[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Now, please provide a similar position regarding your statement “it is instead a property rights issue” using similarly authoritative sources, and addressing property rights from both the “real property” and “personal property” aspects.

Do you feel like you have the inalienable right to tell a guest in your house to shut his mouth if you are offended by what he's saying? This is the principle at stake here. In this case, substitute "tenant" for "guest", and "mall" for "house".

[freedumb2003]

>>Do you feel like you have the inalienable right to tell a guest in your house to shut his mouth if you are offended by what he’s saying? This is the principle at stake here. In this case, substitute “tenant” for “guest”, and “mall” for “house”.<<

This is going to be an uphill battle. When you get one of them “it is my God-given right under the Constitution” types, you know you are dealing with someone who doesn’t (and probably never will) understand what the USC is and how private interests relate (or don’t) to it.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Do you feel like you have the inalienable right to tell a guest in your house to shut his mouth if you are offended by what he’s saying?”

Feel? I’m not looking for feelings.

But in answer, I do “feel” I have the inalienable right to tell a guest in my house to shut his mouth if I am offended by what he’s saying.

I also “feel” a guest in my house has an inalienable right to say “Take your hand off my butt” if she’s offended by my placing it there, regardless of whether or not it offends me for her to say it.

Try again if you want to.

Try explaining why I have that inalienable right in my house and don’t just write “because of property rights”. That’s too vague, too subject to interpretation through “feelings”, and too unfounded as it stands.