Sorry, poor choice of words -- substitute "Do you believe you have...", or simply "Do you have...". Whatever it takes to get you to focus on my main point.
Try explaining why I have that inalienable right in my house and don’t just write “because of property rights”.
Ever heard of the "castle doctrine"? Within certain specific legal boundaries, a property owner has rights while on his property (e.g. order someone to leave, shoot at an intruder, refuse to let police in if they don't have a warrant) that he has no where else. Your right to order unwelcome visitors off of your property implies your right to regulate their speech as a condition of remaining on the property. If they want to continue in their offensive speech -- fine, but they should get off of my property first.
Property rights, of course, do not imply the right to commit criminal offenses on your property, so your sexual assault example is not really relevant to my point.
Back to the news article, the fact that the mall owner may end up fining the tenant implies that there was a provision in the lease contract granting the owner the right to exercise veto power over a tenant's decision to sell offensive merchandise. In this case, the tenant has two choices: either pay the fine or sue the owner. Nothing complicated here.
That's ok.
Ever heard of the "castle doctrine"?
Yes, but I've always thought of it as a legal doctrine forming the basis of legal rights, possibly with some basis in inalienable rights, but not purely a statement of inalienable right or an inalienable right itself. And it's not recognized under all governments as indicative of a right, either a legal right or an inalienable right. (Of course, some of what we think of as inalienable rights are not recognized under all governments.) And I thought that in the US it was somewhat different from State to State among the States that do recognize it.
Within certain specific legal boundaries, a property owner has rights while on his property...that he has no where else. Your right to order unwelcome visitors off of your property implies your right to regulate their speech as a condition of remaining on the property.
Would not the "within certain specific legal boundaries" part continue through so that "your right to regulate their speech as a condition of remaining on the property" might be subject to the certain specific legal boundaries (said legal boundaries being variable from one legal district to another)? Which brings us to:
Property rights, of course, do not imply the right to commit criminal offenses on your property, so your sexual assault example is not really relevant to my point.
You wrote:
'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".'
I thought your point was that one has the inalienable right to tell a guest in one's house to shut his mouth if one is offended by what the guest is saying.
My point is that a guest in one's house sometimes has the inalienable right to say something whether or not it offends the one who owns the house. That I used a criminal offense in my example is incidental. And to continue, the house owner in my example would still have the inalienable right to tell the guest to shut her mouth, the guest would have no obligation to do so, and the owner would have the legal, if not inalienable, right to tell the guest to leave.
Back to the news article...
I don't want to go back to the news article. I want to go back to my request in post 24 which, though not addressed to you, was to "provide a similar position regarding your (the one I was posting to then of course, not you) 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."
And
"Also, please explain why government should not be involved in securing real and personal property rights."
Since that wasn't addressed to you then, you don't have to respond in support of someone else if you don't want to.
...the fact that the mall owner may end up fining the tenant implies that there was a provision in the lease contract granting the owner the right...
I think that would make it a contract rights issues rather than a property rights issue.