Posted on 01/13/2023 5:33:38 PM PST by allen592
According to the poster of the video on Twitter: "I automatically assumed this was overseas, but it's right here in America."
Anti Christian bigotry. No ifs, ands or buts about it!
He could wear a Che shirt with no problem, I’m sure.
Sounds like a lawsuit to me.
Well at least we’re not to the point of sending them to death camps yet.
Yup - lawsuit time. If burning the flag is free speech, a Jesus Saves tee certainly qualifies!
“A Thief In the Night” had it right...
It is what will come.
Matthew 24:10-16
King James Version
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A10-16&version=KJV
Law suit time...........
How racist of them ... he could be advertizing for a Hispanic doctor.
I have been kicked out for passing out a few tracts, yet as long as it is a private entity, then I think they can enforce dress codes - except in CA. But the test would be banning LGBTQ shirts.
Public accommodation not private
Christians need to organize a flash mob to meet at the mall at a certain time wearing Christian-themed shirts and then go shopping.
Who the hell still goes to malls?
CC
[[yet as long as it is a private entity, then I think they can enforce dress codes]]
IF Sweetcakes isn’t considered private, and they must bake a cake for gays, then a mall isn’t private and they must not be allowed to discriminate against someone’s religion
That depends upon the state and courts.
the Supreme Court in Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner held that private property generally does not lose its private character merely because the public is invited to use it for designated purposes. Subsequent cases confirmed that the First Amendment does not protect free speech in privately owned malls.
State Interpretations Vary
the Arizona Court of Appeals held that the free-speech and initiative provisions of the Arizona Constitution did not protect the solicitation of signatures in privately owned malls for the recall of the then-governor in Fiesta Mall Venture v. Mecham Recall Comm. in 1988.
courts — including those in Arizona, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina —...in these states also have noted that state funding of private development does not constitute sufficient state involvement to make the state constitution protections of free speech applicable.
Massachusetts limits protection to ballot access; Oregon limits protection to initiative petitions; and New Jersey limits protection to leafleting and related speech supporting or opposing causes, candidates, or parties.
In a 1979 decision, the California Supreme Court held that free speech was protected under the California Constitution even on privately owned property and without the involvement of state action in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center. - https://www.ccim.com/cire-magazine/articles/states-speak-out-free-speech-malls/
Connecticut Supreme Court rules malls can block free speech....In a seminal ruling 20 years ago, the state Supreme Court declared that shopping malls – although teeming with members of the public – are private properties that can ban political and other free speech activities from their premises. And the high court is holding fast to the tenets of that ruling. - https://aldeilis.net/english/shopping-malls-can-ban-free-speech/
Free speech in malls; [NJ] State Supreme Court rules against restrictions...Last week, by a unanimous decision, the state Supreme Court agreed, establishing one more huge precedent for opening the malls to public discourse. ...“Throughout much of New Jersey today there is no place to go, other than shopping centers and regional malls, if one is to have an opportunity to meet face-to-face with large groups of people,” wrote Justice Daniel O’Hern. “Except for those commercial centers, the public common has largely ceased to exist.”...
Gave something to both sides In its ruling last week, the state Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the free speech rights established by the 1994 ruling and said the malls had to be reasonable in setting up insurance demands for groups seeking to gather signatures or pass out pamphlets. The court ruled that malls must take into account the past of such groups, and must provide reasonable access if the group has no history of violence or disruption
The ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court because it is based on state law. Federal courts have already determined that the U.S. Constitution does not protect free speech in shopping malls – despite a 1924 federal ruling that leafleting is a basic right of American citizens. ...” Malls can also prohibit pickets, bullhorns, megaphone placards, and demonstrations. The ruling also does not apply to highway strip malls, football stadiums, or theaters, since these locations do not approach the multitude of uses found at regional shopping centers. But the ruling also gave malls something as well since the state Supreme Court overturned part of a previous lower court ruling that would have provided even more access to the malls. - https://archive.hudsonreporter.com/2000/06/23/free-speech-in-malls-state-supreme-court-rules-against-restrictions-2/
Bake The Cake Mall of America!
Sadly, the problem is that SCOTUS has confused a "orientation" and behavior-based identity with such amoral aspects as color, race, ethnicity, national origin. Thus just as a store can tell a veteran with a flag on his hate or a Trump supporter to leave, but cannot do so on the basis of color or ethnicity etc. - and sexual orientation - so also Sweetcakes, Masterpiece, etc. could refuse to create a cake celebrating divorce or a political event, but cannot refuse any service, no matter how customized, on the basis of race etc. or sexual orientation.
The SCOTUS ruling legalizing homosexual marriage, thus effectively criminalizing failure to recognize it, is a result of the Christian spiritual decline of America, and failure of the Founders to make it clearer that since the state cannot but affirm one ideology over another, and that this flows from religion, and that it was the general Christian faith that characterized America, then its basic moral tenets where to be definitive in controversy, without creating an official state church.
Tim Levin Oct 12, 2022, 12:40 PM Ten years from now, there will be approximately 150 malls left in the US, Nick Egelanian, president of retail consulting firm SiteWorks, told The Wall Street Journal. That's down from around 2,500 locations in the 1980s and 700 today, Egelanian said. - https://www.businessinsider.com/american-mall-decline-150-left-10-years-how-many-2022-10..In 2020, Coresight Research projected that 25% of the country's approximately 1,000 malls would close shop in the following 3-5 years. In April, analysts at UBS projected that 40,000-50,000 American retail stores would shut down by 2027.
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.