OJ tossed out of Louisville steakhouse on eve of derby...

Samarta · #1 05-10-2007, 10:06 PM

[quote=Danzig]no, he wasn't wrong. now, if he made a habit of this--well, he sure wouldn't be in business long. but again, it's his establishment, and if he wants to refuse to serve a person, or a party, he has that right. just like anyone who is offended by his actions has the right not to frequent his restaurant.[/QUOTE

He is entitled to beliefs, but he was absolutely wrong by refusing to serve him based on those beliefs and I would be amazed if any court in the land didn't see it that way as well. Hell I could argue that case and win. Again, I think O.J. is a p.o.s. and the guiltiest man alive, but he was found not guilty and has a right to eat wherever he wants...

Danzig · #2 05-10-2007, 10:24 PM

if a woman hasn't got the right to golf at augusta, why the big deal about oj getting tossed out of a restaurant???

where i work is open to the public, yet it is still private property. just like that guys restaurant. he can refuse service, and he did. but of course with our society being so eager to sue, maybe a mountain will be made out of a molehill. who gives a damn if oj was put out, and had to dine elsewhere? i don't.

Samarta · #3 05-10-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

if a woman hasn't got the right to golf at augusta, why the big deal about oj getting tossed out of a restaurant???

where i work is open to the public, yet it is still private property. just like that guys restaurant. he can refuse service, and he did. but of course with our society being so eager to sue, maybe a mountain will be made out of a molehill. who gives a damn if oj was put out, and had to dine elsewhere? i don't.

Augusta National is a private club...that is not open to the public....I don't give a damn that he was put out or care where he eats....imo this isn't about O.J., it's about one's right to frequent a public place....

Danzig · #4 05-10-2007, 10:42 PM

well, there's oj's rights, and then there's the owners rights, the other patrons rights....
was anyone else disturbed by the hoopla of oj being there? did anyone complain? there's a lot more to it than just oj being put out. the man who asked oj to leave owns the property, it's HIS right to refuse service. he knows as a public property owner, that it's a fine line-he chose to ask oj to leave.
so what?

Samarta · #5 05-10-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, there's oj's rights, and then there's the owners rights, the other patrons rights....
was anyone else disturbed by the hoopla of oj being there? did anyone complain? there's a lot more to it than just oj being put out. the man who asked oj to leave owns the property, it's HIS right to refuse service. he knows as a public property owner, that it's a fine line-he chose to ask oj to leave.
so what?

Now if there was a lot more to it than that's different....My opinion is based soley on the fact that the owner put him out because he didn't like the fact that he got away with murder and someone was giddy because he was there, which was all that was said in the article...if there were complaints, disruptions, disturbance, and the rights of the other patrons were compromised then absolutely he has the right to ask him to leave.....but he cannot and should not do it based on his personal points of view.....

Samarta · #6 05-10-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

But a restaraunt isn't a park or something, like Danzig said it's private property, much like a nightclub or bar. As the owner you have the right to refuse service to whoever you like.

Man fella's this is the best debate I've had in awhile.....

Augusta National is a private club and there are two ways you get in....you get invited or you win the Masters. Actually winning the Masters may only give you playing rights and not an actual membership. This guy's restaurant is not a private establishment where he can choose who comes in and who doesn't based on his beliefs....his business license does not afford him the right to scrutinize based on his personal beliefs, that I guarantee you.

Like I said, I understand the owner's disgust, but....

Cannon Shell · #7 05-10-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samarta

Man fella's this is the best debate I've had in awhile.....

Augusta National is a private club and there are two ways you get in....you get invited or you win the Masters. Actually winning the Masters may only give you playing rights and not an actual membership. This guy's restaurant is not a private establishment where he can choose who comes in and who doesn't based on his beliefs....his business license does not afford him the right to scrutinize based on his personal beliefs, that I guarantee you.

Like I said, I understand the owner's disgust, but....

I think you are wrong. As long as there is no illegal discrimination such as race or religion, there is justification for refusal based on just about anything.

brianwspencer · #8 05-10-2007, 11:25 PM

If the man owns the restaurant, he can refuse to serve anyone he wishes to so long as it doesn't fall under discrimination statutes. Therefore, as long as he's not refusing to serve him based on his race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation (in certain states), etc then he can do whatever he wants.

Hell, he can wait until the middle of Mother's Day brunch when half the meals are served and kick everyone out on Sunday if he just feels like the restaurant is being put under undue burden.

As not PC as it may be (and as much of a champion I may usually be of those sorts of things), he can refuse service to someone just because he doesn't like them at any hour of any day of the year with no legal consequences unless someone can prove he did it out of discrimination based on a protected class.

Being O.J. Simpson is not a protected class last time I checked. Thank God, too.

Samarta · #9 05-11-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

If the man owns the restaurant, he can refuse to serve anyone he wishes to so long as it doesn't fall under discrimination statutes. Therefore, as long as he's not refusing to serve him based on his race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation (in certain states), etc then he can do whatever he wants.

Hell, he can wait until the middle of Mother's Day brunch when half the meals are served and kick everyone out on Sunday if he just feels like the restaurant is being put under undue burden.

As not PC as it may be (and as much of a champion I may usually be of those sorts of things), he can refuse service to someone just because he doesn't like them at any hour of any day of the year with no legal consequences unless someone can prove he did it out of discrimination based on a protected class.

Being O.J. Simpson is not a protected class last time I checked. Thank God, too.

Brian,

I agree 100% and as I said, this isn't about O.J. at all, nor do I think it's about race....my opinion simply is that once he takes out a license to own a public establishment, he cannot decide to serve or not to serve based on his personal beliefs...and had this been anyone but O.J., (who is an egotistical ass on top of being a double murderer, but had sense enough to leave without incident) they would have been on every tv channel is Louisville telling their story and then some civil action attorney lurking in the shadows would come out, draft up a lawsuit, and if the owner doesn't settle or file bankruptcy, they go to court and the owner loses.

Samarta · #10 05-11-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think you are wrong. As long as there is no illegal discrimination such as race or religion, there is justification for refusal based on just about anything.

Yeah but that all goes to hell when the owner is asked on the stand, "how many white people have you thrown out of your establishment just because?"

Cannon Shell · #11 05-12-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samarta

Yeah but that all goes to hell when the owner is asked on the stand, "how many white people have you thrown out of your establishment just because?"

You aren't a lawyer are you?

Samarta · #12 05-11-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I disagree. As the owner of the restaraunt he has the right to refuse service to whoever he likes and since you haven't proven otherwise, I'm going to still believe it.

okay.....As you, I'm just voicing my opinion. Not trying to prove anything, I'm just offering up my opinion.....

Samarta · #13 05-10-2007, 10:50 PM

[quote=DaHoss9698]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samarta

No, he doesn't. As the owner of the restaraunt he has the right to refuse service to anyone. It was obviously not a racial thing and I would be surprised if OJ made a stink about it at all. He doesn't need anymore trouble, and is too busy golfing and trying to find ways to not pay the Goldman's the money they are owed after the civil trial.

He absolutely has the right to eat there. Would I like to be in there with him? Hell no! But the guy was charged with a crime, he was found not to be guilty. Whether or not a person believes in his guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Bring his old court room team back on this one and they win him the amount of money he owes in his civil judgements. I bet Johnnie Cochran is turning over wanting to do this closing argument....

timmgirvan · #14 05-10-2007, 11:22 PM

[quote=Samarta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

He absolutely has the right to eat there. Would I like to be in there with him? Hell no! But the guy was charged with a crime, he was found not to be guilty. Whether or not a person believes in his guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Bring his old court room team back on this one and they win him the amount of money he owes in his civil judgements. I bet Johnnie Cochran is turning over wanting to do this closing argument....

Sam: Johnnie has enough problems right now....I saw the live interview with the owner. He said OJ had eaten there before,and he'd had drinks with him on occasion, but their situation changed when OJ tried to do the book. He tols OJ..."I'm not comfortable with you being here now"...OJ said he understood.."let me get my people and go" Five mins after OJ and party leave Michael Jordan and a group of 30 fill the chairs! No race card to be played. Eddie George and some other NFL types were there also. This will just fade....

Samarta · #15 05-11-2007, 07:05 AM

[quote=timmgirvan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samarta

Sam: Johnnie has enough problems right now....I saw the live interview with the owner. He said OJ had eaten there before,and he'd had drinks with him on occasion, but their situation changed when OJ tried to do the book. He tols OJ..."I'm not comfortable with you being here now"...OJ said he understood.."let me get my people and go" Five mins after OJ and party leave Michael Jordan and a group of 30 fill the chairs! No race card to be played. Eddie George and some other NFL types were there also. This will just fade....

Oh I know Timm and I am just enjoying the debate, like I said, my argument isn't pro-OJ at all...he killed two people in cold blood and walked. To his credit, it sounds like he respected the owner and his opinion based on their past and honored his request.

timmgirvan · #16 05-10-2007, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

There is no such thing as a right to eat in a restaurant, and those who have posted that here have a gross misconception about an individual's rights. Americans generally have little to no understanding of what rights exist.

The word is thrown around so recklessly and incorrectly.

Buddy: this is the "Age of Entitlement" where all the downtrodden(PC only) are scooped up and put into a special class....enabled by the Nimrods who would change the Constitution because "We've evolved as a society and culture" Throw that in the air and see if it flies!

Samarta · #17 05-11-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

There is no such thing as a right to eat in a restaurant, and those who have posted that here have a gross misconception about an individual's rights. Americans generally have little to no understanding of what rights exist.

The word is thrown around so recklessly and incorrectly.

I know it is my right to disagree with you....