Posted on 01/17/2023 5:54:02 AM PST by mikelets456
They relented and let him wear the t-shirt, but he might possibly be allowed to sue for undue harassment over his first amendment rights or something?
I clearly stated I only saw part of the video, but, repeating, in that portion of the video the mall cop only told him to take off the T-shirt without mention of unwelcome proselytizing.
No he was not harrowing people- see my previous post. that day he was simply wearing the shirt,
He ws eventually a.lowed to keep,the shirt on
Harrasing I meant, not harrowing. What he had done the day before, preaching, had no bearing on the issue the day he was co fronted and told to take the shirt off. Had he begun to preach, then the mall could have thrown him out again, or banned him, for violation of their rules. He wasn’t soliciting anyone this day however. The mall ended up relenting based on that fact I beleive.
Again, this is a guy with a history, not some random person walking in.
I am not saying the mall “cops” handled the situation properly or even legally, I am simply saying this incident isn’t some example of general discrimination against christians.
This was a known person who has caused issues, and been removed previously, by his own admission. He is a known actor.
This was not a case of some random person getting harassed. That is what the headline wants you to believe, but if you read the story it clearly is not the case. This is someone who has a history, who got singled out because of their history not simply a case of some mall “cop” going after christians.
People really need to stop knee jerking, this is click bait nonsense. No, if you or I walk into this mall with a Jesus Saves T-Shirt we aren’t going to get harassed by security, that isn’t what happened here. This is some guy who’s violated the rules of the mall previously, and by own admission, who is known to security and they confronted him based on his past known behaviors not because he was just random guy in a Jesus T-Shirt.
People falling for, this is an example of general discrimination against Christians, are just as big of fools as those who fell for the nonsense about those Catholic HS boys harassing that India Activist in DC a few years back.
This is not some example of General Anti-Christian Prejudice.. this is an example of a known violator being identified and confronted based on his past patterns of behavior. Now, whether those confronting him did so properly or legally is a different discussion, but this is not some example of some general open discrimination against Christians.
So, you see his past behavior made him a target. Had you or I worn that t-shirt we would not have had a word said to us.
Failing to understand that past behavior and being a known actor is why this guy got targeted.
They didn’t go, oh hey this guys wearing a t-shirt lets get him, the went, here comes this guy again...
Again, the mall “cops” likely didn’t handle this properly or even legally, but that’s not why he got targeted.
Had he not been kicked out several times for proselytizing they wouldn’t had said 2 words to him... His past behavior is what made him a target... Here he comes again.
You think this guy’s the only one that’s worn t-shirts with Jesus Saves or the Coexist symbol on his shirt in this mall over the years? Please.
This guy’s a known actor, he’s been removed several times before.
That’s a big old lawsuit he could be filing. A mall is a place of public accommodation and therefore bound by all federal anti-discrimination laws, which specifically forbid discrimination based on religion.
But Mao Lenin Stalin T-shirts are okay.
And again you refuse to accept there is more to the context of the situation than the video you have seen.
This guy is a known problem, who has violated the rules multiple times and been removed. This is what lead to confrontation, not his shirt.
Here come this guy again, lets nip this in the bud before it starts again.
Not, OOOO... someone we’ve never seen before is wearing a Jesus Saves shirt with a Coexist symbol on the back, we better code red that guy.
Failing to understand that, or even consider that, is just foolish... This guy wasn’t targeted simply because he wore a shirt, he was targeted because he has a history of violating the rules of the mall. You or I, or Joe Shmoe walks into that mall with that same shirt on, no one says a word to us.
This is not some grand example of general discrimination against Christians by this mall, it’s just not. Whether the rent-a-cops handled it right or legally is a different discussion, but to try to turn this into some general case discrimination against christians is just nonsense.
People falling for that spin are no different than the folks who fell for the HS Students in DC “harassing” the indian activist a few years back.
“You have no freedom of speech on private property.”
Not quite true. Private property, in some circumstances, can still count as “the public square” or a “public forum” for purposes of 1st Amendment law.
My only point is that that day he wasn’t causing the issues that he had been thrown out for the day before for preaching, which was a violation of the mall’s policies. Had he been preaching again, I could see thr Mall security co fronting him again, and perhaps banning him this time, but this day he didn’t say a word and got harassed for his shirt. He was trying to explain that to the security, UT initially they didn’t care- the mall eventually saw his point of view, and a.lowed him to keep it on and keep on shopping.
The mall cop over reacted and should have explained to,those who were complaining that unless the man had spoken to them about Christianity, he was free to shop the mall alongside them. That basically is what the mall later decided by allowing him to remain.
The hesd,ine made it seem like he was kicked out for just wearing a shirt, but the reality is that the mall allowed him to remain and to wear his shirt
Had they banned him from the mall the day before, and he showed up again in violation of the ban, then yeah, Hey could have called the cops,and had him arrested for trespassing, but that isn’t what they did, and he came back obeying the mall’s TOS the next day, not saying a word, and he got harassed by the cop for it when he wasn’t doing a yhting wrong. At best, the cop.shoukda jusy followed him around making sure he didn’t violate the store’s terms, and moved in if he did, or if someone came to the cop and said the man tried to witness or preach to them.
“No, it can’t.”
It certainly can, because the courts have made several such rulings.
Jesus offended a lot of people. So many that he was murdered. These guards need some quiet time with Jesus to get themselves right before their time runs out.
“Nope.”
So you think just by saying “nope” you can erase established jurisprudence? Doesn’t work that way.
“The precedence you’re talking about is regarding protected classes, not speech on private property.”
Nonsense. You haven’t even asked me what precedents I am talking about, and you obviously aren’t familiar with them yourself or you wouldn’t be trying to deny that they exist. Perhaps you should ask me what I’m talking about?
“I already know there aren’t any for free speech on private property.”
Well, you certainly think that’s true, even though it actually isn’t the case in all circumstances, as the courts have clearly ruled.
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.