Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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