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

IF you can do anything you want at a private business I want you if u are a business owner to put up a sign prohibiting one of the protected groups in title VI of the 1964 civil rights LAW.

Also to you people trying to incorporate a solicitation law I suggest you find the legal definition and the Supreme Court’s rules on no solicitation laws.

Now that you do that I will ask you when can no solicitation over ride the civil rights act or the constitution?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But it can be proverbially a final straw.

No, it cannot, at least not legally. A person can have 10,000,000 complaints against them in an hour; if they are not breaking any rules, they are still innocent.

This ain't rocket science.

This didn't happen in a vacuum.

I know that. But it's going to be irrelevant no matter how many times you bring it up. He was breaking no policy rules at the time he was denied entry.

That's just the way it works. If you harm me in some way and I refuse to press charges, you are let go free. I cannot then decide later, "Oh, I decided to press charges now because she did something I didn't like."

How do you know that?

I base that on the fact that no one has claimed he was causing a disturbance at that time and he was reportedly asked to remove his shirt or leave. That means the shirt was the issue, and I have seen the shirt. There is no slur on it.

On what do you base your idea that he was causing a disturbance?

Why do you think this guy should get a clean slate because it's a new day?

I didn't say he should get a clean slate. I said he should probably be banned from the premises. The owners of the mall have to do that. Until and unless they do, he has a clean slate officially.

TheRedneck

a reply to: infolurker

There's a difference being omitted in favor of fervor.

The context.

A simple Jesus shirt isn't offending anyone. One that makes itself THE ONLY way is.

It basically says, "F%$# YOU, MY WAY IS THE ONLY WAY"

It was a troll shirt meant to antagonize everyone it could. I'm not sure how Christian that is. To each their own may need an addendum saying "as long as it's our version of god first".

That doesn't sound right. But that was the intention of that shirt.

It seems disingenuous to turn that into a victim card after you whitewash how offensive the shirt actually is in a secular humanist driven society. Which it is more than a Christ-first one now.

Maybe 50 years ago it's not offending as many people. Maybe blame education, snowflake sensitivities, or access to other concepts of divinity, but it is a bit psychopathic to make this person a Christian martyr victim.

They didn't ban Jesus they banned a troll.

Nothing stops that person from standing right off their property and yelling through a megaphone though.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Pay attention to the what the female security guard and the cop are affirming. "Several days in row" clearly at around 2:16-21

Still irrelevant. It'll be irrelevant the next time you say it, it'll be irrelevant tomorrow when you say it, and it will be irrelevant 20 years from now when you say it.

He was asked to leave for violating the policies. He did so. He was not banned from the mall; in a public access building, that is an invitation to return. He returned and was denied his freedom of expression.

If he is not to come back, he needs to be banned from the premises.

TheRedneck

Some additional info...

Alpha News also reported that some online commenters suggested the man eventually was allowed to remain in the mall with his shirt on, but the outlet added that Mall of America wouldn't provide Alpha News with any context or explanation in regard to the incident. In fact, the outlet said the mall didn't respond to several calls and emails seeking comment this past week.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, it cannot, at least not legally. A person can have 10,000,000 complaints against them in an hour; if they are not breaking any rules, they are still innocent.

And, they can still be asked to leave, for creating a disturbance.

That's just the way it works. If you harm me in some way and I refuse to press charges, you are let go free.

This isn't about police and court justice. It's not about crimes or pressing charges. It's about Mall Security enforcing their own rules.

I base that on the fact that no one has claimed he was causing a disturbance at that time and he was reportedly asked to remove his shirt or leave.

Mall security received a complaint. That's why they were there. The guy doesn't get a clean slate just because it's a new day. They gave him an option to remove the problematic shirt that THEY deemed a violation of their "no solicitation" policy. That is their call to make.

The owners of the mall have to do that. Until and unless they do, he has a clean slate officially.

LOL Owners of the Mall of America! Officially clean slate? HAHA What a crook of BS!

a reply to: Parcus41

I’m surprised after several alterations he was even allowed back at the mall.

As am I. He probably should have been banned from the premises.

His shirt proves he was there to start more BS but security was on him before he started harassing others.

No, his shirt is not proof of anything except he was wearing it. As far as that goes, it is not even proof he believes in Jesus. It's a t-shirt, not a signed confession.

The part about being on him before he starts harassing others bothers me. Since when do we prosecute people for what we think they are abut to do?

Freedom of religion is Also a right but this guy wants everyone to believe in Jesus which is the opposite of what American stands for.

Of course it does. But it doesn't mean one cannot tell others their beliefs either. That's only a problem when people begin interrupting others who don't want to hear them... which he didn't do when he was confronted.

There once was a time when people actually realized they had the ability to say "Thanks but no thanks."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Still irrelevant.

It's not. And every time you say it is, it still won't be. His past behavior isn't swept away by Jesus, with Mall Security. He has a record with them of causing disturbances.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And, they can still be asked to leave, for creating a disturbance.

Not for expressing a religious conviction, they can't. Try it sometime; just make sure you can afford the lawyers and settlement.

It's about Mall Security enforcing their own rules.

The same rules apply. The Mall of America is in the United States of America and is subject to all US laws. Private security has very limited jurisdiction, even within their employer's domain.

Mall security received a complaint. That's why they were there.

Again, a complaint is not a violation.

That is their call to make.

No, it is not. They were in violation of the law themselves by making it.

Owners of the Mall of America! Officially clean slate? HAHA What a crook of BS!

Do you not believe anyone owns the Mall of America?

O... K.... so it's no longer private property then if no one owns it. US public property laws then apply and he can stand there and preach to his heart's content. Also, if there is no owner there is no one to hire the security guards and they are guilty of impersonating a police officer.

You sure no one owns the Mall of America?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Degradation33

Just because you disagree with a religion it does not make that religion any less relevant.

If you do not believe Jesus is the only way to salvation, why do you care if some guy you don't know says it is? Is your belief system so weak that hearing something from a stranger damages it?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

Still irrelevant.

It's not. And every time you say it is, it still won't be. His past behavior isn't swept away by Jesus, with Mall Security. He has a record with them of causing disturbances.

Yes -- there was a combination of factors -- it wasn't the shirt alone.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

His past behavior isn't swept away by Jesus, with Mall Security.

No, it wasn't. It was rendered irrelevant by the inaction of the mall. Jesus wasn't involved with that one.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Arnie123

Please link that for us?

If true (and I would suspect it is), someone at the mall probably realized that they were giving this guy the mall if they persisted.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Annee

So why would removing the shirt fix all the problems?

TheRedneck

Will just shortly say what happened a decade or so ago, when I still went to the mall.
Just wafting about, what movie shall I watch, which ice-cream shall I eat?

Next some chick: "Hi can I invite you for coffee with some great people"?

Long story short, next thing I'm on their couch.

"You know you don't actually have to be gay"!

Oh Lordy get me out of here, away from these crazy people.

So complaints were laid about that, not by me however.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Not for expressing a religious conviction, they can't.

That's not why he was asked to leave at any point.

The same rules apply. The Mall of America is in the United States of America and is subject to all US laws. Private security has very limited jurisdiction, even within their employer's domain.

America has laws. Mall have rules. Mall Security has a duty to enforce mall rules and call police when laws are broken.

Do you not believe anyone owns the Mall of America?

It's not owned by a group of concerned citizens who want to review every case of someone being removed from mall property to determine whether or not they should be permanently banned from the mall. LOL

The corporation probably rents the land, hires a management company, who hires the security company, who enforces the rules the corporation's lawyers put together. The "owners" aren't going to meet to decide what to do with preacher guy.

No, it wasn't. It was rendered irrelevant by the inaction of the mall.

Not according to police officers who gave an account of the guy being asked to leave several days in a row.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I get why it's offensive. And I also get why interracial couples were asked to leave the Woolworths 60 years ago.

Not my comfort zone being hurt.

But it is a taboo now. Religious superiority trolling is a social taboo.

This is seen like cruising around Dearborn in a van painted with Netanyahu and the word Shalom on it. And I would have a similar opinion in that instance too. Or blasting heavy metal at the Amish.

I speak from a purely sociological standpoint on what the collective "public secular safe space" society is keyed in on.

You don't go into predominantly religious communities and troll any more than you go into predominantly secular environments (or private property) and proselytize for the sake of it.

And that's not me saying that but the growing consensus of millennial driven society.

Where society kicks out the black man and white woman from their establishment in 1955 they ban the person glorifying Jim Crowe Laws today. Or blasting religions in a similar PR offensive way. Touchy society, but society nonetheless.

This person violated the modern social contract.

No opinion on anything but a changing social contracts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's not why he was asked to leave at any point.

He was told to either remove the t-shirt or leave the mall. The t-shirt had wording of a religious conviction. Yes, he was told (not asked) to leave because of a t-shirt with a religious conviction on it.

You cannot twist that around with semantics.

America has laws. Mall have rules.

Mall rules cannot conflict with US law. The rule being used here was also never in writing. That makes it by definition, an opinion of mall security.

It's not owned by a group of concerned citizens who want to review every case of someone being removed from mall property to determine whether or not they should be permanently banned from the mall.

But the authority to ban someone from the premises rests with the owners. I agree that the mall likely has a manager in whom the authority of the owners is entrusted and whose job it is to handle such complaints.... there might even be further delegation to a security chief or PR representative. That doesn't change the fact that he was never banned from the mall.

If you are claiming that the security guards were authorized to ban him from the mall, then I will respond that the owners are absolute freakin' idiots placing that kind of trust in someone so low-level and obviously unfamiliar with the law that they could wind up getting the owners drug through court over a civil rights case.

Business can and have been sued into bankruptcy by such actions.

Not according to police officers who gave an account of the guy being asked to leave several days in a row.

I'd like to see where that statement was posted. Earlier you were saying the police had nothing to do with this.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Degradation33

But it is a taboo now. Religious superiority trolling is a social taboo.

Social acceptance is not law. If we are moving into an era where social opinion rules over law, we are heading for a very, very dark place. As in a new Dark Ages.

I intend to resist that as long as I live. When I'm dead, people can do what they want. Patience; I'm not very good at dying.

This person violated the modern social contract.

A contract he obviously never signed. It's not worth as much as the paper it is printed on (if it were printed).

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

So why would removing the shirt fix all the problems?

TheRedneck

Who said it would?