Well at least they haven't arrested anyone for wearing peace tshirts. Wait a second

This is a discussion on Well at least they haven't arrested anyone for wearing peace tshirts. Wait a second within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; > Trespassing was the charge, the t-shirt was the reason. Right, but he wasn't arrested for just wearing the t-shirt ...

  1. #31
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > Trespassing was the charge, the t-shirt was the reason.

    Right, but he wasn't arrested for just wearing the t-shirt - he could have left. If you want to trace it back further, trspassing was the charge, going to the mall was the reason.

    > based on his loudmouth moronic beliefs.

    C'mon - leave ober alone.

  2. #32
    5|-|1+|-|34|) ober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,429
    yeah... I WOULD HAVE ARRESTED THE GUY IF HE LOOKED AT ME WRONG...


    (there... do you hate me more now?)

  3. #33
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    >>>
    How was he discriminating? If, in his opinion (or in this case, the opinion of the security guard, who is paid to represent the owners interests, I suppose) the man was causing a disturbance, he was 100% in his right to have him removed from the premesis.
    <<<

    Was he not asked to leave because of his shirt then creating because he was asked to leave? His son removed his shirt and that was fine. It does not actually say they were causing any kind of disturbance in the article.

    The question I was asking really is, in the US can someone that owns a place where it is normal for the public to be admitted, choose to exclude people because he dislikes their personal views on an issue?

    To me at least, that would seem to be as discriminatory as asking Fenchmen to leave because they don't support the US, (the case with the pizza house I mentioned earlier), which is illegal under EU directives.
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  4. #34
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Originally posted by adrianxw
    The question I was asking really is, in the US can someone that owns a place where it is normal for the public to be admitted, choose to exclude people because he dislikes their personal views on an issue?
    Unfortunately, in the atmosphere we've had for the last year and a half, it appears to be that way.

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Originally posted by adrianxw
    The question I was asking really is, in the US can someone that owns a place where it is normal for the public to be admitted, choose to exclude people because he dislikes their personal views on an issue?
    Generally, yeah, except for religious beliefs. There may be some exceptions in areas defined as places of public accomodation. And there have been cases where malls were argued to be public common spaces, but I don't know how they were decided.
    I read earlier this morning that the mall owners are dropping the charges after all the publicity.

  6. #36
    Funniest man in this seat minesweeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    801
    >>Generally, yeah, except for religious beliefs.<<

    This is something I don't understand, why does religion always have exceptions made for it? It is ok to discriminate against someone due to their beliefs as to whether or not another country should be bombed by the allied military but not due to their beliefs about God etc. Crazy if you ask me.

  7. #37
    It's full of stars adrianxw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    4,831
    >>> Unfortunately, in the atmosphere we've had for the last year and a half, it appears to be that way.

    Wow.
    Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    559
    Originally posted by minesweeper
    >>Generally, yeah, except for religious beliefs.<<

    This is something I don't understand, why does religion always have exceptions made for it? It is ok to discriminate against someone due to their beliefs as to whether or not another country should be bombed by the allied military but not due to their beliefs about God etc. Crazy if you ask me.
    Religious exceptions are provided for in the Constitution. Many colonists came to America to escape religious persecution.
    For that matter, many private places can discriminate on the basis of religion. When a private place is deemed to be actually place where public business is done the non-discrimination laws kick in. So restaurants, private employers, etc, can't discriminate against religion, race, etc.
    Deeds on some houses have a clause forbidding sale to Jews, for example, but this is unenforceable.
    Last edited by salvelinus; 03-06-2003 at 10:52 AM.

  9. #39
    cereal killer dP munky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    655
    >>Religious exceptions are provided for in the Constitution

    the constitution says all men are created equal, but it took us 190 years before we kicked that part into effect
    guns dont kill people, abortion clinics kill people.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,708
    charges were dropped, rightfully so

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 10:24 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21