Man arrested for talking about God at CA mall

[stahrgazer]

Since the people the guy approached agreed to the conversation, the store clerk was just an anti-religious bigot to call security. If my friends and I are walking down the mall and decide to discuss whatever, and invite a stranger into the conversation, I guess the clerk would haul security out on us, too! (Because if you look how that's written, no one can talk religion, politics, or anything unrelated to shopping in those malls - with friends or strangers).

I'd probably have told the guy no, I don't want to discuss his religious beliefs because I was busy looking for lollipops for my lover for V-day. But if I'd said yes, I would resent a clerk sending a guard over to tell me I can't discuss what I'd said I was willing to discuss.

I'm not particularly religious, but I do have a thing against anti-religious bigotry. I think it's a shame that someone could scream, "f*ck you!" to a stranger in a mall, in a school, or wherever, and ppl don't bat an eye; but if he says, "God bless you!" he's subject to arrest or murder (see Columbine among others). Something highly wrong with that picture.

[AAFitz]

Since the people the guy approached agreed to the conversation, the store clerk was just an anti-religious bigot to call security. If my friends and I are walking down the mall and decide to discuss whatever, and invite a stranger into the conversation, I guess the clerk would haul security out on us, too! (Because if you look how that's written, no one can talk religion, politics, or anything unrelated to shopping in those malls - with friends or strangers).

I'd probably have told the guy no, I don't want to discuss his religious beliefs because I was busy looking for lollipops for my lover for V-day. But if I'd said yes, I would resent a clerk sending a guard over to tell me I can't discuss what I'd said I was willing to discuss.

I'm not particularly religious, but I do have a thing against anti-religious bigotry. I think it's a shame that someone could scream, "f*ck you!" to a stranger in a mall, in a school, or wherever, and ppl don't bat an eye; but if he says, "God bless you!" he's subject to arrest or murder (see Columbine among others). Something highly wrong with that picture.

You are of course avoiding or forgetting the fact that it was not the discussion that was against the stores policy, but the congregation of the people in an area not designed for it. Further, just because the people in the conversation were not bothered, it does not mean that the store clerk was not losing business, as other patrons decided to pass the store by, simply because of this ill placed conversation about what many would consider an inappropriate discussion at the entry of a store.

If you and your friends were talking about your purses, your new dress, your hair or the surgery you might have to perform the next day, or whatever, and were doing so in a way so as to prevent people from comfortably entering the store, you indeed may have been asked to leave. Of course, you'd have probably...probably just left, and not forced them no alternative but to arrest you, because you simply refused to obey store policy and respect someone elses right to run their business effectively.

The only reason anyone defends this guy is BECAUSE he was preaching religion. The biased parties here are the religious ones. If this were a group of kids discussing the different drugs they tried over the weekend, I doubt very highly you'd be defending their god given right to scare people away from buying things from a store, that makes its living, from people, buying things in that store.

I also wonder if jay would have been as annoyed if they were discussing the problems of global warming, the many priests convicted of child abuse, or the acceptance of homosexuality in the world. I bet then, he wouldn't be as bothered, and would be right there on the jury yelling "GUILTY". It is this bias that affects peoples judgment in these cases. When anyone who is not biased, or at least looks at both sides, finds it very easy to see the reason in such an event. But then, its not like religious people would necessarily be the ones to look at both sides of a situation, and offer an unbiased opinion. That is actually contrary to the entire idea of a religion at its core.

Religion is bias. It essentially ignores all other possibilities, and preaches only one set of them, almost no matter what. In the dark ages they were the ones that arrested people for discussing ideas in public. Now we simply ask them to do so in a proper venue without endangering business, or even possibly customer safety.

[PLAYER57832]

I have "asserted" nothing. So get the plank out of your own eye. Maybe if YOU re-read the post s l o w l y you will be able to see not only that your accusation is absurd but also the hypocrisy of your own words.

Player was pointing out that you assumed the the mall was anti-christian, anti-bush and pro-Obama...
You asserted that they'd be fine with someone praising Obama, since that wouldn't go against their anti-christian values.

Jay, yes, my post was a bit too sanctimonious. However, what jonusthecurl says is true. Not stating the full truth is still a lie, is false witness. You have made it clear that you consider anything even slightly liberal and slightly Democratic and specifically any support of Obama (with a few minor exceptions) to be tantamount to an attack on Christianity. In doing so, I believe you ignore many precepts that Christ taught. Christ gave us free minds, so you are free to think as you will. However, if you will post your opinion, then others (including I) are free to dispute your assertions.

If you are going to claim to be "defending" Christianity, then you had best be sure you are truly following the precepts Christ taught or I will call you on it... again and again and again.

Also, you HAVE asserted Obama is antiChristian previously, even if not directly in this thread.

[Woodruff]

I'm not particularly religious, but I do have a thing against anti-religious bigotry. I think it's a shame that someone could scream, "f*ck you!" to a stranger in a mall, in a school, or wherever, and ppl don't bat an eye; but if he says, "God bless you!" he's subject to arrest or murder (see Columbine among others). Something highly wrong with that picture.

Hold on a second, right there...you're trying to imply that Columbine happened because people were saying "God Bless You" there?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm not particularly religious, but I do have a thing against anti-religious bigotry. I think it's a shame that someone could scream, "f*ck you!" to a stranger in a mall, in a school, or wherever, and ppl don't bat an eye; but if he says, "God bless you!" he's subject to arrest or murder (see Columbine among others). Something highly wrong with that picture.

Hold on a second, right there...you're trying to imply that Columbine happened because people were saying "God Bless You" there?

He is likely referring to the teenage girl who was reported to have asked "do you believe in God" before being shot. It was widely reported, but as best I can tell is usually quoted well out of context and there is some evidence it just did not happen that way at all. Either way, it means nothing in the context of this debate.

stargazer .. the problem with the logic is that Columbine was committed by a few seriously deranged kids. You can find insane people who use all sorts of "justifications" for their rampages. Sure, some use Christianity, but some use color of skin or hair, a "look" they think someone gave them ... or the fact that they turned right instead of left at a particular streetcorner. I mean, because Charles Manson wants to claim "God told me" does that mean he is really glorifying God?

[PLAYER57832]

The Constitution is written solely for the government. Read it again. Note where it says "Congress shall make no law..." It's pretty cut and dry.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....So if that is ONLY talking about the GOVERNMENT interfering with these things then I guess it's ok to commit murder, enslave our neighbor and force Woody to go to AA meeting. And Freedom of speech apparently only applies if you are in a government building. And the right to keep and bear arms again, only if you are on government property. WOW, you have a very twisted view.

jay, there are definite limits.

First, the mall was NOT actually forbidding him to speak his religion, as you wish to imply. They asked him to stay in a specific area and follow specific guidelines.

If you wish to see whether it really is OK or not, set aside the fact that this guy might have been expressing views that with which we both might agree (I agree that Christ is Lord, just not in accosting strangers with that information in that way). Instead, imagine how you would feel if this guy were trying to promote Satanism.. better yet, if he were trying to talk to your teenage son or daughter about Satanism in a "positive light" .. and mind you, there is a very good chance they would have no idea WHAT view he was going to express until they actually heard him. Likely, he would simply ask something along the lines of "do you mind talking religion" or "do you feel lost" .. etc. Even if they simply respond "we are saved" or some such, he could claim that was an "invitation to speak" because they responded to him, instead of turning away and ignoring him.

[jay_a2j]

This discussion is getting on my nerves. If a PRIVATE mall opens themselves up to the public, they have to adhere to public laws. They can't say, "Our mall policy is not to sell to blacks or Hispanics". WHY? Because it's discrimination. Their are laws against it. And a PRIVATE discussion is PROTECTED speech. The mall was in the wrong. If the man was yelling to all passing customers or had a blow-horn or continues to talk to people after they made it clear they were not interested THEN he is crossing the line. Otherwise we could bring charges against all these telephone solicitors. You have the right to walk away and not listen. But no-one has the right to silence private conversations.


THE DEBATE IS OVER.....

[Woodruff]

This discussion is getting on my nerves. If a PRIVATE mall opens themselves up to the public, they have to adhere to public laws. They can't say, "Our mall policy is not to sell to blacks or Hispanics". WHY? Because it's discrimination. Their are laws against it. And a PRIVATE discussion is PROTECTED speech. The mall was in the wrong. If the man was yelling to all passing customers or had a blow-horn or continues to talk to people after they made it clear they were not interested THEN he is crossing the line. Otherwise we could bring charges against all these telephone solicitors. You have the right to walk away and not listen. But no-one has the right to silence private conversations.
THE DEBATE IS OVER.....

You truly must be the most ignorant, uneducated individual I have ever had the misfortune of running into.

[PLAYER57832]

This discussion is getting on my nerves. If a PRIVATE mall opens themselves up to the public, they have to adhere to public laws. They can't say, "Our mall policy is not to sell to blacks or Hispanics". WHY? Because it's discrimination. Their are laws against it.

They cannot refuse to SELL, they can refuse to allow certain discussions OR, as in this case, limit the location.

And a PRIVATE discussion is PROTECTED speech.

If it is overheard, it is NO LONGER PRIVATE. If you wish to explain, in detail your sexual fantasies to your girlfried, that is OK as long as you are in your home or a similarly private area. If you have such a discussion in a public mall, then I and many others who don't particularly wish their kids to hear will object.

Not everyone likes discussion of religion. It is, as you say a PRIVATE topic... and therefore belongs in PRIVATE venues or specifically designated public areas.

The mall was in the wrong. If the man was yelling to all passing customers or had a blow-horn or continues to talk to people after they made it clear they were not interested THEN he is crossing the line. Otherwise we could bring charges against all these telephone solicitors.

EXACTLY! and guess what Jay -- YOU CAN!!!

[quote="jay_a2j"] You have the right to walk away and not listen. But no-one has the right to silence private conversations.

Yes, people who might have made purchases in that store might well just leave or not enter the store lest they have to listen to the NOT PRIVATE conversation. Hint jay -- if it truly were private, then the clerk would not know what they were talking about!
And... the clerk worked there.. she could not leave.

So, argument FAIL>

[Gregrios]

This discussion is getting on my nerves. If a PRIVATE mall opens themselves up to the public, they have to adhere to public laws. They can't say, "Our mall policy is not to sell to blacks or Hispanics". WHY? Because it's discrimination. Their are laws against it. And a PRIVATE discussion is PROTECTED speech. The mall was in the wrong. If the man was yelling to all passing customers or had a blow-horn or continues to talk to people after they made it clear they were not interested THEN he is crossing the line. Otherwise we could bring charges against all these telephone solicitors. You have the right to walk away and not listen. But no-one has the right to silence private conversations.


THE DEBATE IS OVER.....

Sometimes you just have to let it go, Jay. Be happy that you've expressed your point and move on to a less contraversal issue. That fact is that nobody in this thread was present during the incident in question and therefore no one and I mean NO ONE can say with absolutle certainy what went on. Personally I feel like it might have been like Afitz mentioned that is was strictly a business move but I don't know that and I'm not willing to make the claim unless I'm darn sure of it. If it was anti-religious, you can't tell me Jay that you're all that surpirzed. You and me and alot of other people know this kind of thing happens and that it's only going to get worse in time.

[jay_a2j]

This discussion is getting on my nerves. If a PRIVATE mall opens themselves up to the public, they have to adhere to public laws. They can't say, "Our mall policy is not to sell to blacks or Hispanics". WHY? Because it's discrimination. Their are laws against it. And a PRIVATE discussion is PROTECTED speech. The mall was in the wrong. If the man was yelling to all passing customers or had a blow-horn or continues to talk to people after they made it clear they were not interested THEN he is crossing the line. Otherwise we could bring charges against all these telephone solicitors. You have the right to walk away and not listen. But no-one has the right to silence private conversations.


THE DEBATE IS OVER.....

Sometimes you just have to let it go, Jay. Be happy that you've expressed your point and move on to a less contraversal issue. That fact is that nobody in this thread was present during the incident in question and therefore no one and I mean NO ONE can say with absolutle certainy what went on. Personally I feel like it might have been like Afitz mentioned that is was strictly a business move but I don't know that and I'm not willing to make the claim unless I'm darn sure of it. If it was anti-religious, you can't tell me Jay that you're all that surpirzed. You and me and alot of other people know this kind of thing happens and that it's only going to get worse in time.

Agreed.

[Frigidus]

This discussion is getting on my nerves. If a PRIVATE mall opens themselves up to the public, they have to adhere to public laws. They can't say, "Our mall policy is not to sell to blacks or Hispanics". WHY? Because it's discrimination. Their are laws against it. And a PRIVATE discussion is PROTECTED speech. The mall was in the wrong. If the man was yelling to all passing customers or had a blow-horn or continues to talk to people after they made it clear they were not interested THEN he is crossing the line. Otherwise we could bring charges against all these telephone solicitors. You have the right to walk away and not listen. But no-one has the right to silence private conversations.


THE DEBATE IS OVER.....

So would the same hold true for small stores? Could a guy stand just inside a small shop and proselytize customers as they come in? It would certainly lose business for them, why would you want to deal with that all the time. That's OK though? Of course, if you're reasonable you'll agree that that is not all right for them to do...but what is the difference other than size between a store and a mall? When is a place too small to allow somebody to preach there? It's all ridiculous. When you're on someone else's property, whether its a home, a bar, a restaurant, a mall, whatever, you abide by their rules. If you don't do that, they can kick you out. Your rights aren't being limited, your rights just don't infringe on the rights of others.

[jay_a2j]

So would the same hold true for small stores? Could a guy stand just inside a small shop and proselytize customers as they come in?

Oddly, Wal-Mart has this exact thing. He's called a people greeter.

When is a place too small to allow somebody to preach there?

The guy in question was not "preaching". He was in a private conversation.

It's all ridiculous. When you're on someone else's property, whether its a home, a bar, a restaurant, a mall, whatever, you abide by their rules. If you don't do that, they can kick you out. Your rights aren't being limited, your rights just don't infringe on the rights of others.

Unless "the rules" are unconstitutional, then you have lawsuits. Let's try to follow, he asked, they said yes, conversation ensued. The only rights infringed upon are his.

[Timminz]

So would the same hold true for small stores? Could a guy stand just inside a small shop and proselytize customers as they come in?

Oddly, Wal-Mart has this exact thing. He's called a people greeter.

You really are as dumb as they say.

Do you really not understand the difference between an employee, and some dude with no affiliation to the business whatsoever? If you do understand that simple distinction, I must know why you continue to insist to make yourself appear to be a complete fucking moron.

[Gregrios]

So would the same hold true for small stores? Could a guy stand just inside a small shop and proselytize customers as they come in?

Oddly, Wal-Mart has this exact thing. He's called a people greeter.

You really are as dumb as they say.

Do you really not understand the difference between an employee, and some dude with no affiliation to the business whatsoever? If you do understand that simple distinction, I must know why you continue to insist to make yourself appear to be a complete fucking moron.

It was a joke man, and a rather funny one at that.

[jay_a2j]

So would the same hold true for small stores? Could a guy stand just inside a small shop and proselytize customers as they come in?

Oddly, Wal-Mart has this exact thing. He's called a people greeter.

You really are as dumb as they say.

Do you really not understand the difference between an employee, and some dude with no affiliation to the business whatsoever? If you do understand that simple distinction, I must know why you continue to insist to make yourself appear to be a complete fucking moron.

Those that have nothing to say (and you are a prime example) often resort to name calling. BTW if you can't detect humor in a post you aren't too bright.

[Timminz]

So would the same hold true for small stores? Could a guy stand just inside a small shop and proselytize customers as they come in?

Oddly, Wal-Mart has this exact thing. He's called a people greeter.

You really are as dumb as they say.

Do you really not understand the difference between an employee, and some dude with no affiliation to the business whatsoever? If you do understand that simple distinction, I must know why you continue to insist to make yourself appear to be a complete fucking moron.

It was a joke man, and a rather funny one at that.

Right, sorry. I missed the post where he admitted he was full of shit, and decided to just play funny. Stupid me, thought he was still trying to claim that some asshole in California was arrested for talking about god.

[Timminz]

ps. God hates you. He told me so. That's why I'm so ornery towards your ignorant bullshit, so often.

[Kid_A]

Good! They should round up all those wacky Christians and send them to the moon so they can convert all the moon rocks! And they can take the Muslims with them. The Jews, Buddhists and Hindus can stay. They usually do not provoke violence. Although I have a feeling that with the Christians and Muslims gone the Jews might get a little rambunctious.

[pimpdave]

Another thing I used to get in trouble for at the mall was "cruising for the foxes". Remember how there were always guys who would drive past the entrances blasting Wu-Tang, or whatever, to get the attention of the other high school girls there?

Well, my younger brother and I used to get into my car, and crank the shit out of songs like, C is for Cookie, It's Not Easy Being Green, Particle Man, Istanbul (Not Constantinople), and sometimes even that Haddaway song from the famous SNL skit.

So we'd drive by nice and slowly, with the windows down, stereo fully cranked (the only reason to have a good sound system, in my opinion) a few times. Then depending on how the kids trying to look bored would react, we'd either stop the car and get out and do some ridiculous dancing then jump in and drive away, or else call out to them in our best Eurotrash accents, hollering things like "Hello foxes! What do you think of our impressive rocking and rolling! Why not you come for ride with us!" I don't think we would have known what to do if someone took us up on our offer.

Occasionally we'd bring along a less brave friend to videotape us and the looks on the audience's faces. Those were some great times. There was one cool mall cop who would just smile at us, I guess because he got the joke. But most of the rest were unamused because they hate America.

[Woodruff]

This discussion is getting on my nerves. If a PRIVATE mall opens themselves up to the public, they have to adhere to public laws. They can't say, "Our mall policy is not to sell to blacks or Hispanics". WHY? Because it's discrimination. Their are laws against it. And a PRIVATE discussion is PROTECTED speech. The mall was in the wrong. If the man was yelling to all passing customers or had a blow-horn or continues to talk to people after they made it clear they were not interested THEN he is crossing the line. Otherwise we could bring charges against all these telephone solicitors. You have the right to walk away and not listen. But no-one has the right to silence private conversations.

THE DEBATE IS OVER.....

Sometimes you just have to let it go, Jay. Be happy that you've expressed your point and move on to a less contraversal issue. That fact is that nobody in this thread was present during the incident in question and therefore no one and I mean NO ONE can say with absolutle certainy what went on. Personally I feel like it might have been like Afitz mentioned that is was strictly a business move but I don't know that and I'm not willing to make the claim unless I'm darn sure of it. If it was anti-religious, you can't tell me Jay that you're all that surpirzed. You and me and alot of other people know this kind of thing happens and that it's only going to get worse in time.

Agreed.

I find it not surprising at all that you would be happy at that idea. As has been pointed out many times here, you WANT to feel persecuted.

[Woodruff]

So would the same hold true for small stores? Could a guy stand just inside a small shop and proselytize customers as they come in?

Oddly, Wal-Mart has this exact thing. He's called a people greeter.

Why ARE you so stupid? Did it happen naturally, or were you in some sort of an industrial accident that has caused your brain cells to function at the level of a drunk 3rd-grader?

When is a place too small to allow somebody to preach there?

The guy in question was not "preaching". He was in a private conversation.[/quote]

You should look up the definition of "preaching", since you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word.

It's all ridiculous. When you're on someone else's property, whether its a home, a bar, a restaurant, a mall, whatever, you abide by their rules. If you don't do that, they can kick you out. Your rights aren't being limited, your rights just don't infringe on the rights of others.

Unless "the rules" are unconstitutional, then you have lawsuits. Let's try to follow, he asked, they said yes, conversation ensued. The only rights infringed upon are his.[/quote]

You still have answer my question from earlier in the thread. Now would be a good time for you to look at it again.

[comic boy]

Im sure that Jay the prison guard recognises that all the inmates of his jail have the constitutional right to chat to whoever they wish and at any time. Never mind prison regulations , never mind the fact that the inmate had been warned to desist, it is his absolute right to ignore the guard and carry on talking ........thats correct yes Jay ?

Find the nearest wall and do this >>>>>>

Yes Yes, most amusing, now please explain why it is unconstitutional for a security guard to follow his employment guidelines but not when Jay the prison guard does the same ?

[jay_a2j]

Can someone please tell Woody that his words have been banned from my view and that whatever he is babbling about he can stop. I know he desires nothing more than to have dialog with me but he needs to get a life of some sort. I am fully tired of reading his drivel.

[jay_a2j]

Im sure that Jay the prison guard recognises that all the inmates of his jail have the constitutional right to chat to whoever they wish and at any time. Never mind prison regulations , never mind the fact that the inmate had been warned to desist, it is his absolute right to ignore the guard and carry on talking ........thats correct yes Jay ?

Find the nearest wall and do this >>>>>>

Yes Yes, most amusing, now please explain why it is unconstitutional for a security guard to follow his employment guidelines but not when Jay the prison guard does the same ?

If we told inmates that they could not have private conversations about God, they would sue us. CLEAR ENOUGH?