Posted on 05/08/2007 8:27:49 PM PDT by doesnt suffer fools gladly
O.J. Simpson thrown out of steakhouse Owner says he is sickened by the attention Simpson still receives LOUISVILLE, Ky. - The owner of an upscale steakhouse in Louisville said he asked O.J. Simpson to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts. “I didn’t want to serve him because of my convictions of what he’s done to those families,” Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct.” Simpson, an NFL Hall of Famer and Heisman Trophy winner, was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman but was found liable in a civil trial that followed. Ruby — who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Louisville and Belterra, Ind. — said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
“Yep, discrimination, pure and simple.
AND PERFECTLY LEGAL!”
Perfectly legal on the left side of the aisle, not on the side of the aisle that I frequent.
One of the best changes we could make in our judicial system would be to allow the juries to vote "not proved". This would then allow murderer's like OJ to be retried, hopefully by more competent prosecutors then the like of Chris Darden.
I am a lawyer and you... are an idiot.
It would have to be a jury in Lexington, KY. I don't think they'd like it that scum like himself was wasting their time with a lawsuit.
“What the owner cannot do is throw OJ out BECAUSE he is black (sort of). What the owner can do is refuse to serve a man whom he believes would cause a disruption or discomfort to his clientele.”
While it probably won’t happen, I believe that if OJ were to sue, he would prevail since he was apparently not causing any disruption (sitting in the back of the bus) and not causing any discomfort. Other patrons may have FELT discomfort but when I’m out and about, there are certainly people who I FEEL discomfort about when I’m seated near them.
Even OJ has rights in this nation, even if he is black.
LOL, I have. Discriminating against a killer is NOT against the law. Try really hard to get that through your odd screens.
“Answered by Rosa Parks 50 or so years ago.
Is it unconstitutional for a restaurant owner to throw out a bum?”
maybe he could have served him outside, and sans any knives
You clearly have no idea who Rosa Parks was and what the issue was.Neither do you. OJ is NO Rosa Parks.
If OJ sued the restaurant owner, 1) there would have been enough donations from around the country to cover his legal expenses twenty-fold, and B) Any money OJ collected would belong to the Goldman and Brown families.
Look pal, you are wearing thin, implying racism on my part, with that condescending implication.
I simply stated that OJ was thrown out on the basis of good taste and not race.
OJ, never embraced his ethnicity, until he was in trouble. He lived his whole life invirtual denial of his ethnicity. Many blacks would have viewed him as a 'Tom', hence my comment 'sort of'
The issue was Public Transportation and State Action and invidious discrimination on the sole basis of race, in violation of the 14th amendment.
So what was the answer?
Is it unconstitutional for a restaurant owner to throw out a bum (like OJ)?
What law was broken by the restaurant owner when he told OJ to get his murderous ass out of his restaurant? Huh?
And what law school did you flunk out of?
Yes, by all means, let's find a way to get around that pesky Constitution.
There already is a "not proved" option. It's called a mistrial. Any non-unanimous verdict.
LOL! But it really should say just "murderers," since Simpson was not convicted.
And your point is.....?
Management can reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. They don't have to give a reason. The man's reason makes sense to me. Did OJ pay up on the civil judgments to the families of the victims? At the very least, the manager was within his rights to refuse service because he didn't want his business to be associated with such a low life. or to subject his patrons to OJ, or to continue to activate his gag reflex.
In its very definition, refusing service to someone IS and HAS TO 8E discriminatory. This is sometimes essential and not always negative in terms of its overall effect on society.
Merriam-Webster online
discrimination
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
Not. Even. Close.
Discriminating means drawing distinctions. Prejudice means assuming distinctions where no valid ones exist. I can discriminate between Charles Manson and Mother Teresa. No law prevents it and the most elemental common sense argues in favor.
BAWHAHAHAHA...jeeze dude i just blew coffee out of my nose HAHAHA...excellent...
and bravo to the owner...
i always wonder, all those people who cheered when he got off..i wonder how they feel now?
Attn: Sharpton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.