Posted on 08/06/2014 4:56:11 AM PDT by GailA
So the security guard was wrong.
Operative phrase "provided it does not impose itself on others or take away from the overall shopping experience.”
If they mall, being private property, has in place a policy of not allowing something - ANYTHING - then they have the right to remove person or persons acting against that policy.
The issue is private property rights - not prayer, not firearms, not right nor wrong.
If you are on someone else's property and you go against their wishes, they have the right to ask you to leave.
If I came to your house, and did something you found objectionable, or caused a disruption to you, and then claimed I had a "right" to do it, you'd be rightly pissed and call the police.
It's the same thing. I'm not understanding why you're having difficulty with this basic concept.
Unless you just feel like arguing; in which case, have a nice day!
I think some of the freepers posting on this thread in ‘automatic rant’ mode had it backwards, a ‘no prayer’ policy would also applied to Muslims. Heck, weren't they there for a group mall hike ? Not even shopping.
As I pointed out earlier, see #40 where I elaborate there is a big difference in being mad because you (or we) are not allowed to do something, and having a *right* to do it.
I mean its so liberal to call things rights that are not rights.
“then they have the right to remove person or persons acting against that policy. “
You live in a fantasy world. If the mall enacts a policy that goes against the law, the law wins. If they enact a rule that says “No blacks allowed”, they lose. Perhaps you missed all the cases where businesses were penalized by the law for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.
And then there is this: Gay Bar cited for discrimination for refusing entrance to a man in drag http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/05/youll-never-guess-the-latest-business-to
On the one hand, it’s private property, so it IS legal to refuse allowing them to pray on the property.
On the OTHER hand, it’s ALSO legal to protest, boycott, and various other very legal but very unpleasant things to that mall and that corrupt twit.
I think that you are confused in your concept of “private property” VS privately owned public property. At your residence, your home is pretty much your castle. But things that you can control there, may not apply at say your laundromat or Woolworth lunch counter (try hanging up a sign saying “whites only” or “ Colored not allowed”). I think that you will not get much cooperation from law enforcement in enforcing your signs.
Like I said previously... Have a nice day.
Great. Something else to do.
Then if that is policy they have to enforce it for all religions not just Christians.
Do you really think they’ll stop a mussie from rolling out a pray mat? They would be sued in a heart beat.
Most of our malls are owned by non Christian, foreigners today.
My personal way of dealing with them is to boycott. They have very little I need I can’t get elsewhere. I have to order my shoes on line, and I sure as heck don’t wear street walker clothes that is mostly all that is available in today’s malls. Being a Senior not ready for Alfred Dunner crap, there is very little for me to chose from, beyond T’s and Jeans. Jeans I can get at the Salvation Army for a fraction of the cost, with care they still look new or have price tags on them. My church dresses are a decade old now. I take very good care of them, they are classic designs, never out of style.
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.