May 10, 200719 yr This is what I think his thought process was. "I really don't like what he's done. I should refuse to serve him and prove my point." "Ya know, I should do it for the Goldman's." "I can't do that, I could get bad publicity." "I'LL GET PUBLICITY! SEE YA JUICE!" I believe he had good personal intentions and realized he'd also have good business implications. I was kinda thinking that maybe M. Jordan walked in with 30 people and Ruby needed to make room to seat him, so he gave the less desirable celeb das boot.
May 10, 200719 yr C-A-T-S, TheDeuce and anyone else that thinks since he was found not guilty he should have been served, or that if he turns away everyone that walks in his doors that have been on trial and found not guilty, you need to understand something here. It was his book that he wrote that really was Ruby's reason for not serving him, and of that, OJ is guilty. So again, I too applaud Jeff Ruby. I was getting ready to post this as well. Guilty or not had nothing to do with this. He has clearly stated that it was based solely on his actions AFTER the trial (the book) and the continuing pain and hardship he brings to the families of the victims.
May 10, 200719 yr I was kinda thinking that maybe M. Jordan walked in with 30 people and Ruby needed to make room to seat him, so he gave the less desirable celeb das boot. :thumb: I work in the same industry category as Mr. Ruby. Although I support the rights of business owners to serve who they wish, it is the hospitality industry. I believe that if he were in another sector, he'd be hard pressed to deny service to someone based upon his personal feelings. As a restaurant at Derby he had the luxury of demand. He knew that he could replace the table. I wonder if he'd have denied that business over the week of Christmas or in early January, when Louisville is dead and all areas of the hospitality industry struggle just to give their employees hours.
May 10, 200719 yr I don't know if you've ever been to one of Ruby's restaurants. He's not hurtin for business.........at all. I have never heard of this guy and I don't know what resturants he has, but it sounds like he may be getting a boost in business. I am sure he does not mind having his place(s) mentioned on the TV, radio and the internet.
May 10, 200719 yr I have never heard of this guy and I don't know what resturants he has, but it sounds like he may be getting a boost in business. I am sure he does not mind having his place(s) mentioned on the TV, radio and the internet. His publicity and definitely gone up since (not that he needs it) but it goes both ways as well. People have been protesting outside of the restaurant since and they're all saying that he only refused to serve OJ because of the fact that he's black which is the most absurd thing that I've heard since this whole thing has started.
May 10, 200719 yr I was kinda thinking that maybe M. Jordan walked in with 30 people and Ruby needed to make room to seat him, so he gave the less desirable celeb das boot. Very well could've...
May 10, 200719 yr Does not sound like he will go broke anytime soon. What kind of place does he have?
May 10, 200719 yr Does not sound like he will go broke anytime soon. What kind of place does he have? http://www.allmenus.com/menus/4444/Jeff%20Rubys%20?gclid=CIet0sf3g4wCFRssVAodUEoyzA
May 10, 200719 yr Not really sure how I feel about this. I understand Ruby's thoughts and can say I might want to do the same thing. But here is the rub, while I vehemently disagree with the verdict, he was declared not guilty by a court of law in our legal system. Why should Mr. Ruby be allowed to refuse him service on the personal grounds of he thinks he is a murderer when OUR legal system has found him not guilty of that crime. Whether you think he did it or not, is irrelevant when the legal system that we have in this country says he is not guilty of it. Mr. Ruby says the book is the last straw. Should he be able to deny any and all with whose opinion he disagrees with?
May 10, 200719 yr Not really sure how I feel about this. I understand Ruby's thoughts and can say I might want to do the same thing. But here is the rub, while I vehemently disagree with the verdict, he was declared not guilty by a court of law in our legal system. Why should Mr. Ruby be allowed to refuse him service on the personal grounds of he thinks he is a murderer when OUR legal system has found him not guilty of that crime. Whether you think he did it or not, is irrelevant when the legal system that we have in this country says he is not guilty of it. Mr. Ruby says the book is the last straw. Should he be able to deny any and all with whose opinion he disagrees with? It his restaurant, if he was wearing a shirt he didn't like he has the right to not serve him.
May 10, 200719 yr It his restaurant, if he was wearing a shirt he didn't like he has the right to not serve him. Same if he has a skin color he doesn't like? Or a religion he doesn't like? Or a hair color he doesn't like? While I do have more respect for Ruby and feel the same way about OJ, just don't know that you should be able to say I am not serving you even though you have been found not guilty of the charges that I am making my decision on. Ruby is stated in the paper that he will not serve murderers but OJ was found not guilty of that charge. Is that not slander?
May 10, 200719 yr Not really sure how I feel about this. I understand Ruby's thoughts and can say I might want to do the same thing. But here is the rub, while I vehemently disagree with the verdict, he was declared not guilty by a court of law in our legal system. Why should Mr. Ruby be allowed to refuse him service on the personal grounds of he thinks he is a murderer when OUR legal system has found him not guilty of that crime. Whether you think he did it or not, is irrelevant when the legal system that we have in this country says he is not guilty of it. Mr. Ruby says the book is the last straw. Should he be able to deny any and all with whose opinion he disagrees with? See my post #137 for the bold part. And yes, it's his place he can chose who to serve as long as it is not discrimination based upon sex, race, religion etc.
May 10, 200719 yr See my post #137 for the bold part. And yes, it's his place he can chose who to serve as long as it is not discrimination based upon sex, race, religion etc. One lawyer in the Enquirer indicated there was no law addressing it. So no law protecting him for it nor prohibiting it for him.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.