Quote :

"^doesn't matter, doesn't lead to a business interest in refusing service."

It most certainly does matter. They were in the town creating a distrubance that required a police escort to get them safely out of town. It is reasonable for the business to assume that providing services to them would further create a distrubance there.

Quote :

"first guy, can't be denied service. Second guy can be, if you think he's gonna put bullets in your establishment (reasonable)"

You analogy is flawed. Unlike the first guy whose beliefs and association with the taliban is not known, the members of WBC were known in the town. They were in this instance the taliban guy walking down the street firing bullets.

12/9/2010 2:24:48 PM

^Hey, it's not my analogy. But I think his point was that you'd never know he was a member of the WBC had he not caused a ruckus in town (ie, firing bullets)

Also, I am not arguing whether or not they would win a lawsuit, I am saying that, according to the word of law, I don't think it's a legit reason.

Now, could you argue that it is, certainly. I could even come up with some really neat ways to take it to court, but that's beyond the point.

Honestly, thanks to the idea of case law, I suspect someone with a decent enough attorney could walk in and say, "We denied them service because they are members of WBC, and they're assholes" and get away with it, which is fine with me, because I think people should be able to refuse service to anyone... But again, beside the point.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:29 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 2:29:10 PM

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=146340218751492

12/9/2010 2:34:43 PM

Quote :

"^Hey, it's not my analogy. But I think his point was that you'd never know he was a member of the WBC had he not caused a ruckus in town (ie, firing bullets)"

But they were known precisely because of their actions that day in the town. So there is absolutely no point in talking about hidden beliefs and associations.

As to another point, if the Taliban member was walking down the street and known to be a member of the Taliban and not firing bullets, I could refuse him service because members of the Taliban are enemies of the state

Quote :

"Also, I am not arguing whether or not they would win a lawsuit, I am saying that, according to the word of law, I don't think it's a legit reason."

If a restaurant can deny a motorcycle gang the right to wear their colors inside an establishment for fear it would possibly cause fights between patrons then a garage has the right to deny services to the WBC after the group was in town causing a massive disturbance.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 2:35:38 PM

^ I think "in town" versus "in the establishment" causes issues with that ideology (I'm playing the devils advocate here). Could you really claim your business had an interest in refusing them because someone else committed a crime against their property while they were executing a legally sanctioned and "peaceful" (debatable) protest. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose.

12/9/2010 2:49:24 PM

Well, when a police escort is reqired to get them out of town after having conducted their lawful protest then yes. You have a reasonable expectation that providing them services could cause you a problem.

I also reject the notion that protesting funerals is part of their religious belief system. Rather they are purely assholes out seeking attention hidden behind the mask of religion

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 2:52:57 PM

^Protesting (more namely, assembly) is a protected first amendment right. Telling the world during their protest how they (their religion) feels about gays seems pretty straightforward. Lots of sects of Christianity abhor homosexuality, so it's perfectly reasonable what they're doing, regardless of the total distaste of it. But we don't govern good taste, see "The World v Larry Flint."

Also, the police escort was there to keep them safe, not deliver them from the city, most noted by the fact that the police escort was willing to stop and let them get their tires fixed from a local shop. Their presence, if anything, should make it LESS likely for the shop owner to expect trouble for serving them.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 3:00:15 PM

Precisely, the police were required to keep them safe that was my point. It shows that the shop owner can create a reasonable expectation of safety charge, with or without police being there.

The fact that their religious beliefs abhor homosexuality and how widespread that belief is, especially in rural Oklahoma cuts against their ability to claim religious bias against them.

I also reject the argument that all actions by a religious group are religious by nature.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 3:24 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ,]

12/9/2010 3:22:52 PM

See, that's the perspective issue. The police being there should lend to a reasonable expectation of safety. also, the WBC members never did anything wrong, they just got their tires slashed.

I have no idea what your second paragraph is trying to say... They are in a place that probably feels the same about homosexuality, so that can't be the reason they were denied service? that has nothing to do with it. the fact that they were denied service without a good reason is the problem.

I am not saying any actions by religious groups are religious. I am saying that their view on homosexuality is part of their belief system (protected by government) and that their right to protest (protected by government) combined with their message delivery is legal (and distasteful). So nothing about that takes them outside the realm of having a right to service, a la the civil rights act.

12/9/2010 3:46:30 PM

So if a PETA member is outside KFC protesting and then walks in to buy a Double Down, the KFC manager HAS to sell one to him?

What about the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

12/9/2010 3:46:50 PM

^I don't think so, if the protesters are protesting the business (the business then has an interest in denying them service, so they'll go away). But the difference there is that the protests are happening at the same place the business is. If they were protesting a funeral and walked in to get some chicken,they have a right to be served.


And that sign has to do with "private rights to exclude"

Quote :

""Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people. Depending on the nature of the property, an owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy their property, and/or to exclude others from doing these things.[1][2][3] Important widely recognized types of property include real property (land), personal property (physical possessions belonging to a person), private property (property owned by legal persons or business entities),...""

Which was overshadowed by the civil rights "right to access" laws, and was upheld by the court system as more important than the individual rights of the store owner in these cases, and so those signs don't mean anything anymore.

12/9/2010 3:49:55 PM

Okay, but if Chewbacca is protesting the funeral of Darth Vader on Endor, then tries to buy some power couplings from the Ewoks, they HAVE to sell them to Chewbacca? But he's a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyk. That don't make sense!

You must acquit.

12/9/2010 3:59:14 PM

Chewbacca was on the same side as the ewoks. Furthermore he would have no reason to protest as Anakin was the one who killed Palpatine.

Flawed argument.

12/9/2010 4:00:53 PM

just because no one else pointed this out from page 1

Quote :

"CHURCH ARE DUMBASSES"

12/9/2010 4:08:19 PM

Quote :

"See, that's the perspective issue. The police being there should lend to a reasonable expectation of safety. also, the WBC members never did anything wrong, they just got their tires slashed."

Whether they are peaceful or not isn't at issue here. You can be as peaceful as you want, but that doesn't stop others from attacking you. The people at the store have a valid argument that providing them services would create a disruption to their business

Quote :

"I have no idea what your second paragraph is trying to say... They are in a place that probably feels the same about homosexuality, so that can't be the reason they were denied service? that has nothing to do with it. the fact that they were denied service without a good reason is the problem."

We don't know the precise reason why they were denied service. If WBC wants to sue claiming they were denied for religious reasons, they are going to have to show what those religious reason are. Pointing to religious reasons that are held by wide section of the population isn't going to be good enough.

Quote :

"I am not saying any actions by religious groups are religious. I am saying that their view on homosexuality is part of their belief system (protected by government) and that their right to protest (protected by government) combined with their message delivery is legal (and distasteful). So nothing about that takes them outside the realm of having a right to service, a la the civil rights act."

It's just like businesses being allowed the right to deny to serve motorcycle gangs. They create a potential and very real disruption to the business services

12/9/2010 4:16:04 PM

Duncan and Mr. Joshua saves the thread

12/9/2010 4:25:03 PM

1. ... Is reasonable and could win. But I, for one, would have a hard time stomaching that excuse, when the only "disturbance" was tire slashings. It's not like people were pelting them with bottles, or following them as they left town (that we know of). There would have to be context for that to be believable (a police escort not cutting it).

2. It wouldn't be for religious issues. It'd be because they were arbitrarily refused service, because the store owner didn't like them.

3. You can't walk around saying "That issue is just like this issue" when your two scenarios are in very different contexts. Of course it makes sense for a bar to not want gangs to show their colors, that's a place where they'd typically congregate and get drunk and rowdy. The same argument isn't as strong in, say, a wal-mart.

12/9/2010 4:27:05 PM

^ Would you want to be known as the only Auto Shop in town that helped the WBC? I don't think that would be good for your business.

12/9/2010 4:32:47 PM

Yeah, because it's going to make headline news that you put some tires on a WBC member's car

YOU MUST BE ONE OF THEM...

Be serious

12/9/2010 4:33:22 PM

holy shit this got off the rails fast

12/9/2010 4:43:13 PM

Quote :

"so it's perfectly reasonable what they're doing"

No its not. its a PRIVATE funeral that they paid a business to conduct. The only place they should be allowed to protest is in a public area in which they have right to be there. Outside of the church...sure...IN the church...hell no.

Outside of the cemetery...sure. ON cemetery grounds? hell no.

and I was using the Taliban analogy just for what you guys stated...you have no idea if he is taliban or not just by him walking down the street...it is a belief, you cannot read his mind. because he is a stranger.

As SOON as he puts that gun in his hand, that ACTION changes teh entire scenario...know we KNOW what he was thinking.

12/9/2010 4:46:58 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, because it's going to make headline news that you put some tires on a WBC member's car"

Uh, the news article linked on page 1 specifically mentions that AAA came and towed them to Walmart. Wouldn't be a stretch to think the same news source would name any auto shop that fixed their tires.

1000 counter-protesters in what is obviously a close community can do a lot of damage to an Auto Shop's reputation and business. Even if they know the owners aren't actually "ONE OF THEM", I doubt they'd appreciate someone picking the WBC as customers over the members of the community.

12/9/2010 4:48:45 PM

You know, I would think that if Westboro church had enough of a case to sue these auto shops, they already would have considering their litigation history.

12/9/2010 5:05:42 PM

Quote :

"3. You can't walk around saying "That issue is just like this issue" when your two scenarios are in very different contexts. Of course it makes sense for a bar to not want gangs to show their colors, that's a place where they'd typically congregate and get drunk and rowdy. The same argument isn't as strong in, say, a wal-mart."

It is very similar. The motorcycle issue isn't just about bars. It's about establishments in general having the right to tell motorcycle gangs they cannot fly their colors given the historical implications of rival gangs running into each other creating a disruption to business.

With WBC, there is already one act of violence having occurred (tires getting slashed), this fact couple with high emotions in the town following the protest by the church of a funeral, coupled with 1000 counter protesters being there, creates enough of a disturbance that the police have to provide them an escort out of town to ensure their safety. It is reasonable for the business owner to assume, police or not, that there is a high likelihood of having WBC around his shop is bad for the regular operation of his business. The higher than normal police presence at the Cleveland Cavaliers - Miami Heat game didn't stop someone from throwing a battery onto the court or stop someone from attempting to rush the court. Just like in this instance, a police presence will not necessarily stop an idiot from causing a violent disruption to the business.

12/9/2010 5:25:58 PM

Didn't read the thread. I wish the Justice Department would grant me legal immunity to deal with them as necessary--a hunting license of sorts. I'd follow those motherfuckers around like they were the Grateful Dead.

12/9/2010 5:26:52 PM

Quote :

"It is very similar. The motorcycle issue isn't just about bars. It's about establishments in general having the right to tell motorcycle gangs they cannot fly their colors given the historical implications of rival gangs running into each other creating a disruption to business. "

No, it's about A bar not being in the wrong for disallowing them to be there in THAT situation, where gang violence is relevant.

you people are sensationalizing the effects changing some tires MIGHT have on a business because you agree with the scenario the way it played out. Your biases are affecting your judgement, and for the record, I agree with you that the scenario the way it played out was fantastic.

But you can't claim someone might fire bomb the shop, that's radically inflammatory. (no pun intended)

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

12/9/2010 5:55:06 PM

No one is sensationalizing anything. Disruptions can happen while the tires are getting changed. Any establishment in a small town can become a sight of disruptions with people like WBC being present in the way they were.

[Edited on December 9, 2010 at 6:26 PM. Reason : .]

12/9/2010 6:17:44 PM

WHAT IF A T REX AND A HIPPOPOTAMUS WERE PROTESTING EVOLUTION BEING TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS BUY EATING PEOPLE AND THEN WANTED TO GO TO DISNEYWORLD PARIS

WOULD DISNEYWORLD HAVE TO SERVE THEM

PLEASE GUYS I HAVE A MATCH TONIGHT

12/9/2010 6:30:35 PM

paintball drive-by

get your autocockers ready!

12/9/2010 7:18:12 PM

Triangle conservative groups to protest Westboro

Quote :

"Some Triangle conservatives say they will join the counter protests against Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay group that plans to picket Saturday's funeral service for Elizabeth Edwards. Randy Dye, a local conservative blogger, said a coalition of local conservative groups will stand silently while holding American flags. Some members of the Patriot Guard, a group of bikers who sometimes help escort military funerals, are also expected. "Though I did not agree with Ms. Edwards political views, she’s still an American and deserves a respectful funeral for her family and loved ones," Dye wrote on his Randy's Right blog. "Just because I disagree with someone, does not make them my enemy, just my opponent in life. We will not stand by and allow these monsters to disrespect Ms. Edwards life or her family. ... It is sad we have to do this during a funeral, but for evil to reign is when good women and men remain silent." The conservatives will join other groups who said yesterday that they would be on hand to protest the Kansas based church, which is known for traveling the country to draw attention to themselves by disrupting military funerals and other events likely to be covered by the media"

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/triangle_conservative_groups_to_protest_westboro

12/10/2010 10:46:20 AM

^ Good for them.

12/10/2010 10:52:31 AM

[Edited on December 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM. Reason : wrong thread]

12/10/2010 10:54:14 AM

damn, this thread got quiet. This was arguably the TWW Thread of the Day yesterday.

THE PROTEST IS TOMORROW, PEOPLE.

12/10/2010 2:18:28 PM

i heard TULIPlovr hurt himself trying to stick his finger up his pisshole.

[Edited on December 10, 2010 at 2:47 PM. Reason : might explain the low traffic on this thread today.]

12/10/2010 2:47:29 PM

http://tinyurl.com/2fm6ac8

Their lawyer on Bob & The Showgram this morning. Wretched.

12/10/2010 2:53:00 PM

I was really hoping their plane, bus or whatever would crash after listening to that crap this morning.

12/10/2010 3:15:55 PM

^^ Wowie zowie I like how she hung up on them when they asked her if she thought she was a perfect Christian

12/10/2010 3:17:00 PM

haha. I liked when she was rambling at the end and her service went out.

12/10/2010 3:47:42 PM

Dear Lord she has 11 children

12/10/2010 3:59:20 PM