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?

So, as a restauranuteur, you should have to serve every single person that walks in your door?

 

What if they are a pimp? With his girls, wearing practically nothing. what if they smell? What if they are being loud and obnoxious? What if they are wildly intoxicated? You could name any situation. Any of those I mentioned could drive away business.

 

The applause from the crowd makes me feel that the people in the restaurant were not comfortable with him there.

 

This is a free country, he owns that business, he has the right to kick him out if he looks at him funny, if he has a piece of lettuce in his teeth or if he just sits there and does nothing.

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.

So we want to move to a country where I disagree with your viewpoint on something and I can refuse you service. That is a civil country.

 

It seems that a not guilty verdict (and don't misinterpret what I am saying as I think he is guilty of the murders) should account for something in this country.

 

I also remember the Catholic Church bishop who said he would refuse communion to John Kerry because of his stance on abortion being ripped for that.

One lawyer in the Enquirer indicated there was no law addressing it. So no law protecting him for it nor prohibiting it for him.

One of the news channels I was watching yesterday had on a lawyer who said that there were no grounds of a lawsuit as long as there isn't proof of discrimination against the things I listed previously. Otherwise he could sue his socks off but that is obviously not the case here.

Well he looks like a classy guy... :lol:

If he asked me to leave I believe I would.

So, as a restauranuteur, you should have to serve every single person that walks in your door?

 

What if they are a pimp? With his girls, wearing practically nothing. what if they smell? What if they are being loud and obnoxious? What if they are wildly intoxicated? You could name any situation. Any of those I mentioned could drive away business.

 

The applause from the crowd makes me feel that the people in the restaurant were not comfortable with him there.

 

This is a free country, he owns that business, he has the right to kick him out if he looks at him funny, if he has a piece of lettuce in his teeth or if he just sits there and does nothing.

I read somewhere but cannot find it now that business owners are protected in denying service to any patron that is creating a disturbance, creates a safe/health issue, intoxicated, etc.

 

Wow, so you are for being able to walk into a business and you lose all of your rights as an individual. You are doing nothing and the business owner can kick you out for nothing.

One of the news channels I was watching yesterday had on a lawyer who said that there were no grounds of a lawsuit as long as there isn't proof of discrimination against the things I listed previously. Otherwise he could sue his socks off but that is obviously not the case here.

And I agree that OJ has no civil rights case here. He had been served before and Ruby even had a picture of him and OJ on the wall at one time. He had served other African Americans so there is no case for it.

 

Doesn't prevent him from being sued according to one lawyer.

So we want to move to a country where I disagree with your viewpoint on something and I can refuse you service. That is a civil country.

 

It seems that a not guilty verdict (and don't misinterpret what I am saying as I think he is guilty of the murders) should account for something in this country.

 

I also remember the Catholic Church bishop who said he would refuse communion to John Kerry because of his stance on abortion being ripped for that.

Where is there a differing viewpoint between the two men involved? Once again, this had nothing to do with the verdict. He has said repeatedly that he did it out of respect for the family and friends of the victims. This is a free country and that is one of the privileges of owning your own restaurant. There is no law saying that you have to serve him no questions asked. If he did that to me for any reason, I would be very upset with him, not eat there anymore, but I would respect his right to do so.

And I agree that OJ has no civil rights case here. He had been served before and Ruby even had a picture of him and OJ on the wall at one time. He had served other African Americans so there is no case for it.

 

Doesn't prevent him from being sued according to one lawyer.

Anybody can sue him, but the case just won't hold any water.

One of the news channels I was watching yesterday had on a lawyer who said that there were no grounds of a lawsuit as long as there isn't proof of discrimination against the things I listed previously. Otherwise he could sue his socks off but that is obviously not the case here.

This is absolutely correct. You can deny someone service for any reason, as long as it cannot be established that you did so because they belong to one of a number of well-defined groups.

 

Look, I know Jeff Ruby is not going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, and he has some dark issues in his past. But I think what he did was a good thing; and the only reason it hadn't been done before was that no one had the guts to do it. But I think you'll begin to see life get a little more difficult for The Butcher of Brentwood.

 

And let's be clear, Ruby says he did this because of the way OJ has acted since the trial, not because of the verdict. As he explained last night, someone murders (decapitates) your ex-wife...the mother of your children...the daughter of your father-in-law...and you make jokes about it, and have the gall to write a book thumbing your nose at the whole tragedy. And you blatantly find every way possible to avoid paying the judgment that our legal system has imposed upon you. And you think you deserve to be respected?

 

What Ruby did was, without a doubt, a brilliant marketing ploy. He's a savvy businessman, and it had to go through his mind. But I also believe he had good intentions. If he benefited in the process, then so be it.

 

It all went down so fast, it couldn't have been premeditated. It's not like Ruby planned the attack. He didn't sneak up behind OJ and his guest and attack them when they were completely isolated and vulnerable. Ruby didn't hurt his own children in the process of ejecting OJ. And I doubt that Jeff Ruby will be writing a book about how he would have killed OJ...if he had done it.

I read somewhere but cannot find it now that business owners are protected in denying service to any patron that is creating a disturbance, creates a safe/health issue, intoxicated, etc.

 

Wow, so you are for being able to walk into a business and you lose all of your rights as an individual. You are doing nothing and the business owner can kick you out for nothing.

That's abosolutely right. Same as if I was in that man's house.

 

I also have the right to not endorse a business based on what that owner may believe.

So, what are the exact legal reasons you may be removed from a resturant in this situation? Obviously we know the ones such as danger to other patrons, or loitering, ect. If you can remove someone for actions the owner disagrees with, or writing a book, or out of respect for others, I see a slippery slope.

BF nailed it. A business owner can refuse to provide service/sell its product to any one he/she likes with a couple of exceptions: race, gender, age or national origin. If OJ can prove that Ruby threw him out for race reasons, Ruby's in deep trouble. It will be tough to prove that however when there were many other blacks allowed to continue to eat there. Michael Jordan to name one.

 

Don't know if you heard that Ruby has named a steak the OJ. He's named several other steaks after sports celebrities in the past. The only rule is that when you order the OJ, it has to be "to go":laugh:

 

 

 

And yes, I'm kidding.

BF nailed it. A business owner can refuse to provide service/sell its product to any one he/she likes with a couple of exceptions: race, gender, age or national origin. If OJ can prove that Ruby threw him out for race reasons, Ruby's in deep trouble. It will be tough to prove that however when there were many other blacks allowed to continue to eat there. Michael Jordan to name one.

 

Don't know if you heard that Ruby has named a steak the OJ. He's named several other steaks after sports celebrities in the past. The only rule is that when you order the OJ, it has to be "to go":laugh:

 

 

 

And yes, I'm kidding.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Being found not guilty is not being found innocent. I would not want to eat in the same facility as OJ, because I think he is guilty, he has shown no remorse for the lose of his childrens mother. He would would cause a disturbance because people clamering after him. WHY!:confused:

BF nailed it.

I...I did? FInally? :eek:

 

 

You hear that Elizabeth?!

 

I'm comin' to join ya' honey! And this time, OJ didn't have nothin' to do with it!!