Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I figured there's no real need to debate weather or not this was discrimination. America is founded upon discrimination and double standards and it will probably exist as long as this country exists.
IF they were True Gang Tats I betting they wouldn't have had the Nerve to kick him out! I saw Nothing offensive in his tats! Now those Gold Fangs hummmm borderline!
Thank goodness! It's about time someone stood up to the tidal wave of extreme liberalism. The "I can do what I want and YOU have to accept it and LIKE it!" crowd has had a free hand for far too long. Other peoples' rights are routinely ignored. I don't want to look at someone with rings in their face and tattoos all over when I'm eating. It makes my stomach turn. I come down on the side of private property owners to set whatever standards they want inside. There is no "right" to do whatever you want in this country. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against "free speech" advocates in privately owned places. There was a case in which a political organization was distributing protest paraphernalia outside a shopping mall and even inside wearing protest T-shirts at certain times. The shopping mall had their security personnel remove them from the mall AND the grounds. They sued and it went before the Supreme Court. The protestors claimed that because the mall was intended to be open to the public, they had a right to wear their protest shirts and hand out protest pamphlets inside as well. The Supreme Court disagreed that the mall was "public area" by reasoning that even though it was theoretically intended for public access, it was only at the discretion of the owner who could have decided whether it was "open" or not. The Court ruled that the situation was similar to a person's home. You can let anybody in you choose, but you can also tell them to vacate if you wish. The Court found that because the mall was PRIVATELY owned, was NOT intended as a platform for expression, and the protestors could assemble at many public places, the owners had a right to restrict behavior on their own property. This was one of the most sensible rulings of the Court. It struck an important balance between individual private property rights and the right to protest. The owner, even though he WANTS the public to come in, can still decide NOT to let you in if he chooses. So yes, the Supreme Court agrees that there is only limited "free speech" rights on privately owned land. I hope to see more of this in privately owned businesses.
Thank goodness! It's about time someone stood up to the tidal wave of extreme liberalism. The "I can do what I want and YOU have to accept it and LIKE it!" crowd has had a free hand for far too long. Other peoples' rights are routinely ignored. I don't want to look at someone with rings in their face and tattoos all over when I'm eating. It makes my stomach turn. I come down on the side of private property owners to set whatever standards they want inside. There is no "right" to do whatever you want in this country. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against "free speech" advocates in privately owned places. There was a case in which a political organization was distributing protest paraphernalia outside a shopping mall and even inside wearing protest T-shirts at certain times. The shopping mall had their security personnel remove them from the mall AND the grounds. They sued and it went before the Supreme Court. The protestors claimed that because the mall was intended to be open to the public, they had a right to wear their protest shirts and hand out protest pamphlets inside as well. The Supreme Court disagreed that the mall was "public area" by reasoning that even though it was theoretically intended for public access, it was only at the discretion of the owner who could have decided whether it was "open" or not. The Court ruled that the situation was similar to a person's home. You can let anybody in you choose, but you can also tell them to vacate if you wish. The Court found that because the mall was PRIVATELY owned, was NOT intended as a platform for expression, and the protestors could assemble at many public places, the owners had a right to restrict behavior on their own property. This was one of the most sensible rulings of the Court. It struck an important balance between individual private property rights and the right to protest. The owner, even though he WANTS the public to come in, can still decide NOT to let you in if he chooses. So yes, the Supreme Court agrees that there is only limited "free speech" rights on privately owned land. I hope to see more of this in privately owned businesses.
Oh for gods sake, try watching the link. Your rant is completely out of place.
Atlanta's post is still relevant to the topic.Tattoos can be seen as freedom of expression, pretty much the same as freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if it's a restaurant, a mall, or somebody's living room, it's private property and the owner, or his representative, has the right to ask the individual to leave, if they don't they are trespassing.
It's clear-cut discrimination. Can no more exclude service to someone with facial tattoos than you could someone super obese, with some disfigurement, or other abnormal appearance. Guy should sue. And he'll very likely win. The officer should be sued as well since he should known better. Where is the root of the problem? Welcome to the USA the freest country
Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. Kicking this guy out would likely help prevent a successful discrimination lawsuit. Based on an admittedly non scientific one minute search, Latinos and blacks would likely represent the majority of the gang element they don't want at their establishment:
Enforcing a blanket ban and being able to legitimately say we kicked out the white guy with the Harry Potter tattoos would help prevent someone from saying the policy is in place to discriminate against minorities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
