Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 'RACIST LANGUAGE' AT TACO BELL
Drudge Report ^ | February 3, 2006

Posted on 02/03/2006 11:07:42 AM PST by Irontank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last
To: Disambiguator
Isn't that improper flag etiquette?

I don't know...but I'm still saluting.

101 posted on 02/03/2006 12:01:32 PM PST by BureaucratusMaximus (space available)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: rabid_libertarian
Know why they call it a PADDY-wagon? I do --I'm Irish, too.
102 posted on 02/03/2006 12:01:36 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kentj

But remember in the absence of light we are all the same color.

Deep Thoughts by Justanotherokie


103 posted on 02/03/2006 12:03:36 PM PST by JustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

What is it about the phrase; The right of free speech shall not be infringed" that confuses these Connecticut idiots?


104 posted on 02/03/2006 12:03:44 PM PST by scouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: parakeetfan
Remember when their slogan was "Make a run for the border" ... lol

I always thought it should have been "make a run for the toilet"
105 posted on 02/03/2006 12:05:13 PM PST by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I was beginning to think this article is bogus, because there's no way a state could actually make this illegal, but in fact, here it is, in black and white:

"Sec. 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both. (1949 Rev., S. 8376.)"

Wow cool...1984 is here.

(shaking head)

106 posted on 02/03/2006 12:05:24 PM PST by BureaucratusMaximus (space available)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Methinks the window banger is stupid.

Why would you launch an epithet at the person/people preparing your food? They will in all likelihood, Jesse Jackson your meal.


107 posted on 02/03/2006 12:06:37 PM PST by RadioCirca1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Has this law been challenged in court yet?


108 posted on 02/03/2006 12:07:17 PM PST by stuck_in_new_orleans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

What about ridiculing on the basis of lack of intellect?


109 posted on 02/03/2006 12:07:33 PM PST by RadioCirca1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: isom35
some speech is free, some is not nowadays. I have trouble keeping up with what part is free

No, you got all wrong.

All speech is free...its just that some speech is more free than others.

110 posted on 02/03/2006 12:07:41 PM PST by BureaucratusMaximus (space available)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal

same thing as the second.....


111 posted on 02/03/2006 12:08:49 PM PST by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

You can be arrested for being a tacky tasteless loudmouth jerk........how about that. I suspect that when the police got involved she continued to be a jerk resulting in her arrest.....breach of peace???? LOL I will be curious to see how this plays out in court.


112 posted on 02/03/2006 12:11:44 PM PST by tioga (Speaking out from the god-forsaken frozen tundra of the Hildebeast.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
""How could this happen in Connecticut????"

Sounds more like Sweden."

It sounds to me as though you are ridiculing people who are Swedish -- or who are of Sweidhs descent.

Careful, or I might have you charged with "ridicule on account of national origin".

/sarcasm

113 posted on 02/03/2006 12:17:10 PM PST by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: scouse

I left Connecticut 15 years ago, mostly because of these idiots that revere the right to claim injury for nonexistant injuries. Yup, the weirdos are taking over. Every culture is better than what used to be ours.


114 posted on 02/03/2006 12:17:55 PM PST by Tracker47
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Whatever happened to; sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me? How did society get so candy@ssed anyway. Libtards. There I answered my own question.


115 posted on 02/03/2006 12:18:18 PM PST by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and Friends, the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

"Ridicule an account of race, creed, etc." OK... I'm guessing that this one hasn't, as of yet, attracted the notice of any higher courts.


116 posted on 02/03/2006 12:20:42 PM PST by Redcloak ("Shiny... Let's be bad guys.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

That looks like Amanda Tapping


117 posted on 02/03/2006 12:21:57 PM PST by Michael Barnes (One for the thumb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: chs68

Heh, heh. Actually I am of Swedish descent myself.

This sort of reminds me of the Swedish pastor who got arrested for giving a sermon about gays.


118 posted on 02/03/2006 12:22:34 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JustAnotherOkie
There was the problem, he took the word Camel as an affront to his favorite mode of transportation.

And "dating". Evidently a very versatile animal, the camel.

119 posted on 02/03/2006 12:25:10 PM PST by Still Thinking (Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Irontank; Stellar Dendrite; Czar; flashbunny; Borax Queen; janetgreen; jackbenimble; Pyro7480; ...
...has been charged with ridicule on account of race, creed or color

I guess Kelo took away more than Property Rights...Americans Rights that have been guaranteed by the Cinstitution are stripped away daily...

What does it take for the People to realize the "Tree of Liberty" is extremely parched?!?!

Kinda interesting in light of the Islamazi world going ballistic over cartoons, and our State Department is apologizing for the offense?

Who's values and customs and rights seem to be more important to this Gub'Mint?

120 posted on 02/03/2006 12:28:05 PM PST by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank


Think the ACLU will sue on free speech grounds?


121 posted on 02/03/2006 12:33:53 PM PST by Tzimisce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
Isn't that improper flag etiquette?

I don't know but, if it's improper, then I demand that she remove it immediately.

In fact, if this wasn't a family oriented blog, I'd remove it for her, but then the mods would remove me.

122 posted on 02/03/2006 12:57:39 PM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jsk10

Methinks that the blue state libs are actually more racist than red state conservative. Regardless, the "drive window attendant" would not have been arrested for having called the drive up customer a "white bitch." That's the truth and everyone knows it....


123 posted on 02/03/2006 1:01:21 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Libs make race an issue, whereas most conservatives (ironically I suppose) have moved on.


124 posted on 02/03/2006 1:06:22 PM PST by the anti-liberal (Hey, Al Qaeda: Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Well, according to McCain-Feingold, there are only certain times when it is acceptable to ridicule a politician. The 1st amendment does not apply in this country any more. Sooner or later, the politicians will get around to dumping the ceremonial lip service they pay to the constitution just like they dumped the idea of actually following it.


125 posted on 02/03/2006 1:47:55 PM PST by MichiganConservative (Government IS the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BureaucratusMaximus
Sec. 53-37. Ridicule on account of race, creed or color. Any person who, by his advertisement, ridicules or holds up to contempt any person or class of persons, on account of the creed, religion, color, denomination, nationality or race of such person or class of persons, shall be fined not more than fifty dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days or both. (1949 Rev., S. 8376.)

Creed
n.
A system of belief, principles, or opinions

A Connecticut liberal: You're conservative? Conservatives are so mean-spirited

Me: That's it...I'm having you arrested for ridiculing me on account of my creed

126 posted on 02/03/2006 2:00:05 PM PST by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
Byrd's supervisor told police that Byrd should not have been working the drive-through because he had gotten into a similar incident with another customer, the warrant states.


----Sounds to me like maybe HE was at fault or an equal partner in it. They all scream this racial sh** because it is all they can come back at people with to get the attention and perhaps sue people over. It has become just a way of life for them now. I blame the court system for allowing this crap to take up time. At the very MOST the cops should have just told the girl she could not go back to that place and let it go at that. It is ok for them to call people names, but when the tables are turned, it is a different story.
127 posted on 02/03/2006 2:25:18 PM PST by WasDougsLamb (I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Viewed in a certain light, Taco Bell food is an ethnic slur.

It is indeed. I don't know how the one near Ft. Hood, survives so close to San Antonio (only 2.5 hours) and right across the street from a real Mexican restaurant, (hole in the wall type) where I'd already planned go for supper tonight. :)

128 posted on 02/03/2006 5:11:40 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I don't think Jamelle Byrd, sounds very Arabic. I doubt there was anyone Hispanic involved on either side of this confrontation.

Mr. Byrd can probably expect the Reverend Jackson to show up any time now, whether he wants the presence of the Reverend or not.

129 posted on 02/03/2006 5:15:43 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Street-Arab doesn't imply a person of arabic descent. It is a term of slang, but disrespectful all right.


130 posted on 02/03/2006 5:20:13 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
It's hardly believable that you have a 7-11 clerk who would even know what a chalupa was.

Most of them in Texas, especially South Texas, know that. The owner/manager of the 7-11 may not, but the clerks mostly do. Most would not know what it was if you called it a Tostada, which is what Taco Bueno calls them.

131 posted on 02/03/2006 5:21:29 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Chalupa = Abomination

??? It's perfectly good Tex Mex usage. What would you call a flat fried corn tortilla with "stuff" on top? Some call them Tostadas, and I'm sure there are other names.

Some of them are pretty tasty. Our favorite *local* place in San Antonio makes 'em with black beans and white cheese (and lettuce), and they are my wife's favorite.

132 posted on 02/03/2006 5:26:42 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
What the gringo gordo can't see won't hurt him.

I resemble that remark!

133 posted on 02/03/2006 5:29:49 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Censorship in its purest form. If the Supreme Court doesn't throw this law out, we are no better than France.


134 posted on 02/03/2006 5:32:41 PM PST by BinaryBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waverunner
The lawyers are circling the wagons, she'll sue taco Bell and win, he'll sur taco bell, and win, even the cops will probably sue Taco Bell and win. Why you might ask. Deepest pockets always pay. It's the liberal court system.

If that meant Taco Bell went out of business, that would be the first good result from the civil courts in a good long time. (Taco Bell is owned by Yum Brands, which also owns KFC, Long John Silver's, A&W and Pizza Hut some or all of which used to belong to PepsiCo).

135 posted on 02/03/2006 5:35:34 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FreedomFarmer
"Youse mean we can't say 'Grease For Peace' anymore?"

Youse can say dat, but don't youse say "Grease for Victory", that wouldn't be PC at all.

136 posted on 02/03/2006 5:37:03 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Disambiguator
Isn't that improper flag etiquette?

Technically yes, but I don't think she means to dishonor the flag, quite the contrary most likely.

137 posted on 02/03/2006 5:40:58 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Street-Arab doesn't imply a person of arabic descent. It is a term of slang, but disrespectful all right.

Sort of the obverse of the "Sand N" terminology?

I guess I'm too sheltered.

138 posted on 02/03/2006 5:46:55 PM PST by El Gato (The Second Amendment is the Reset Button of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

Has to do with vagrants, tramps, panhandlers, bos, not any particular ethnicity.


139 posted on 02/03/2006 5:51:49 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum; GatorGirl; maryz; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; livius; ...
Use of disapproved terminology. Tsk, tsk. Throw the book at her.

No, disturbing the peace is one of the charges. "Fighting words" can and are illegal in most jurisdictions. There are factual issues to be resolved here, but IF the incident meets the elements necessary for conviction, she deserves punishment.

140 posted on 02/03/2006 5:53:44 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BinaryBoy
I vaguely remember that a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled calling a law enforcement officer an emeffer and giving them a middle finger salute was "Free Speech."

If its good enough for LEOs, it should be good enough for all others.

141 posted on 02/03/2006 5:54:19 PM PST by rw4site (Little men want Big Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

The misdemeanor of Disorderly Conduct is defined in common law as "words uttered to another that one would reasonably expect to incite another to violence" (fighting words).

This is a common-sense definition of a misdemeanor that existed for centuries...
Long before the statutory definition of a "race crime".

This woman is guilty of Disorderly Conduct.


142 posted on 02/03/2006 5:58:20 PM PST by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I resemble that remark!

Heh, so do I.

=-)
143 posted on 02/03/2006 6:11:30 PM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: narses; edwin hubble
No, disturbing the peace is one of the charges. "Fighting words" can and are illegal in most jurisdictions. There are factual issues to be resolved here, but IF the incident meets the elements necessary for conviction, she deserves punishment.

For disturbing the peace, maybe, but not for "ridicule on account of race, creed or color" (from the exact words of the statute, as posted at #94). That law is just plain wrong.

144 posted on 02/04/2006 10:45:19 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Farrelly and Satterlee were utterly and thoroughly frustrated. Yea, verily.


145 posted on 02/04/2006 10:50:12 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The Democrat Party - emboldened by Hamas to combine terrorism with politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Viewed in a certain light, Taco Bell food is an ethnic slur.

Given Mexico's history of dysentery, I've always thought their "Run For The Border" tagline was somewhat racist, not to mention that chihuahua.

146 posted on 02/04/2006 10:53:17 AM PST by Tall_Texan (The Democrat Party - emboldened by Hamas to combine terrorism with politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: inquest

What is the standard for conviction under the law you cite? What elements must be present?


147 posted on 02/04/2006 7:45:45 PM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: narses
What is the standard for conviction under the law you cite? What elements must be present?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The law itself defines the elements that need to be present. Are you asking what specifically constitutes "ridicule" or "holding up to contempt"? I think there are centuries of Anglo-Saxon law that nail down the meanings of those terms, and I'm pretty sure they correspond well to their commonly understood meanings today.

148 posted on 02/05/2006 8:12:30 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Are words alone sufficient for conviction? If so how are those words described? You seem to not understand the concept of 'elements', those are the exact things that must be proven for a conviction and are usually quite specific.


149 posted on 02/05/2006 9:13:55 AM PST by narses (St Thomas says “lex injusta non obligat”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: narses
Are words alone sufficient for conviction?

The language of the statute would strongly lead to that conclusion.

If so how are those words described?

Absent any further statutory language, they'd be described in the same way they were described under the old English laws against holding the King up to ridicule or contempt.

150 posted on 02/05/2006 10:47:41 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson