Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
4. The owner can call his store anything he wants
Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:55 PM
Dec 2015

So long as he doesn't deny service, he hasn't broken the law.

It must be alright then to have a Jewish free zone, and a black free zone now also. LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #1
The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Beside Themselves With All The Distractions cantbeserious Dec 2015 #2
+1 Populist_Prole Dec 2015 #24
The judge is actually right. Someone from the CAIR needs to go in and get denied service. X_Digger Dec 2015 #3
What happens if they post a second sign, "We reserve the right to deny service - we are armed"? leveymg Dec 2015 #6
You can put up a sign that says, "Unattended children will be eaten." X_Digger Dec 2015 #10
The threat can be a crime - that's circumstantial - if the owner has a reputation for baby eating. leveymg Dec 2015 #11
I do disagree, yes. X_Digger Dec 2015 #12
What if the gun shop owner had a history of threats against Muslims? leveymg Dec 2015 #14
Making a threat doesn't subsequently remove your right to free speech in the future, no. X_Digger Dec 2015 #16
Correct, but a threat is grounds for seeking suit for tortious wrong as it might also be grounds leveymg Dec 2015 #19
I can't imagine a case where your sign would be taken, prima facie, as a threat. X_Digger Dec 2015 #21
If the sign were surrounded by firearms, it might. That is exactly the case here. leveymg Dec 2015 #22
So every sign in a gun shop is a threat because it's a gun shop? "No checks." (OR I'LL SHOOT YA!) X_Digger Dec 2015 #23
The key provision is also that the display is on another's property. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #25
Muslims in this country have enough speech against minorities, etc, that you don't Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #18
Not attempting to justify one set of wrongs with another. leveymg Dec 2015 #20
Wrong. closeupready Dec 2015 #7
Why do you think the ACLU had William Smith and James Yates attempt to get a marriage license in KY? X_Digger Dec 2015 #9
The owner can call his store anything he wants LittleBlue Dec 2015 #4
well no but it is still odious. Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #5
You're right frazzled Dec 2015 #26
In some respects, yes. And I'd be lying if I said closeupready Dec 2015 #8
The case fell apart because to have standing you actually must be denied service. NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #13
The plaintiff had no standing. MohRokTah Dec 2015 #15
It was dismissed for lack of standing, because claimants did not show that anyone was refused Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #17
No The River Dec 2015 #27
Actual refusal and discrimination has to happen in order to sue. And my friend you live in a country Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Isn't this how it started...»Reply #4