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

[chipbennett]

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

For the sake of argument: it is private property, that the owner has opened to the general public for conduct of commerce, entertainment, and expression. Which moves the property much closer to "public square" with respect to intended use.

 

[chipbennett]

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

How so? The person in question was a) engaged in legitimate business (shopping at a store in the mall), and b) not handing out literature of any kind.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I think the mall should have the right to ban whatever it wants, as should all property owners. However, SCOTUS made up a "right of accommodation" from somewhere in the penumbras of the constitution, which under equal protection must apply in terms of such bans.

 

[Twangbanger]

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

I think there's no doubt Kanye Guy sincerely believes in his craft, and is trying to turn others onto it and start conversations. That's part of what I meant by "get a rise." Anytime you put a symbol with a line crossing it out, you're trying to poke somebody or something. He is probably hoping that conversation leads to something good. But as we saw, it's equally (or probably more) likely it leads to something bad.

There is no way I would have asked that guy to leave, but do I think this guy was trying to get a "rise" out of people? Absolutely. Some people think good evangelism contains an element of being an assertive PITA. They're more afraid of being ignored, then being hated. I'd wager 8-to-5 with a coke on the line that Kanye Guy tried to have "The Conversation" with Paul Blart on the spot.

Paul Blart is overacting, in my opinion. But he's also on the clock to do a job, and the interpretation of what constitutes a "slur" is above his pay grade. As a mall employee, he has to "answer the mail." Kanye Guy, on the other hand, has a pretty unforced choice in what shirt to put on that morning.

I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if there ends up being a "Yellow Shirt Day" at MoA.

 

[Lpherr]

For the sake of argument: it is private property, that the owner has opened to the general public for conduct of commerce, entertainment, and expression. Which moves the property much closer to "public square" with respect to intended use.

I disagree. Private property is owned by an individual/small group, and their rules and policies, should be followed, or expect to be asked to leave.
It's no different for any other type of business. They allow the public to enter, but can refuse anyone, for any reason.
That right, is extended to your own property. Do you believe an individual has the right, to enter your property and do/say as they wish, and you have no recourse?

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

How so? The person in question was a) engaged in legitimate business (shopping at a store in the mall), and b) not handing out literature of any kind.

Mainly because the court decided that the mall violated their 1st amendment because the mall was considered a public business district. However the Lloyd Corporation was granted a certiorari later on.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Their house, their rules.

Dont like it? Use the market.

 

[Twangbanger]

I disagree. Private property is owned by an individual/small group, and their rules and policies, should be followed, or expect to be asked to leave.
It's no different for any other type of business. They allow the public to enter, but can refuse anyone, for any reason.
That right, is extended to your own property. Do you believe an individual has the right, to enter your property and do/say as they wish, and you have no recourse?

I think the allegation is they are trying to prevent "free exercise of religion" in a "public accommodation." If there ends up being a "Yellow Shirt Day" at the Mall, that will be where the lawsuit will be headed.

The Mall probably had their dress code vetted by a lawyer, and that's why it says "religious slurs" instead of "religious content." To protect them from that type of case. Where they probably went wrong here, is that no slurs appear on that shirt, just "provocative imagery."

...but I bet "provocative imagery, at the sole discretion of the Proprietor" will be added to the MoA dress code straight away

 

[CTC B4Z]

So when do we edit the fake news click bait title?

I guess his shirt was slamming almost all other religions?

 

[Ziggidy]

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.

Not everyone who wear specific clothing does it to get a rise.

Did you get a rise?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ziggidy]

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

Could a private business ban gays? Women? Non-smokers? Bald people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lpherr]

Could a private business ban gays? Women? Non-smokers? Bald people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if it was non-smoking bald gays that identify as women?

I'm pretty sure, most places that allow the public to enter, have it stated in their policies, they have the right to refuse entry/service to anyone, for any reason.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

I disagree. Private property is owned by an individual/small group, and their rules and policies, should be followed, or expect to be asked to leave.
It's no different for any other type of business. They allow the public to enter, but can refuse anyone, for any reason.
That right, is extended to your own property. Do you believe an individual has the right, to enter your property and do/say as they wish, and you have no recourse?

I agree with your assessment for the vast majority of businesses and private property, however there is something to be said when a business holds a certain monopoly (which to be clear I am not saying Mall of America does, I am just making a hypothetical) over something deemed essential for the free exchange of ideas, I believe 1st amendment protections should apply as well. Such as if all the internet providers prevented this site from being viewed simply because they don't like our message.

 

[MCgrease08]

I disagree. Private property is owned by an individual/small group, and their rules and policies, should be followed, or expect to be asked to leave.
It's no different for any other type of business. They allow the public to enter, but can refuse anyone, for any reason.

IMHO, that's how things should work, but is not reality. The genie left the lamp on that idea of refusing service a long time ago.

Many courts have ruled that services must be offered to a number of protected groups. I don't agree with that, but it's the way things actually are, not the way I wish them to be.

I don't know if this falls under that umbrella or not, but it's important to note that private property rights are not absolute in all situations.

 

[MCgrease08]

So when do we edit the fake news click bait title?

I guess his shirt was slamming almost all other religions?

"Slamming?"

 

[Twangbanger]

What if it was non-smoking bald gays that identify as women?

I'm pretty sure, most places that allow the public to enter, have it stated in their policies, they have the right to refuse entry/service to anyone, for any reason.

True, but saying it, and getting it upheld in court, are two different things. Just because you can have it printed on a sign doesn't mean it's actually enforceable.

I always think about the dump trucks that say "Stay back 300 feet - Not Responsible for Broken Windshields." Oh yeah? Try that on the district attorney, when you crack his/her windshield passing him going the other direction on a two-way street, where it's impossible for passing traffic to be 300 feet apart.

 

[Lpherr]

True, but saying it, and getting it upheld in court, are two different things. Just because you can have it printed on a sign doesn't mean it's actually enforceable.

I always think about the dump trucks that say "Stay back 300 feet - Not Responsible for Broken Windshields." Oh yeah? Try that on the district attorney, when you crack his/her windshield passing him going the other direction on a two-way street, where it's impossible for passing traffic to be 300 feet apart.

Unfortunately, my pockets aren't deep enough to challenge anyone's policies.
I either blend in to avoid being singled out, or simply not grace them with my presence.

 

[Sigblitz]

Does a private property establishment need a reason to trespass?

 

[Sigblitz]

True, but saying it, and getting it upheld in court, are two different things. Just because you can have it printed on a sign doesn't mean it's actually enforceable.

I always think about the dump trucks that say "Stay back 300 feet - Not Responsible for Broken Windshields." Oh yeah? Try that on the district attorney, when you crack his/her windshield passing him going the other direction on a two-way street, where it's impossible for passing traffic to be 300 feet apart.

And not one of them have a license plate visible.

 

[Sigblitz]

Does a private property establishment need a reason to trespass.

Answered

"Generally, in the US, a business has the right to serve or not serve anyone for any reason or for no reason."