I wouldn't have him over for dinner either.
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 ...
Good for him!
MSNBC got it wrong, I think. He wasn’t found innocent. He was found not guilty.
Not to mention the civil trial didn’t go his way.
That's right. Mr. Ruby discriminates against murderers, especially ones who are rightly detested by millions of people. And don't start spouting again about how Simpson "wasn't convicted." Everybody, including the jury that let him off, knows Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole.
They are called "Amendments, it has been done before. 27 times as I recall, the last being in 1992. But I assume you did not know that.
There already is a "not proved" option. It's called a mistrial. Any non-unanimous verdict.
I should not have to explain something this simple. But a judge declares a mistrial, not a jury. In England, when a judge gives his instructions to the jury, he tells them they have the option to vote "not proven". Our juries do not have this option. I simply was stating that I believe they should.
There are millions of Americans with the sense to know that the evidence at trial established beyond any doubt that Simpson murdered those two people.
That's why Mr. Ruby's stomach is turned by being in the same room with Simpson.
That's why many diners would walk out of a restaurant if Simpson came there.
It doesn't take a genius to realize Simpson's mere presence would drive other diners away and hurt Mr. Ruby's business.
I did. You assumed wrong. You did not mention a constitutional amendment, so I guessed you had another mechanism in mind.
If you want to amend double jeopardy out of the Constitution, knock yourself out. You will not find your cause popular.
I should not have to explain something this simple. But a judge declares a mistrial, not a jury.
I should not have to explain something this simple. But a judge reaches findings of law, and a jury reaches determinations of fact. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous finding of fact, then as a matter of law no verdict can be sustained. So we start over and try again.
In England, when a judge gives his instructions to the jury, he tells them they have the option to vote "not proven". Our juries do not have this option. I simply was stating that I believe they should.
The Founders disagreed. The double jeopardy protection was placed in the Constitution for the specific reason that the Founders saw an abuse of the English legal system. The government did not have to prove anyone guilty to lock him up for life -- they could just keep retrying him, and holding him during the trial, over and over again until he died. Voila. Life sentence without verdict. It makes the courts a hollow formality.
I wouldn't have him over for dinner either.
Don't think so! Private business. Where's the necessary involvment of the State. We all discriminate in one way or another. It's not illegal. But it is for the State. No State action, no discrimination.
In a Real Estate transaction there is State action therefore to discriminate is illegal
You do not have a “right” to discriminate on the basis of your emotions. Check the law.
Better you should check the law. As I said in a post above, there must be State action.
You're confused. I can see you need guidance and support because on this issue, you have no aisle.
I think you are mistaken here FRiend. Federal law does prohibit discrimination based on certain specified criteria (e.g. race), but this restaurant owner did not discriminate against O.J. because he belonged to any protected class. He discriminated against O.J. because of O.J.'s individual actions. This does not violate federal law.
Not to agree or disagree, but funny anecdote. My brother in law was selling cars at a Benz dealership in the 80’s. In walks this guy out of the rain, with muddy boots, soaking wet, he stunk, and he had workman’s clothes on, like carhardts or whatever.
Not one of the salesmen would even approach the guy, except my brother in law, it was his first week on the job, and I guess he was the only one dumb enough to do it.
Turns out, the guy was the owner of an electrical contracting company that did work for the state and stuff, and he was called out to a site nearby. His pick up broke down, and he walked back in the rain, like a mile to the dealership. No one wanted to help him but my young brother in law. The guy ended up buying a big arse Mercedes with a check (cash). My brother in law drove him home that night, and a couple days later he came in with his wife and daughters and bought 3 more in cash, telling the owner that all the other salesmen could kiss his ass, he only wanted my brother’s name on the commission checks.
This was back in like 84 or 85 and my bro made about 20 grand in commission from that guy. He got out of sales the next year... because he was hired by the very same person as a salesman. (job only lasted a couple years in any event, but a cool story nonetheless).
Get ready to see someone play the RACE card!
Discrimination is an absolutely legal practice. "Racial Discrimination" is not. OJ was ejected for being a scumbag, which is a right that the owner openly states for all to see at the premise.
Discrimination is a human right, IMHO. When you get into motives it may lean one way or another, but everyone practices it in some form.
OJ got called out for being a scumbag, this time.
Throw the bum out.
In a court of law. But was he guilty in reality?
Ha, ha, ha! That is a great story.
Nobody in this nation has a *right* to eat in someone else's privately owned business. Your legal interpretation of this event is ludicrous.
Of course it was.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I know that. I don't have the "legal" right to do a lot of things. However, I consider my moral rights to be superior to flawed laws. Of course, many times I have to defer to said laws because of the legal retribution if I do not.
Other side of the same coin, I have the legal right to do things I consider wrong. I follow my beliefs.
I consider his eviction of OJ to be more a matter of freedom of association. Which, IMO, is Constitutional, even if the current laws subvert that right.
You get an A+ for the last one!
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.