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

[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.

[Samarta]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Samarta

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.

Yes he can. That's what you're missing. As long as there is no proof that the owner refused to serve them based on a protected class (ie, the Denny's thing from way back with their black customers...) then he can do whatever the hell he wants to with his restaurant.

You can think it was wrong all day long, but the fact remains that he was well well well within his legal bounds to do what he did.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Samarta

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...

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

[Samarta]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You aren't a lawyer are you?

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...

[Samarta]

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.....