Can't wear a Jesus Saves shirt in the Mall of America?

[chipbennett]

I don't know about that. I've seen businesses get away with banning revealing clothing, clothing with words, even clothing of certain colors. I support his right to wear that shirt, but I also support the rights of a private business to set the rules for their own establishment. If we are to support freedom, we must support freedom for all.

IANAL, but IIRC in such circumstances, the powers-that-be don't get to discriminate among words, especially ever since SCOTUS discovered the "right of accommodation" somewhere in the Constitution. So, banning all clothing with any words whatsoever would likely be okay. But banning religious/political speech in the form of words on clothing? There be dragons.

 

[chipbennett]

I was in a local Lowes over the christmas holiday and a worker had a t-shirt on that said happy birthday satan. Was I offended, sure I but let it go because we are America. People have the right to wear and say things that I don't like. It's the American way.

Why let yourself be offended over something that is either mere stupidity or obvious trolling?

 

[chipbennett]

The back of his T-shirt literally has a red line across all other religions. It's not the same as a simple profession of faith. It is calling all other religions false.

No, it isn't. That's merely your inference.

It would be the same thing as me claiming that a "Black Lives Matter" statement is equivalent to saying "Non-Black Lives Don't Matter" and therefore a racial slur. It is an incorrect inference.

 

[chipbennett]

And this is likely what got him removed. It likely wasn't anything to do with the statement of his faith, but the ostracizing of differing opinions that made his shirt controversial.

That is ridiculous on its face, though.

Merely stating that one is a Christian is to claim that all other religious beliefs are incorrect. The same is true of stating that one is Muslim or Jewish or Hindu. (Sikhs are a bit different on this one.)

A line through the religious symbols that constitute "COEXIST" a) in the context of "Jesus is the only way" merely reiterates that the religions represented by the symbols are not the way, and b) ironically includes a line through the Christian cross that stands for "T" in "COEXIST". As such, it cannot possibly be construed to be a slur against the represented religions, because it would then also constitute a slur against Christianity.

 

[chipbennett]

Somehow, I think you'd be orders of magnitude less strident in your defense of the Mall of America shopper if this was his T-shirt...

View attachment 248619

Wrong. Why would you think that?

(I'll take "psychological projection" for $200, Mayim.)

 

[Leo]

Last I checked, the Mall of America is not Congress or the government.

That is a point.

However, we live in society by multiple principles. For example, just because I am a faster and more accurate shot than anyone else at Mall of America, does not mean I automatically get to shoot a rude clerk. I also do not get to leave without paying.

No Mall policy is needed and no signs forbidding those actions need posted because we all understand the societal principles as defined by law. The religious opinion of the exclusivity of JESUS is one that is well within our public principles.

 

[chipbennett]

That is a point.

However, we live in society by multiple principles. For example, just because I am a faster and more accurate shot than anyone else at Mall of America, does not mean I automatically get to shoot a rude clerk. I also do not get to leave without paying.

No Mall policy is needed and no signs forbidding those actions need posted because we all understand the societal principles as defined by law. The religious opinion of the exclusivity of JESUS is one that is well within our public principles.

Besides, I find that particular argument tiresome. The constitution constrains the government from infringing upon rights; that is true. However: the very reason for existence of the government is to protect the individual against violation of those rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Government exists to ensure that such rights are secured. That means that it is proper for the government to act to ensure that they are not violated, such as in this instance.

 

[HoughMade]

Do they get any government money or tax breaks? If so I would say they are no different than a public school.

Under the law....no.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't know about that. I've seen businesses get away with banning revealing clothing, clothing with words, even clothing of certain colors. I support his right to wear that shirt, but I also support the rights of a private business to set the rules for their own establishment. If we are to support freedom, we must support freedom for all.

I think the difference is a generalized prohibition vs a prohibition of clothing associated with a certain religion. Banning colors is a safety measure due to gang violence, and "colors" is generally meant to be gang colors, not generic colors. Restaurants with a dress code to maintain a certain ambience may require a jacket but they do so for every male, not just a certain race.

 

[Route 45]

Besides, I find that particular argument tiresome. The constitution constrains the government from infringing upon rights; that is true. However: the very reason for existence of the government is to protect the individual against violation of those rights:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Government exists to ensure that such rights are secured. That means that it is proper for the government to act to ensure that they are not violated, such as in this instance.

Noble idea, but that’s from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Remember, the police have no duty to protect you. Right?

 

[HoughMade]

Government exists to ensure that such rights are secured. That means that it is proper for the government to act to ensure that they are not violated, such as in this instance.

I get what you are saying, but MoA has its own freedom of expression and the freedom of expression includes the right to not be associated with certain ideas or expressions. If the gvt. were to have a law that forbid private property owners, even on properties held open to the public from exercising their right to exclude expressions of ideas, religious in this case, from its property, that would be a more straight-forward First Amendment problem.

IMHO the response to this is not gvt., it's the market and exposure.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

From the Mall of America dress code:

Clothing/Attire​

Appropriate attire, including shirts and shoes, must be worn. Inappropriate attire may include, but is not limited to:

• Apparel that has obscene language, obscene gestures or racial/religious/ethnic slurs that are likely to create a disturbance

OPA! of Greece

Hey, check out OPA%21+of+Greece at @mallofamerica! #MOA http://mallofamerica.com/directory/opa-of-greece

www.mallofamerica.com

Wearing a shirt that calls all other religions false seems to qualify to me. Nah, I can't see this causing a disturbance with Muslim or Jewish shoppers.

The "Coexist" thing contains the Christian symbol as well. Any Muslim or Jewish person who starts a disturbance over the t-shirt is the problem, not the t-shirt wearer (again with the assumption the shirt is the only thing going on, not some "coexisting is wrong so kill everyone who doesn't believe the thing I believe ranting going on or the like)

 

[chipbennett]

Noble idea, but that’s from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Remember, the police have no duty to protect you. Right?

Yes, it's from the DoI.

The DoI is the document that laid out the basis for the United States to break away from the UK and form its own government. It lays out the philosophy of governance of our founders.

 

[Twangbanger]

That shirt is pretty tame.

Seems like the Coexisters aren't coexisting very well.

 

[JettaKnight]

Do they get any government money or tax breaks? If so I would say they are no different than a public school.

That's not how that works at all. Churches get tax breaks, yet we certainly don't demand anyone can say anything. Same for a small bakery or wedding venue. Do you really want the government to dictate what speech you are required to allow in your business or organisation just because of your tax status? Are you really asking for more government control?

And besides, if we hold the mall of America to be like a school, then yes, the guy would be asked to cover or remove his shirt.

 

[chipbennett]

I get what you are saying, but MoA has its own freedom of expression and the freedom of expression includes the right to not be associated with certain ideas or expressions. If the gvt. were to have a law that forbid private property owners, even on properties held open to the public from exercising their right to exclude expressions of ideas, religious in this case, from its property, that would be a more straight-forward First Amendment problem.

IMHO the response to this is not gvt., it's the market and exposure.

I agree. I'm merely responding to the oft-repeated argument about the First Amendment. 1A constrains the government from infringing upon certain rights. It does not imply that the government cannot act to secure those rights.

 

[chipbennett]

That's not how that works at all. Churches get tax breaks, yet we certainly don't demand anyone can say anything. Same for a small bakery or wedding venue. Do you really want the government to dictate what speech you are required to allow in your business or organisation just because of your tax status? Are you really asking for more government control?

A mall is a place of public accommodation. A church is a private association.

And besides, if we hold the mall of America to be like a school, then yes, the guy would be asked to cover or remove his shirt.

[Citation Needed]

 

[Twangbanger]

Yes, it's from the DoI.

The DoI is the document that laid out the basis for the United States to break away from the UK and form its own government. It lays out the philosophy of governance of our founders.

Yeah, but there's a reason that language didn't make it into the Constitution. Explaining an act of separation, rooted in a world-view as it may be, and setting forth rules for all others (and all future others) to live by are different things.

The Founders did not create a Theocracy. Much as some may like it to be.

 

[Pepi]

That mall is a sh|T hole

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, but there's a reason that language didn't make it into the Constitution. Explaining an act of separation, rooted in a world-view as it may be, and setting forth rules for all others (and all future others) to live by are different things.

The Founders did not create a Theocracy. Much as some may like it to be.

Who said anything about a theocracy? What does that even have anything to do with the current discussion?