> 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.
yeah... I WOULD HAVE ARRESTED THE GUY IF HE LOOKED AT ME WRONG...
(there... do you hate me more now?):p
>>>
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.
Unfortunately, in the atmosphere we've had for the last year and a half, it appears to be that way.Quote:
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.Quote:
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?
I read earlier this morning that the mall owners are dropping the charges after all the publicity.
>>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.
>>> Unfortunately, in the atmosphere we've had for the last year and a half, it appears to be that way.
Wow.
Religious exceptions are provided for in the Constitution. Many colonists came to America to escape religious persecution.Quote:
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.
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.
>>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
charges were dropped, rightfully so