the 9th explains some of the higher case acceptance rate, but not all of it.

More on the 9th:

26

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well, he was on private property, and if the owners of the private property do not want religion discussed on the premises, that is their decision.

While you can legally carry an unloaded gun in public in California, there are many stores that will prohibit you from entering. Similarly, while stores can’t ban someone from entering based on their ethnic, sexual, political, or religious background, they have the right to stop someone from wearing a “God Hates Fags/Jews/Blacks/Libertarians” T-shirt from entering the store.
[/quote]

Does it state in their publicly displayed rules that you cannot have a private conversation about religion on those premises? If not, then they are in the wrong, unless the facts of the story are incorrect.

27

“During one of his visits, guards even gave him a copy of the guidelines, but Snatchko continued striking up the same conversations without applying for a permit or sticking to the designated areas.”

So I think that settles that part of the problem. As for the article you just provided, while the 9th district had a very high % overturned, the article also noted that the 6th and 8th districts had 100% of the cases overturned. Clearly, these are smaller courts, but that doesn’t change that the 9th district isn’t the only one that messes up.

28

Meh, god is just a crutch for the narcissists who can’t accept the fact that our little Earth isn’t the center of the universe. Also for those who cowards who can’t accept death.

As for the guy in the original article, he wouldn’t leave people alone. Sounds like justice prevailed.

29

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well, he was on private property, and if the owners of the private property do not want religion discussed on the premises, that is their decision.

While you can legally carry an unloaded gun in public in California, there are many stores that will prohibit you from entering. Similarly, while stores can’t ban someone from entering based on their ethnic, sexual, political, or religious background, they have the right to stop someone from wearing a “God Hates Fags/Jews/Blacks/Libertarians” T-shirt from entering the store.
[/quote]

Does it state in their publicly displayed rules that you cannot have a private conversation about religion on those premises? If not, then they are in the wrong, unless the facts of the story are incorrect. [/quote]

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you saying that the mall could only ask him to leave if they had a rule prohibiting private conversations about religion?

If so, i’d be really surprised if they would even bother with such rule. There’s a huge difference between an individual approaching complete strangers and discussing religion and two friends discussing it amongst themselves while shopping there.

To the poster who noted that the pastor’s attorney may have been referencing the free speech clause of the California Constitution (as opposed to the First Amendment) - I looked up the language of the California provision and it is indeed broader (at least on its face) than the language used in the First Amendment.

However you still cannot put this individual’s free speech rights above that of the private landowner. He has rights, but they only go so far.

30

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well, he was on private property, and if the owners of the private property do not want religion discussed on the premises, that is their decision.

While you can legally carry an unloaded gun in public in California, there are many stores that will prohibit you from entering. Similarly, while stores can’t ban someone from entering based on their ethnic, sexual, political, or religious background, they have the right to stop someone from wearing a “God Hates Fags/Jews/Blacks/Libertarians” T-shirt from entering the store.
[/quote]

Does it state in their publicly displayed rules that you cannot have a private conversation about religion on those premises? If not, then they are in the wrong, unless the facts of the story are incorrect. [/quote]

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you saying that the mall could only ask him to leave if they had a rule prohibiting private conversations about religion?

If so, i’d be really surprised if they would even bother with such rule. There’s a huge difference between an individual approaching complete strangers and discussing religion and two friends discussing it amongst themselves while shopping there.

To the poster who noted that the pastor’s attorney may have been referencing the free speech clause of the California Constitution (as opposed to the First Amendment) - I looked up the language of the California provision and it is indeed broader (at least on its face) than the language used in the First Amendment.

However you still cannot put this individual’s free speech rights above that of the private landowner. He has rights, but they only go so far.[/quote]

Yes you understood correctly. The man was having a private conversation, outside of any stores, with three women who according to the article were accepting of the conversation. If the article is accurate in it’s report, it must publicly state that private conversations about religion are strictly prohibited. Again, this is if the article stated the facts correctly. Then if the mall does not have this rule, made visible, they cannot arrest or detain anyone for having a private conversation about religion. Agreeing with the man is not necessary.
Now if the article was incorrect and he was harassing unwilling people, then he should have been thrown out or arrested for harassment.
You cannot start arresting people for private conversions simply because you do not like the subject matter, unless you specifically lay out those guide lines initially.
You cannot even detain somebody in your house because you don’t like what they do or say, it called unlawful imprisonment.

31

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well, he was on private property, and if the owners of the private property do not want religion discussed on the premises, that is their decision.

While you can legally carry an unloaded gun in public in California, there are many stores that will prohibit you from entering. Similarly, while stores can’t ban someone from entering based on their ethnic, sexual, political, or religious background, they have the right to stop someone from wearing a “God Hates Fags/Jews/Blacks/Libertarians” T-shirt from entering the store.
[/quote]

Does it state in their publicly displayed rules that you cannot have a private conversation about religion on those premises? If not, then they are in the wrong, unless the facts of the story are incorrect. [/quote]

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you saying that the mall could only ask him to leave if they had a rule prohibiting private conversations about religion?

If so, i’d be really surprised if they would even bother with such rule. There’s a huge difference between an individual approaching complete strangers and discussing religion and two friends discussing it amongst themselves while shopping there.

To the poster who noted that the pastor’s attorney may have been referencing the free speech clause of the California Constitution (as opposed to the First Amendment) - I looked up the language of the California provision and it is indeed broader (at least on its face) than the language used in the First Amendment.

However you still cannot put this individual’s free speech rights above that of the private landowner. He has rights, but they only go so far.[/quote]

Yes you understood correctly. The man was having a private conversation, outside of any stores, with three women who according to the article were accepting of the conversation. If the article is accurate in it’s report, it must publicly state that private conversations about religion are strictly prohibited. Again, this is if the article stated the facts correctly. Then if the mall does not have this rule, made visible, they cannot arrest or detain anyone for having a private conversation about religion. Agreeing with the man is not necessary.
Now if the article was incorrect and he was harassing unwilling people, then he should have been thrown out or arrested for harassment.
You cannot start arresting people for private conversions simply because you do not like the subject matter, unless you specifically lay out those guide lines initially.
You cannot even detain somebody in your house because you don’t like what they do or say, it called unlawful imprisonment.[/quote]

Well, I agree that it depends on the facts. If the title of the article is any indication, we can’t rely on that report.

But I don’t agree that you can’t have someone arrested who has refused to leave your premises. You said the mall “cannot start arresting people for private conversions simply because you do not like the subject matter.” This is most likely true.
But what you can do, is tell them to leave. If they refuse, they are trespassers. Then you can probably detain them for a reasonable time frame using reasonable force if necessary until the police arrive to take them away for trespassing.

It is there property. If they tell you to leave you have to (at least for speech reasons…obviously you can’t just kick a black guy out of your mall because he’s black).

With respect to your hypothetical about detaining someone in my house, those facts are not the same. If I didn’t like what they were saying and they simply left, then yes I couldn’t try to detain them and call the cops. But if they are in my house and they refuse to leave, they are trespassers.

32

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well, he was on private property, and if the owners of the private property do not want religion discussed on the premises, that is their decision.

While you can legally carry an unloaded gun in public in California, there are many stores that will prohibit you from entering. Similarly, while stores can’t ban someone from entering based on their ethnic, sexual, political, or religious background, they have the right to stop someone from wearing a “God Hates Fags/Jews/Blacks/Libertarians” T-shirt from entering the store.
[/quote]

Does it state in their publicly displayed rules that you cannot have a private conversation about religion on those premises? If not, then they are in the wrong, unless the facts of the story are incorrect. [/quote]

Well, this is just my thought, but those people should be able to kick someone out for whatever reason. Yes, they had to state their policy about not standing where he was standing, and he did not follow that policy it seems. Was asked multiple times, and did not listen. So, security had to forcibly remove him from the general area.

33

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well, he was on private property, and if the owners of the private property do not want religion discussed on the premises, that is their decision.

While you can legally carry an unloaded gun in public in California, there are many stores that will prohibit you from entering. Similarly, while stores can’t ban someone from entering based on their ethnic, sexual, political, or religious background, they have the right to stop someone from wearing a “God Hates Fags/Jews/Blacks/Libertarians” T-shirt from entering the store.
[/quote]

Does it state in their publicly displayed rules that you cannot have a private conversation about religion on those premises? If not, then they are in the wrong, unless the facts of the story are incorrect. [/quote]

Well, this is just my thought, but those people should be able to kick someone out for whatever reason. Yes, they had to state their policy about not standing where he was standing, and he did not follow that policy it seems. Was asked multiple times, and did not listen. So, security had to forcibly remove him from the general area.[/quote]

Yes, it does not matter if they posted their rules, it is PRIVATE property, so they can do whatever they want. The bill of rights does not apply to private actors, they can be as draconian or assholish as they want.

34

[quote]Thatâ??s what happened to California resident Matthew Snatchko in 2006 when the youth pastor initiated a conversation about God with three shoppers at the Roseville Galleria mall.

The women gave Snatchko permission to broach the subject, but a nearby store employee said they “looked nervous,” so he ordered the evangelist to leave. After Snatchko refused, mall security arrested him.[/quote]

Indicated to me that he would have been on mall property. Despite what you might want to delude yourself into thinking, a lot of the space around the stores is not public property, but belongs to the company that own the mall.

It is PRIVATE property, and they can tell you to fuck off if they want.

That said:

This is well within the guys rights to do so, he has a responsibility to ensure shoppers have a safe experience at not just his store, but the general mall area. If the women had said they were not nervous, then I doubt this incident would have happened.

Also:

This indicates to me that he decided to be a prick about it.

But wait, there’s more:

This indicates repeated violation of a policy that was in place. Not only was he told, he was GIVEN a copy of their guidelines. But let’s take a close look at that statement…

continued striking up the same conversations without applying for a permit or sticking to the designated areas.

I don’t know about you, but this seems to indicate they do tolerate proselytizing. He also claims confusion about the rules, but if he was truly concerned about it, he could have asked management for clarification. He chose not to, so in the end analysis, I believe he bought this on himself.

Just my 2c anyway.

35

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jimmyjesus17 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I know it has been said before, but let’s do it again. The constitution (and the bill of rights) are not supposed to be laws against citizens of America, it is supposed to laws determining what and what not the government can do. The government cannot shut down a newspaper because it talks harshly about the government, however a newspaper can fire a journalist for talking harshly about the government. See how that makes sense, so the mall did nothing wrong, this guy is a joke.[/quote]

That’s not entirely true. No local government or private body can make rules that break the rights of people as outlined by the constitution.

If the facts of the the story are true, then I think this guys rights were violated. He was not in the store, just near it. He was having a private conversation with three women that apparently OK’d his approach, conversation and subject matter.
I don’t know of a law or store rule that can possibly monitor the content or location of conversations between private parties. I also don’t know of a rule that requires all parties with in ear shot to like the said private conversation.

So, if said mall has a “don’t talk to strangers” rule, how the hell are you going to buy anything? Don’t you have to talk to store clerks who are likely strangers? What about teenagers chasing ass in the mall? Are they going to arrest them for talking to a strange girl?

Now again, this is if the facts of the story are true, my experience with the news media is that is often not the case. If the dude was being a nuisance than he should have been kicked out.[/quote]

Well, he was on private property, and if the owners of the private property do not want religion discussed on the premises, that is their decision.

While you can legally carry an unloaded gun in public in California, there are many stores that will prohibit you from entering. Similarly, while stores can’t ban someone from entering based on their ethnic, sexual, political, or religious background, they have the right to stop someone from wearing a “God Hates Fags/Jews/Blacks/Libertarians” T-shirt from entering the store.
[/quote]

Does it state in their publicly displayed rules that you cannot have a private conversation about religion on those premises? If not, then they are in the wrong, unless the facts of the story are incorrect. [/quote]

Well, this is just my thought, but those people should be able to kick someone out for whatever reason. Yes, they had to state their policy about not standing where he was standing, and he did not follow that policy it seems. Was asked multiple times, and did not listen. So, security had to forcibly remove him from the general area.[/quote]

Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?

36

[quote]pat wrote:

Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?[/quote]

If it’s private property they should be able to kick out whomever they wanted. I’m sure if they did that, they’d go out of business though.

What if it was my house? can I not kick people out based on race or religion?

37

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?[/quote]

If it’s private property they should be able to kick out whomever they wanted. I’m sure if they did that, they’d go out of business though.

What if it was my house? can I not kick people out based on race or religion? [/quote]

What if it’s a black person. Can they kick them out for being black?

Your not running a business with open doors to the public, right? I can’t just open the door and help myself to your fridge.

38

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?[/quote]

If it’s private property they should be able to kick out whomever they wanted. I’m sure if they did that, they’d go out of business though.

What if it was my house? can I not kick people out based on race or religion? [/quote]

What if it’s a black person. Can they kick them out for being black?

Your not running a business with open doors to the public, right? I can’t just open the door and help myself to your fridge.[/quote]

If they selectively kick people out, it isn’t “open to the public”. Yes, they have the right, assuming its privately owned. I can’t just open the door to a restaurant and help myself to the fridge.

But if they are kicking people out, doesn’t that make it a private establishment?

If I sell home grown vegetables out of my house, can I no longer kick whomever I want out of it?

I’ve never understood why being “open to the public” means that you don’t really own the place anymore.

39

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?[/quote]

If it’s private property they should be able to kick out whomever they wanted. I’m sure if they did that, they’d go out of business though.

What if it was my house? can I not kick people out based on race or religion? [/quote]

What if it’s a black person. Can they kick them out for being black?

Your not running a business with open doors to the public, right? I can’t just open the door and help myself to your fridge.[/quote]

If they selectively kick people out, it isn’t “open to the public”. Yes, they have the right, assuming its privately owned. I can’t just open the door to a restaurant and help myself to the fridge.

But if they are kicking people out, doesn’t that make it a private establishment?

If I sell home grown vegetables out of my house, can I no longer kick whomever I want out of it?

I’ve never understood why being “open to the public” means that you don’t really own the place anymore.[/quote]

I know the rules are different for business open to the public vs. private residence. What I am sure of is that you can’t be kicked out of an establishment for having a private conversation. Now if he was harassing people, that’s a different deal. Fuck him.

40

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Not when you open your doors to the public. What if they kicked a black guy out because they felt like it?[/quote]

If it’s private property they should be able to kick out whomever they wanted. I’m sure if they did that, they’d go out of business though.

What if it was my house? can I not kick people out based on race or religion? [/quote]

What if it’s a black person. Can they kick them out for being black?

Your not running a business with open doors to the public, right? I can’t just open the door and help myself to your fridge.[/quote]

If they selectively kick people out, it isn’t “open to the public”. Yes, they have the right, assuming its privately owned. I can’t just open the door to a restaurant and help myself to the fridge.

But if they are kicking people out, doesn’t that make it a private establishment?

If I sell home grown vegetables out of my house, can I no longer kick whomever I want out of it?

I’ve never understood why being “open to the public” means that you don’t really own the place anymore.[/quote]

I know the rules are different for business open to the public vs. private residence. What I am sure of is that you can’t be kicked out of an establishment for having a private conversation. Now if he was harassing people, that’s a different deal. Fuck him.[/quote]

I know the rules are different, I just don’t think they should be.