Mall Of America: Remove Your "Jesus Saves" Shirt Or Leave The Mall

originally posted by: Athetos
So there is no free speech or freedom of religion anymore in America.

I wonder if there any mall security guards that might wear a turban…or maybe a vendor. Did they ban head coverings? A sign of religion, did they ban kippahs? Are people aloud to be offended by other religions or just Christianity?

No they banned a simple t shirt that simply has one Christian slogan on it.
Of all the t shirts in the freaking mall of America I am sure a guy could dig up a few crude one liners. None of them should be banned.

a reply to: infolurker

Well Donald Trump did cancel Muslims when he banned them from entering the US a few years back. I didn't see anybody on the right crying about their freedom of religion or their constitution being attacked back then. Where were you all?

a reply to: jamespond

best go back and check his EO only banned muslims from certain countries that were known to harbor or promote terrorism, and was upheld by SCOTUS.

The first version of the ban issued by executive order in January 2017 was a total ban on all travelers for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Green-card holders were initially told they would need waivers to be admitted but were later exempted from the ban. That ban was immediately blocked by a federal appeals court and met with lawsuits.

The Supreme Court’s travel ban decision, explained

i only see seven known terrorist supporting counties on that list, not all of the known muslim dominated countries, and then it was just for 90 Days.

i challenge you pull any version of that EO and show us where it says all muslims.


telling lies doesn't help TDS suffering dem ones.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

And that order only stood until those countries could produce reliable means of proving whom they were letting in were who they said they were too. In other words, it was not a blanket ban forever, but a call for them to get their documentation standards up to snuff to filter out said terrorists.

OK, the amount of absolute ignorance in this thread is astounding! So let me make a (probably vain) attempt to interject some of those offensive things called "facts" into the conversation.

First of all, there are four basic classifications of "property":

• Restricted government property:
  This includes military bases, government installations, and pretty much anywhere deemed to be sensitive or to affect national security. The government in charge of the property can set broad guidelines as to access and implement about any restrictions they choose... as long as those restrictions do not apply specifically to anyone based solely on race, creed, religion, sexual preference, gender, or other "civil rights" as determined by the courts. Clothing can be restricted pretty much without limit if part of the government policy involves the use of issued uniforms, although some minor variation must be allowed in accordance with those "civil rights" (i.e. earrings or small pieces of jewelry with religious significance as long as all jewelry is not prohibited).
  
  
• Public government property:
  Included are government offices where people perform government-mandated activities (paying taxes, registering for permits or licenses, etc.) or where people regularly travel between destinations (streets, highways, etc.). The government cannot prohibit any reasonable expression relating to "civil rights" as determined by the court... this includes apparel, speech, or even advertising as long as it is not for profit. A person has every right to wear whatever they choose and say whatever they choose, be that an atheist shirt,a Christian shirt, a Satanist shirt, preaching the Gospel, preaching the Quran, or just holding a sign and proclaiming "The end is near!" An exception is made for activities that are dangerous to others, can be shown is likely to cause a major incidence of violence, or for "public decency" (that would include the requirement to wear clothes), but these exceptions must not target any one specific "civil right" (as in, a religious statement cannot be specifically excluded because a lot of people don't like it). Simple offense is not, I repeat not, included as an exception to the freedom of expression.
  
  
• Private property with public access:
  This includes malls, shopping centers, open places of business, etc. Public expression of any "civil right" cannot be prohibited. This includes religious expression, race, creed, gender, sexual preference, etc. Broad restrictions are more tolerated here than on government property with public access, but "civil rights" still may not be targeted. As an example, a person may wear a shirt proclaiming "gay and proud of it" and may not have their right to enter infringed upon because of it. Broad discretion is given to the owners of property as far as barring individuals who have shown a tendency to violate legal restrictions on the property, but this discretion does not extend to the simple expression of "civil rights."
  
  There is an additional exception for areas which are considered "safe havens" for specific activities, such as churches, mosques, temples, club houses, or places designed to offer protection for specific groups. There, individuals may be denied access for expressing "civil rights" where expression of those "civil rights" are in direct conflict with the purpose of the "safe haven." For instance, a Christian church might forbid access to someone wearing a shirt that says "Satan saves" solely on the religious basis because the purpose of the property is to provide a "safe haven" for Christians. A home for battered women may deny access to men because the purpose is a "safe haven" for women who may suffer distress where they are forced into contact with men.
  
  
• Private property without public access:
  This includes homes and private areas where the public has not been invited. Here, one can discriminate against others for any reason whatsoever... one can forbid black people into their homes because they are black; one can prohibit anyone who is gay from coming into their home; one can prevent anyone who is Christian from coming into their home. The only exception is that a duly authorized public servant may enter the home in legal and proper exercise of their official duties (as in, a police officer may enter a home when they have sufficient reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or during a "wellness check" where they have a legitimate belief an occupant may be in need of medical assistance).

Someone brought up the baker who refused to bake a gay wedding cake. Had he tried to bar gay individuals from entering his shop, or even had he refused to sell items available to the general public to someone because they were gay, that would have been illegal. The problem was that the gay couple asked for a special, unique item to be created specifically for them. No one has the right to force another to create for them specifically for any reason whatsoever. The store itself is considered "private property with public access," but the creativity of the owner in a specific request is "private property without public access."

In this case, the Mall of America is "private property with public access." They have regular hours during which the general public is allowed to come and go freely and they advertise the stores in the mall as having public access. Therefore, the mall cannot discriminate based on free expression of a specific religion, and that applies to t-shirts worn there. The mall could demand that NO religious messages be displayed on t-shirts, but that would be difficult to enforce... any BIblical verse, any Quran verse, or any article of clothing commonly associated with a religion (hijabs, a lot of jewelry, crosses, stars, even someone dressed in a manner that would indicate they were Amish) would then have to be prohibited. In essence, it would be an impossible task.

The mall can have a policy that no soliciting is acceptable, and this would include impromptu preaching. A person could then be denied access if that person was caught preaching to others without their consent (note that such a prohibition could not forbid consenting people from discussing Christian-themed subjects among themselves, silent prayer, etc.) and if a person defied that policy they could be denied future access (banned from the premises). However, the mall cannot legally prohibit someone from entering based solely on what they are wearing unless they have a policy against that attire that is non-discriminatory.

That's what has happened. A security guard (who likely doesn't understand what he was actually doing) tried to prohibit entry to an individual who was not banned from the premises, because he expected the person to be banned. That's not how it works. He can ask a person to leave only if that person violates legal policies, is already banned from the premises, or is creating a disruption. Offending others by wearing an "offensive" t-shirt is not "creating a disruption"; it is free expression of a protected religious nature. There is no right to not be offended.

What bothers me is that we have so many people now who simply either do not understand the law or who think they get to target others for offending them in some way. That is civil war igniting, and it will not be a good thing.

TheRedneck

There's another video here, in which the sound is also deliberately messed up, but you can hear the shirt guy saying, "Yes, I was asked to leave because I was preaching the gospel, but today I haven't said anything."

He had to be be asked to leave several days in a row for preaching.

www.toddstarnes.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Regardless of all that, the legal procedure is to ban him from the premises. He does not relinquish his right to express his religious convictions over previous violations that were not prosecuted.

What he did before is irrelevant. Only what the mall did before in response is relevant.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Regardless of all that, the legal procedure is to ban him from the premises.

Is it? Are you sure they can't give warnings and probationary terms after an infraction?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
There's another video here, in which the sound is also deliberately messed up, but you can hear the shirt guy saying, "Yes, I was asked to leave because I was preaching the gospel, but today I haven't said anything."

He had to be be asked to leave several days in a row for preaching.

www.toddstarnes.com...

Again where have you seen signs saying you can not talk about your religion in this establishment?

You haven’t because it’s illegal. He might not have means to fight but he should.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

It's soliciting and it's not allowed. www.mallofamerica.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

It's soliciting and it's not allowed. www.mallofamerica.com...

No it’s not. What’s your definition of solicitation and does your definition meet a legal definition and how have solicitation laws held up in the Supreme Court? I know, do you?

Have you ever seen a sign saying you can’t talk about your religion? No you haven’t. You aren’t selling anything, you are not offering goods or services. In short if you are talking about religion you are just telling people what you believe will lead to salvation.

I know you want to stop religious expressions but that is illegal and and there are people willing to fight and kill you for that right.

Are you willing to die to stop them?

Have you ever seen a sign saying you can’t talk about your religion? No you haven’t. You aren’t selling anything, you are not offering goods or services. In short if you are talking about religion you are just telling people what you believe will lead to salvation.

I know you want to stop religious expressions but that is illegal and and there are people willing to fight and kill you for that right.

Are you willing to die to stop them?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you sure they can't give warnings and probationary terms after an infraction?

Yes, I'm sure. Even actual police cannot give "probationary terms," and private security does not have the same abilities as the police even. Probation is the purvue of courts, not enforcement.

Was he ever adjudicated in a court of law for preaching? Did he get a chance to testify in front of a judge or jury on his behalf?

TheRedneck

Late to the party...

1. Was he officially banned by the mall before this date for previous infractions of nonapproved solicitations?
2. If he had a plan T-shirt on would the guards had done the same thing?

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

Wrong answer. He has no grounds to sue. As a matter of fact, the Mall has a good case to sue him. What part of "private property" don't you understand? They can restrict anything they want to.

I just went through this a few months ago. I'm President of a small Social Club. We had a guy request to address our monthly meeting to push a political candidate. We turned him down. He started spouting off about his "rights", so we had our lawyer send him a letter stating if he wanted to push this, see you in Court.

What you are referring to only applies to Public property. That's why, several years ago our County had to let the KKK hold a rally in front of the Courthouse.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Was he ever adjudicated in a court of law for preaching?

C'mon man, you're better than this. They're Mall Security, not the Police. He violated mall policy by preaching and was asked to leave, several days in a row. Preaching isn't a crime. Trespassing is, though. He wasn't arrested for trespassing, because he left.

From your own post: "Broad discretion is given to the owners of property as far as barring individuals who have shown a tendency to violate legal restrictions on the property, but this discretion does not extend to the simple expression of "civil rights."

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

If the word "soliciting" by "preaching the gospel" is too hard of a concept for you to grasp, perhaps you'll understand the concept of a "religious slur".

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

His shirt displayed a religious slur, by crossing out the symbols of a bunch of other religions and replaced them with "Jesus is the only way".


They had every right to ask him to remove his offensive shirt.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's soliciting and it's not allowed.

So is wearing any item that has a brand name or statement on it. So if you walk around with a shirt on that says "save the whales" or "stop climate change" you shouldn't be allowed to enter a business. Am I right?

Do we now stop allowing access to gay folk wearing a rainbow on their shirt? That is soliciting as well.

There is a difference between the broadest definition of soliciting and the definition of soliciting that can be prohibited. By wearing the shirt, the man was expressing a religious opinion which is a protected civil right just as surely as his right to freedom of sexual persuasion. He is not asking anyone to give him anything of value; he is not offering anything of value for a service; he is not attempting to solicit business. His expression of that religious opinion is protected by law, and his access to a publicly accessible business cannot be infringed over the exercise of that right.

TheRedneck

Abusing liberties to be a PITA to others certainly has happend before, and it has certainly been found a way to suppress such behaviors.
I'm expecting this behavior to increase among Christians ultimately digging that censorship grave even deeper.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

C'mon man, you're better than this. He violated mall policy by preaching and was asked to leave, several days in a row. Preaching isn't a crime. Trespassing is, though. He wasn't arrested for trespassing, because he left.

Of course I know better. The question is, do you? That was in response to your question asking if a security guard could place someone on probation. No, they can't.

One does not have to be arrested for trespassing to be banned from the premises. Had he been banned from the premises, the security guard could have simply said, "Sorry, sir, but you are banned from the premises" and nothing else could be said. The mall did not ban him; therefore the mall owners allowed him to continue to visit their mall. They cannot then say "but we will impose special rules on you when you visit, because you were expressing a religious opinion." Certainly a security guard cannot do so.

TheRedneck