Best solution is to exercise your own property rights and not trade your property on his.
All we know is from the article, and that sounds like he complied with their request to remove the “offending” items from his display.
agreed there. Property rights must be protected. Hence the suggestions I listed about alternative methods to promote.
The suggestion of a lawsuit is using the lefts tactics against them. They sued us to get God out of school, remove references for everything that “offended” them from everywhere, and we are now being innundated with muslim lawsuits for face/head coverings in DMV photos, footbaths in airports, and putting a crucifix in a jar of urine and calling it art.
The teaparties were a start. We are beginning to see we have to fight fire with fire. We used the lefts playbook against them there, and we must use it in situations like this. We, as a group, so strongly believe in the right to free speech, that even when we are offended or silenced, we just walk away, shrugging our shoulders. That is how the left has gained a foothold, and we cannot let them gain anymore.
While the lawsuit will most likely not be successful, it will raise awareness in the area as to the reason this man is prevented from bringing his wares into the mall. That, with the mood this country is in, may be enough to actually make a dent in the malls traffic. People also have the right not to shop there if they are outraged, but how can they be outraged if they don’t know what is going on? The lawsuit is the soapbox.
He has a lease agreement that is effective through 31 December. Obviously, these contracts mean about as much as the contracts that GM and Chrysler had with their stockholders.