Skip to main content

View Diary: Gay couple kicked out of mall...for kissing (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Lots of things are legal, but unwelcome... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and possibly even dangerous in a mall environment.

    •  Then you support that mall cop. (0+ / 0-)

      Those two dudes kissing was legal, but unwelcome to that mall cop.

      If you're going to defend the right of the mall to force a behavior change on the people that it is inviting onto the property, then take the bad with what you see as the good and own up to your position.

      I draw the line at legality. The corporation has spent lots of effort and money to invite the general public to come walk the inside of that building. That means they get the General Public, in all it's glory and variety, with all their foibles and behaviors and mannerisms and all of their inalienable rights.

      If it's not illegal, then they don't get to say boo to the people they asked to come in. If it's dangerous, then call the cops for endangering others with reckless behavior - hence that dangerous behavior happens to be illegal. So the line I draw remains viable - If it's not illegal, then it's allowed.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

      by JayFromPA on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 09:03:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are confusing (0+ / 0-)

        public property with private.

        Discriminatory acts are not permitted in private/public areas, where as conduct such as noise/running, etc are fine to be put in place as long as there is no discrimination in the way they are enforced.

        If the mall had a no PDA policy, and enforced it on every couple, gay or straight, it would be fully legal.

        95% of all life forms that once existed on earth are now extinct. It is only a matter of time until the Republicans follow suit.

        by PRRedlin on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 09:57:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is a lie. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ebohlman
        Then you support that mall cop.
        You don't speak for me.
        •  What other conclusion can be seen? (0+ / 0-)

          You:

          There are activities which the mall has a perfect right (and indeed an obligation) to prohibit.

          But harassing gay couples for holding hands and kissing is just beyond the pale, code or no code.

          We, you and I, are not in conflict about whether the discrimination is beyond the agreed standards of decency. But I'm not pointing at standards of decency, I'm pointing at what legal activities is the mall allowed to forbid. So I reply

          Me:

          What LEGAL activities does the mall have an obligation to prohibit?
          I'm wanting an example of something that is legal on a sidewalk in the middle of main street, but the mall is obligated to forbid to be done.

          You dodged in your reply:

          Lots of things are legal, but unwelcome...
          ...and possibly even dangerous in a mall environment.
          You dodged! And you walked back your stance from an obligation to prohibit to legal but unwelcome!

          Hey, I'm just looking to enforce the non-discriminatory law as being the go-to rules for places where the great general public goes. Putting others in danger is against the law, it's a criminal offense, and thus skateboarding or bicycle in the mall is against the law - it doesn't need to be against some sort of code of conduct. Beyond those sorts of things, what other legal rights should I have on main street but have stripped from me upon entering the mall?

          Note that this sort of ruling can have momentous consequences - it's entirely possible to be compelled to enter that mall depending on what sorts of services are there. Is the driver license office there? Actually, yes, I had to go to the local mall to renew my driver license. Why should I be compelled to give up legal behaviors that I could engage in on a public street in order to go to renew my license? WHY?!?!

          The precedent is clear. "Legal but Unwelcome" is the sort of grounds that allows "We don't allow those sorts of people here", where 'those people' can be anyone the security guys decide must go, on a whim.

          So, if you support "Legal but unwelcome" as superior to "Legal and haters can suck a lemon" then go ahead and do that and keep defending the concept of a code of conduct on public accommodation land as being superior to the rule of law.

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

          by JayFromPA on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 04:41:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What you can assume is that I meant what I said. (0+ / 0-)

            It is quite possible for somebody to support this gay couple from being harrassed for something as simple as kissing and holding hands without signing on to whatever all expansive agendas might be implicit in your statement.

            Doing so does not mean that you get to put words in my mouth or attempt to goad me into hijacking this diary and introducing issues that are totally unrelated to the topic of this diary.

            I support the right of gay couples to be free of harrassment.

            And I do so without signing onto your entire agenda on issues totally unrelated to this diary.

            It's really quite simple.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site