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

[Twangbanger]

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

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with the current discussion?

 

[BE Mike]

Minnesota is a hotbed of current liberal thinking. Liberal used to mean, in part, open mindedness and inclusiveness. Now it has taken a fascist bent. I wouldn't be surprised if they changed the name to "Mall of Wokeness".

 

[chipbennett]

What does the Declaration of Independence have to do with the current discussion?

Should I just quote my previous post? It was pretty self-explanatory. It asserted the founders' philosophy with respect to the rightful role of government. That philosophy directly related to securing individual liberty. That philosophy had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing a theocracy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Is suggesting that the apparent banning of attire of a certain religious belief the same as demanding that anyone can say anything?

 

[Twangbanger]

Should I just quote my previous post? It was pretty self-explanatory. It asserted the founders' philosophy with respect to the rightful role of government. That philosophy directly related to securing individual liberty. That philosophy had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing a theocracy.

You are correct, I did not read far enough back. My apologies. That's what I get for looking at the OP + last page, and not reading the rest.

 

[Ziggidy]

There are certainly more offensive activities going on in the malls, on the streets and such.
Walking around grabbing one's crotch or even


There comes a time when a touch of common sense is important.

 

[Leo]

Having been in that Mall a few times, I would testify that Tshirts with Green Bay / Vikings and Bears opinions are far more bold and confrontational.

 

[Twangbanger]

Pretty sure it wasn't the Jesus Saves text on the front of the shirt that got him thrown out. That's a fairly benign message.

The back, however...

View attachment 248610

This just seems like a First World Problems issue. On both sides of the coin. The guy wore that shirt because he wanted to get a rise.

The ninnies responded as expected.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

There are certainly more offensive activities going on in the malls, on the streets and such.
Walking around grabbing one's crotch or even
View attachment 248708

There comes a time when a touch of common sense is important.

Right? Turn your hat around!

 

[printcraft]

Now do drag shows.

Probably on the weekends...

 

[chipbennett]

This just seems like a First World Problems issue. On both sides of the coin. The guy wore that shirt because he wanted to get a rise.

The ninnies responded as expected.

You know that, do you? It isn't even remotely possible that he wore it because he sincerely believes the message to be true?

 

[Hookeye]

I don't care what people's shirts say.

The fact that most people are slobs and generally clueless/self centered jerks in their general behavior.............thats what I find offensive.

Then there's that hygeine thing......

 

[chipbennett]

Probably on the weekends...

Per the article, the mall literally hosted a drag show in the very atrium in which Paul Blart tried to trespass the guy wearing a "Jesus Saves" shirt.

 

[Hookeye]

Per the article, the mall literally hosted a drag show in the very atrium in which Paul Blart tried to trespass the guy wearing a "Jesus Saves" shirt.

Maybe that drag show is why the gentleman wore his shirt.
To show The Path.

 

[chipbennett]

Maybe that drag show is why the gentleman wore his shirt.
To show The Path.

Who knows? The point, though, is that if the mall hosted such an event that is unquestionably offensive to many people, it would have little ground to stand on to claim that this man's shirt was sufficiently offensive to trespass him.

 

[HoughMade]

Having been in that Mall a few times, I would testify that Tshirts with Green Bay / Vikings and Bears opinions are far more bold and confrontational.

The Vikings shirt is only annoying while the Packers one is downright offensive.

 

[HoughMade]

I think the mall went down a bad path when it went after the ideas expressed on the shirt rather than simply language.

There are offensive terms for different religions- I can see a shopping mall banning those along with other "course" language. I also see banning anything that encourages violence.

Aside from that, it gets too subjective to make judgments.

To be clear, I think the mall has the right to ban whatever clothing....but I think it's application in this case was unwise.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Some could argue that a mall could be considered a 'Public Square'. If that were the case, Supreme Court case Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) would be relevant. The court ruled that first amendment protections exist even against private entities if they unreasonably violate the fundamental first amendment rights of individuals in what was considered a 'Public Square'. The challenge to this however is do we consider a mall a 'public square of ideas'? I've heard modern 1st amendment lawyers bring up this case to try and fight online censorship on major platforms, because it is a modern 'public square of ideas'.

 

[Lpherr]

Some could argue that a mall could be considered a 'Public Square'. If that were the case, Supreme Court case Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) would be relevant. The court ruled that first amendment protections exist even against private entities if they unreasonably violate the fundamental first amendment rights of individuals in what was considered a 'Public Square'. The challenge to this however is do we consider a mall a 'public square of ideas'? I've heard modern 1st amendment lawyers bring up this case to try and fight online censorship on major platforms, because it is a modern 'public square of ideas'.

It isn't a "public square", it is private property.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972), may be more relevant.