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

a reply to: TheRedneck

Those rules do not include their own selective opinions.

Security didn't show up because of their personal opinion. They were answering complaints, again, about the same guy that had to be removed for "preaching the gospel" for several days in a row.

Somehow I don't think most Christians target people who are also Christians for being Christians.

He wasn't targeted for being a Christian. He was targeted for creating a disturbance, again.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Conduct Conduct that is disorderly, disruptive or which interferes with or endangers business or guests is prohibited. Such conduct may include but is not limited to: Running, loud offensive language, spitting, throwing objects, fighting, obscene gestures, gang signs, skating, skateboarding or bicycling Intimidating behavior by groups or individuals Loitering, engaging in soliciting, blocking storefronts, hallways, skyways, fire exits or escalators, or walking in groups in such a way as to inconvenience others Picketing, demonstrating, soliciting, protesting or petitioning Distributing handbills requires the prior written consent of Mall of America management.

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
Clothing that deliberately obscures the face, such as hooded tops or masks
Bulletproof vests or simulated bulletproof vests

a reply to: Terpene

So when I enter an establishment without shoes i just paint a cross ok my feet and I'm all set... I can claim victim hood of religious repression, when they force me to put shoes on?

You know, it's probably a good thing we at ATS have something called the T&C... because that statement is likely the most absurd twisting of a simple statement I have yet to hear... at least in the top 1%. Not only is it an asinine attempt to completely ignore the explanation given, it is completely and utterly without reference to any statement I made, and absolutely disingenuous in its attempts to change the disagreement from what I stated into what you wanted me to say. Were someone to repeat that under the same circumstances to me in a public arena, where there are no T&Cs enforced, I would immediately accuse them of being an absolute moron, mentally incapable of existing freely in a civilized society and suggest that they should be locked up in a mental institution for their own benefit.

But, here we do have the T&Cs, so I will not make those accusations. However, I will suggest to you that perhaps you should take a course in reading comprehension. That is assuming that you are not simply trying the age-old tactic of making such inane statements in order to manipulate the conversation into something you feel comfortable of succeeding in. I will not go any further in this venue, even though common sense is screaming for me to do so.

Well, except to say that your entire premise is flawed and inapplicable to the discussion. I never once stated that religion (or a lack thereof) should be the basis for any special treatment, nor do I believe such.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: JIMC5499
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.

This is so stupid.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
By all means, explain what is illegal or unlawful or even offensive (to sane, rational people) about that shirt?

originally posted by: Annee
Back of shirt.

The 'e' in Coexist symbolizes equality of the sexes and he crossed it out, just that should get his ass booted out of the mall.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.


No it didn’t

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Security didn't show up because of their personal opinion. They were answering complaints, again, about the same guy that had to be removed for "preaching the gospel" for several days in a row.

Still irrelevant. A complaint by itself is not basis for a removal for whatever cause one can think of. A complaint is cause to investigate. Had he started preaching, fine, I would have no issue with his removal. But a person cannot be removed form a publicly accessible location simply for wearing a t-shirt someone disagrees with.

He wasn't targeted for being a Christian. He was targeted for creating a disturbance, again.

He was not creating a disturbance. He was wearing a t-shirt.

Incidentally, knowing the size of the Mall of America, I would hazard to say the shirt may have been bought at the Mall of America. I'm certain somewhere in that mall is a store that sells t-shirts with similar logos on them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

He was not creating a disturbance. He was wearing a t-shirt.

Incidentally, knowing the size of the Mall of America, I would hazard to say the shirt may have been bought at the Mall of America. I'm certain somewhere in that mall is a store that sells t-shirts with similar logos on them.

TheRedneck

Mall of America sells cigarettes, does that mean I can smoke there?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: TheRedneck

Did you see where the Madison Square Garden uses facial recognition software on people who enter it? A little while ago a woman who was chaperoning a school trip was asked to leave because the software recognized her as working for a law firm that was in a case against MSG. If they can do that, the guy with the shirt hasn't a chance.
www.nbcnewyork.com...

Working for a law firm isn’t a protected right by law.

Why is this so hard for you chuckle heads.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Butterfinger

Ok, now any branded shirt, hat or bag is soliciting somehting and may not be worn.

It wasn't a branded shirt. It was a shirt that displayed a religious slur.

No it didn’t

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'll admit the more I look into dress codes at public accessible areas the more of a gray area it seems to be.

Maybe they are doing it on purpose so in the future when they make this non-public accessible, charging a membership fee they will use examples like these of gray areas. We can all quarrel about the meaning and what is allowed or isn't but the fact is there will be nothing left to discuss pretty soon because a lot of it is going away.

I referenced Elysium the movie in the past and we are really headed in that direction.
I believe all these stores are allowing the rampant shoplifting as an excuse to privitize stores.
Just wait, I see it coming a mile away.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

That "Stop Climate Change" shirt is quite offensive to me. Who are you, to tell me what I can and can't find offensive? Who made you the arbitrator of offense?

There is nothing in those Mall of America guidelines about protecting snowflakes like you from being offended. There is a rule against wearing religious slurs, which the shirt contains.

But he was not asked to leave for preaching. He wasn't preaching. He was asked to leave for wearing a t-shirt.

He was asked to leave several days in a row for preaching. He has a record with Mall Security.

On this day, people, no doubt employees and shop owners, saw him wearing the same shirt again, and complained to security that "preacher guy" is back. They didn't ask him to leave for preaching at this time. They asked him to take off his rule violating shirt, or they would ask him to leave again.

No it doesn’t

a reply to: JAGStorm

Mall of America sells cigarettes, does that mean I can smoke there?

No, but you can carry them out of the store.

Personally, I think any store that sells cigarettes should be forced to allow smoking, but that's a different thread.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JAGStorm

I'll admit the more I look into dress codes at public accessible areas the more of a gray area it seems to be.

It is indeed.

Personally, I don't frequent stores (or even churches) that have a strict dress code. When I go to an interview, I dress up; when I go to work, I dress up; when I am meeting a client, I dress up. In those situations I am the one looking for favor. When I go to a store, I don't dress up; I am the one doing them a favor by shopping there. If they do not see it as such, I simply don't do them the favor of shopping there. They can exist on other people's money.

Simple.

I also buy my tobacco in a store that allows smoking on premises.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

And calling it a slur is your selective opinion.

It's not my opinion, it's Mall Security's opinion, which is why they asked him to remove the shirt.

So do you believe the purpose of mall security is to enforce their selective opinions on the public?

It's Mall Security's job to handle vender's, employee's and shopper's complaints according to the rules theyre hired to enforce.

How does that work when the guards are Christian and want to impose those selective opinions?

I have no doubt that most of the security guards who are addressing shirt preacher guy are Christians.

You would get someone sued out of business.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: TheRedneck

So when I enter an establishment without shoes i just paint a cross ok my feet and I'm all set... I can claim victim hood of religious repression, when they force me to put shoes on?

Listen and don’t be stupid. If your rule says no shoes no service you are discriminating against the shoeless and that by law is legal. No matter what’s on your feet. If you say Christian’s without shoes get no service you are breaking the law because you can’t do that by law.

This isn’t freaking math, I know there are a lot of idiots out there, but Jesus saves.

a reply to: TheRedneck

A complaint by itself is not basis for a removal for whatever cause one can think of.

But it can be proverbially a final straw.

This didn't happen in a vacuum. The guy had to be removed before for causing a disturbance, several days in a row, and here he is back again wearing the same shirt as the other times. Each time security has to deal with this guy, they are going to become less and less charitable to his quirks, and more sensitive to the disruption and the cost his presence has come to represent.

He was not creating a disturbance.

And Eric Garner wasn't selling Loosies. /sarc

How do you know that? Are you privy to the numerous complaints the various security guards had to deal with for the past several days? Why do you think this guy should get a clean slate because it's a new day?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

But it can be proverbially a final straw.

This didn't happen in a vacuum. The guy had to be removed before for causing a disturbance, several days in a row, and here he is back again wearing the same shirt as the other times. Each time security has to deal with this guy, they are going to become less and less charitable to his quirks, and more sensitive to the disruption and the cost his presence has come to represent.

I was resisting noting that situation seem oddly analogous to the woman in the UK who being a known religious activist, was arrested for silently standing and allegedly praying in a public place which suffered activism before.

The reasoning could have come from the same playbook "The guy had to be removed before for causing a disturbance, several days in a row, and here he is back again wearing the same shirt as the other times."

I notice the similarity extends to the fact that the "justice" being served relates to the antecedent alleged events... but delivered an a subsequent day with no complaints of disturbance being made ... just an observation that "that's the guy..." and in England "Yeah, that's her..."

I'm sure righteous virtue feels good to spread, but I see something very synchronous about the reporting here... as if it came from the same place.

a reply to: Maxmars

Sigh....

You think these people deserve a clean slate because it's a new day. But, here they are again, at the scene of the crime, again. They're oh so innocent and the weary enforcers are oh so intolerant.

How does it go.....Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me..

1. What is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Title VI is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin by recipients of Federal financial assistance. Police departments, sheriffs' departments, and other law enforcement agencies receiving assistance from the Department of Justice (DOJ) are subject to the civil rights requirements of this and other civil rights laws.

People may not be excluded from participating in, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against in the programs, services, or activities of an agency receiving DOJ assistance. In addition, a law enforcement agency must make sure that its policies and practices do not have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, or national origin.

Even if you could find 12 jurors to agree with you that this isn’t discrimination based on religion it would cost you a small fortune and as you see here there are plenty of people that agree that it is. So now let’s say your business is riding on this decision and your family’s future. Are you going to roll the dice and risk everything or are you going to screw with the guy in the t shirt?