So I'm standing in line to pay for my cup of coffee yesterday morning at the office and one of our attorneys happened to be in the other line...we started talking about an issue at work, but as we finished, I thought about this thread....so I asked her about it and what was right and what was legal....(she said that I was like the 5th person to ask her about it).....she said it's kind of a double edged sword....yes the owner has the right to run his restaurant to ensure a safe and comfortable environment for his patrons. On the other hand, if a patron is not doing anything to jeopardize that safe and comfortable environment then they have the right to eat there. Now where the gray area comes in is what is deemed safe and comfortable....but she did say, he can't just because......I swear guys, I think O.J. is a pos and I absolutely understand why this guy did what he did...was he right legally? I guess we'll never know....if I was a patron and asked to leave just because, I would damn sure find out....did he stay true to his principles? absolutely.....This was a good debate...

You aren't a lawyer are you?

Why do you think that there is a license that would deny a holder of a basic constitutional right?

I have been involved in cases where property rights were exercised and the one thing that was always stressed was that as long as there is no discrimination then the property owner is well within their rights to ask to have anyone removed from their property for any reason. If OJ had refused to leave the police could have come and arrested him for trespassing.

the owner was on live with nancy grace early in the week. he explained that in the 80's oj was in and had his picture taken and autographed for the owner. oj would stop when in town from that point on and the picture hung in the restaurant until the the murders. the owner said he removed the picture before the trial even started.
the owner went on to say that oj had been at least twice, that he was aware of, since the trial. the owner stated that had he been there either time, he would have asked oj to leave and not come back at those times. to me they had some sort of "personal relationship" and the owner chose to end it at this time.

i'd have applauded him for what he did. it's his right to refuse service in HIS restaurant.

personally, i'd have had NO problem telling him to GET OUT ! and would hope i'd get to physically remove him, from MY restaurant.

nah Chuck, just your avg fella....by the way, call me Sam....and please don't mistake my stance on this as someone that doesn't value your's or anyone elses opinion here....hell we can agree to disagree and I'll buy the beer if and when we meet...it's all in good fun and the spirit of a good debate...

just read that oj and lawyer will not be suing the restaurant owner.

is it? yeah, probably in this day and age, when everyone thinks anything is an opportunity to make a buck, i guess it is...

but then, had oj won any money in a settlement, he wouldn't be able to keep it anyway.