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

[schmart]

I had read the news story well before reading this thread. Not trying to be insulting, but it seems that most here are discussing the headline only, and not taking all the information in the article into account.

This person was kicked out and trespassed from Mall of America for 24 hours, less than a week prior due to proselytizing and generally bothering other customers, which is against their code of conduct. I seriously doubt that was the first run-in he had had with security. I suspect he is well known with security and they are just DONE with his antics, regardless what his shirt says. They very well may have had complaints from businesses "He's back and dressed to intrude!"

Now the Mall is stuck no matter what happens. People would complain that if the mall didn't address disruptions (people shouting news in the common area), and another group complains when they do. I'm very much a Christian and first amendment supporter, but I have to side with the mall on this one. Not because of the shirt, but because of the person's previous actions and suspected intent.

--Rick

 

[CTC B4Z]

So again, we need to edit the title don't we...?

Habitual trespasser wearing a Jesus saves and all other religions are null and void shirt is kicked out of mall...

 

[Ziggidy]

Answered

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

That's only IF they have enough money to fight it in court. Bakery shop owners went bankrupt to stand up to that. I also remember a time when it was illegal for a men's only club to refuse memberships to women. How about private swim clubs that mandate biological differences when competing? How long before private christian schools are mandated to hire gays and such?

What is considered a private business? By whose definition?

 

[CTC B4Z]

Why don't they hire gays as is?

What's wrong with gays?

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Okay, I'm following you. I would probably use a different term than "get a rise" (which to me implies an attempt to troll/get an adverse/hyperbolic reaction) - perhaps something like "initiate a conversation" (which implies a desire for sincere engagement).

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 also suspect that Paul Blart does not have blanket trespass authority in this circumstance, and was very unwise in his attempted use of that authority. At the same time, there is nothing inherently wrong with the "Jesus Saves" shirt, and it objectively does not in any way violate the stated mall dress code.

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

It's already in the works, according to the article.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Keep in mind that what I think such rights should be, and what such rights actually are, according to precedent case law, might be two, different things. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is not now, and has not for decades been, the applicable, legal landscape for places of business.

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?

My private property isn't generally open to the public, in the way that a place of public commerce is generally open to the public.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

I may have read that one the other way around. SCOTUS sided with the pamphlet-distributor rather than the mall?

 

[chipbennett]

Their house, their rules.

Dont like it? Use the market.

That hasn't been the legal landscape for decades. We can debate whether or not it should be; but it simply isn't. SCOTUS invented a "right of public accommodation".

 

[chipbennett]

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

I guess his shirt was slamming almost all other religions?

A. No it wasn't.
B. The alleged slam included his own religion.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

And I'm pretty sure that they don't - and even if they do, it isn't legally enforceable, and if attempted to be enforced, could open such places of business to civil liability.

 

[chipbennett]

So again, we need to edit the title don't we...?

Habitual trespasser wearing a Jesus saves and all other religions are null and void shirt is kicked out of mall...

The thread headline is accurate.

Your summation is (bad) interpretation.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

That’s the basis of Christianity. All other religions are false. Nothing wrong here. As a free nation you are required to tolerate other’s ideas and beliefs. If not, you can at your choosing shrink to the Biden basement.

That's the basis of EVERY religion. Every religion that I know of anyway. (and I'm not saying I'm all knowing) They pretty much all teach their followers to have faith in their teachings, and that any other belief is false. Most want you to spread the word too, a few say do that at sword point, but they pretty much all say "our way is the only way", or at least the "right" way.

I mean, Jesus actually said "I am the way."
He didn't say I am ONE OF THE ways."
He said he was THE way... as in the ONLY way.

My feeling is who cares...? The guy was just wearing a T-shirt. He wasn't standing in the food court preaching to passersby. "The end is near! Repent!" The whole point is nobody (well, only certain people) can have a damn opinion in this God-forsaken country anymore without some loser getting their panties in a bunch, and demanding special treatment because they're "offended".

Who gives a rat's ass.
Be offended for crying out loud.
You're not gonna die.

*language*

 

[HoughMade]

Could a private business ban gays? With laws on the books, some places.

Women? No.

Non-smokers? Yes.

Bald people? Yes.

Look up "suspect classification".

...but what does banning people have to do with banning T-shirts?

 

[chipbennett]

I had read the news story well before reading this thread. Not trying to be insulting, but it seems that most here are discussing the headline only, and not taking all the information in the article into account.

This person was kicked out and trespassed from Mall of America for 24 hours, less than a week prior due to proselytizing and generally bothering other customers, which is against their code of conduct. I seriously doubt that was the first run-in he had had with security. I suspect he is well known with security and they are just DONE with his antics, regardless what his shirt says. They very well may have had complaints from businesses "He's back and dressed to intrude!"

Now the Mall is stuck no matter what happens. People would complain that if the mall didn't address disruptions (people shouting news in the common area), and another group complains when they do. I'm very much a Christian and first amendment supporter, but I have to side with the mall on this one. Not because of the shirt, but because of the person's previous actions and suspected intent.

--Rick

Another way to view this chain of events is that the man was rightfully trespassed the first time for violating the mall's code of conduct, and then attempted a new tact, that he believed to be in conformance with that code of conduct, the second time.

It is possible that he was trying to prove the point that the mall was going to give him a hard time no matter what he did. And if that was his intent, Paul Blart did a great job of proving him correct.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

That hasn't been the legal landscape for decades. We can debate whether or not it should be; but it simply isn't. SCOTUS invented a "right of public accommodation".

Fed lawyers also invented the right to ban marijuana growing and sales. It was well established and a similarly farcical political landscape.....until people told the feds to get f*****.

The people can totally ignore federal overreach if they have the guts to do it.

To be clear, I really enjoy reading Chips perspectives on things and i do not want my tone here to appear combative towards Chip.

 

[Ziggidy]

Look up "suspect classification".

...but what does banning people have to do with banning T-shirts?

You are the expert here, I'm a nothing when it comes to law - just my opinion. The law at times is anything but black and white and in my opinion too much gray.

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

I may have read that one the other way around. SCOTUS sided with the pamphlet-distributor rather than the mall?

Sorry I misread, it was a district court that put the injunction in and SCOTUS sided with Lloyd through certiorari. However, it did lead to Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), where SCOTUS upheld the California's Supreme Court siding with the students to petition in the public areas of a privately owned mall. Not exactly the same with this situation, but goes back to my point to that there are rare circumstances to where private entities can be considered violating 1st amendment rights.

I'm no legal expert, this is just what I could research in my free time at work.

 

[HoughMade]

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980),

In that case, it was found that the State Constitution provided the right "petition" at the shopping center, not the 1st Am. of the U.S. Constitution.

However, the Supreme Court found that the shopping center's 1st Amendment and private property rights were not violated by the State Constitution.

It's a kind of convoluted issue.

 

[Lpherr]

And I'm pretty sure that they don't - and even if they do, it isn't legally enforceable, and if attempted to be enforced, could open such places of business to civil liability.

Can you show where that has actually happened?
The "malls" have it in their policy (in Indiana), that weapons, including guns, are prohibited.
An offender can be asked to leave, and be trespassed if they don't. I haven't heard of them being sued, so what's the difference?

 

[ljk]