No soup for you!!!

[Hagar]

Race is not an issue here, and the fact that people here are spending so much time on it is playing right into the murdering creep's hands...

I don't think anyone here believes that this is a racial issue.

I've forgotten all about this case now but seem to remember that OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Unless he's retried & subsequently found Guilty he's an innocent man according to the laws of the country. It doesn't matter what you or I might think about this. Calling him a murdering creep is a form of discrimination as is refusing to serve him on that basis.

[Hagar]

In the US, a private business owner has the right to refuse service/entry(exluding discriminatory actions such as race, religion, creed, gender,age, et.al covered by the constition or local ordinance)

That appears to cover almost every situation. It's not clear who could be refused service & this could possibly vary in different parts of the country. In the end it's the proprietor's word against the customer's so which one do you believe? He might deny racial discrimination but does refusal to serve a cleared murder suspect count as a discriminatory action? What about convicted criminals who've served their sentences? I would say that OJ has a very good chance of a successful claim even without playing the race card.

Doug, that's the muddy area that juries are often asked to determine. It's also part of being a "free" society. Unfortunately it also allows some individuals to hide their true prejudices behind the freedoms the Constitution protects, while not exactly protecting the innocent.

You don't have to tell anyone in Britain about that. This country was the prime example of a free society until the adoption of the EU Human Rights charter made a complete mockery of it. The criminal fraternity now appears to have more rights than the honest law-abiding majority. Even the PM who was responsible for the Human Rights Act (my proudest moment) has been forced to admit that. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1774399,00.html

[bok269]

I don't think he was kicked out of a restaurant because hes presumably guilty (again, remember he was found civily liable) but because of the ruckus he stirs up wherever he goes and hwo uncomfortable he makes people, which is why a Matre'd wouldn't want him in their restaurant.  His lawyer is turning it into a race issue.

[Chris_F]

In the US, a private business owner has the right to refuse service/entry(exluding discriminatory actions such as race, religion, creed, gender,age, et.al covered by the constition or local ordinance)

That appears to cover almost every situation. It's not clear who could be refused service & this could possibly vary in different parts of the country. In the end it's the proprietor's word against the customer's so which one do you believe? He might deny racial discrimination but does refusal to serve a cleared murder suspect count as a discriminatory action? What about convicted criminals who've served their sentences? I would say that OJ has a very good chance of a successful claim even without playing the race card.

The protections afforded do not vary appreciably in different parts of the country (I believe one state adds sexual orientation to the list but that's it).  The law is federal and covers the entire United States.  It does allow for discrimination against other groups and criminals who have served their sentances are not a protected class, therefore it's entirely legal to discriminate against them in the US.

How does one defend themselves against this accusation?  It will be up to the Plantif (OJ) to prove discrimination.  And if the proprieter has served at least one single black person in the restaurant then that will make for a very effective defense against the charge.

[Chris_F]

Race is not an issue here, and the fact that people here are spending so much time on it is playing right into the murdering creep's hands...

I don't think anyone here believes that this is a racial issue.

I've forgotten all about this case now but seem to remember that OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Unless he's retried & subsequently found Guilty he's an innocent man according to the laws of the country. It doesn't matter what you or I might think about this. Calling him a murdering creep is a form of discrimination as is refusing to serve him on that basis.

 Fortunately people who are aquitted of charges are not a protected class and therefore it is legal to call him a murdering creep and discriminate against him on that basis.  :)

[Hagar]

Race is not an issue here, and the fact that people here are spending so much time on it is playing right into the murdering creep's hands...

I don't think anyone here believes that this is a racial issue.

I've forgotten all about this case now but seem to remember that OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Unless he's retried & subsequently found Guilty he's an innocent man according to the laws of the country. It doesn't matter what you or I might think about this. Calling him a murdering creep is a form of discrimination as is refusing to serve him on that basis.

[beaky]

I just claim this because USA has been an example of the civil rights to the rest of the world

Sorry Alex, I'm not sure I agree with that. :-/

I see both points: The USA is certainly not the best possible example, but compared to many places in the world, where in practice as well as on paper an individual doesn't have much representation at all, we set a pretty good example.
 But the tremendous resistance here, historically speaking, to progressive laws and ideas concerning civil rights points to something very ugly in the national character. As does the anger of those who historically have been merginalized, even though, IMHO, they have done better here in less time than any equivalent group in any other nation in the world.

OJ's case is, to me, a classic example of all that: My personal theory is that he's guilty as hell, and the LAPD tampered with evidence (poorly) in order to somehow make it more cut-and-dried... and although the court did not punish the police, he was let off the hook because they feared another display of outrage such as what happened after Rodney King's trial.

I personally heard more than one person of color say, during Simpson's trial, that they were pretty sure he did it, but felt "it was about time a brother got away with murder."  

[expat]

I just claim this because USA has been an example of the civil rights to the rest of the world

Sorry Alex, I'm not sure I agree with that. :-/

I see both points: The USA is certainly not the best possible example, but compared to many places in the world, where in practice as well as on paper an individual doesn't have much representation at all, we set a pretty good example.
 But the tremendous resistance here, historically speaking, to progressive laws and ideas concerning civil rights points to something very ugly in the national character. As does the anger of those who historically have been merginalized, even though, IMHO, they have done better here in less time than any equivalent group in any other nation in the world.

OJ's case is, to me, a classic example of all that: My personal theory is that he's guilty as hell, and the LAPD tampered with evidence (poorly) in order to somehow make it more cut-and-dried... and although the court did not punish the police, he was let off the hook because they feared another display of outrage such as what happened after Rodney King's trial.

I personally heard more than one person of color say, during Simpson's trial, that they were pretty sure he did it, but felt "it was about time a brother got away with murder."  

One of the other reasons I think he was found innocent is down to the media. They knew the details of very jury member, what they did for a living, who they worked for, where they lived, names of childhood school friends etc etc. If he was found innocent the limelight would and did go to the great job the defense did. If he was found guilty, then the limelight and all of the said detail would be in every paper and chat show form Opra to that self opinionated chap Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention the couple of thousand crazies that would have accosted them in the street, their place of work and home for sending him down. Innocent meant that they could go back to a life of relative normality. Probably the same for a certain pop singer with a taste for little boys.

Matt

[dcunning30]

In the US, a private business owner has the right to refuse service/entry(exluding discriminatory actions such as race, religion, creed, gender,age, et.al covered by the constition or local ordinance)

That appears to cover almost every situation. It's not clear who could be refused service & this could possibly vary in different parts of the country. In the end it's the proprietor's word against the customer's so which one do you believe? He might deny racial discrimination but does refusal to serve a cleared murder suspect count as a discriminatory action? What about convicted criminals who've served their sentences? I would say that OJ has a very good chance of a successful claim even without playing the race card.

Then you get into the area of private property rights.  OJ's case is not a slam dunk.  He can't prove racial discrimination as others mentioned Michael Jordan being served.  Granted, I didn't make it more clear when I referred to an "establishment", I meant place of business, pricate property.  That is why private universities can expell unruly students at a instant, and public schools have to keep these bad actors.

Typically, an establishment must post their rules, such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" etc.  His lawyer might claim the owner didn't have a "no OJ sign posted", which is ridiculous, but legal cases at times swing on such nonsensical minutae.  I think such a case would swing on the mood of the jury which is not boding well for OJ these days.  If I were the proprietor, I'd want a jury trial, and if I were OJ, I'd want a judge trial, but then again, if I were OJ, I wouldn't have murdered those people in the first place!  

[dcunning30]

Race is not an issue here, and the fact that people here are spending so much time on it is playing right into the murdering creep's hands...

I don't think anyone here believes that this is a racial issue.

I've forgotten all about this case now but seem to remember that OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Unless he's retried & subsequently found Guilty he's an innocent man according to the laws of the country. It doesn't matter what you or I might think about this. Calling him a murdering creep is a form of discrimination as is refusing to serve him on that basis.

[Hagar]

The man was acquitted in a court of law. I'm no lawyer but surely calling anyone a murdering creep without proof amounts to slander.

That dog won't hunt.

[Chris_F]

The man was acquitted in a court of law. I'm no lawyer but surely calling anyone a murdering creep without proof amounts to slander.

That would be a very difficult legal challenge for OJ to mount (of course he's overcome worse).  The standards of proof are far more lenient in civil cases then they are in criminal cases.  The defendant would need to simply convince the jury that it is likely he was speaking to the best of his knowledge when he called OJ a murdering creep.  He need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ murdered anyone.  All he needs to do is show that, given the publicly available information, a reasonable person could conclude that OJ killed someone.  That's a very low standard to meet and thus a slander/liable charge would be easily defeated.

Of course OJ has been known to get away with murder...

[Hagar]

The man was acquitted in a court of law. I'm no lawyer but surely calling anyone a murdering creep without proof amounts to slander.

That would be a very difficult legal challenge for OJ to mount (of course he's overcome worse).

[Chris_F]

It was Kevin who used the words 'murdering creep'. I doubt that OJ's lawyers will bother suing him over it.

Yeah, I was taking it as a point of debate, not defending the statement as such.  Personally I believe OJ did it, I'd kick him out of any establishment I'd own, but am not too emotionally involved.  If a hundred OJ's walking free is the price of keeping one innocent man from being sent to jail then I'm prepared to pay that price.

[Mushroom_Farmer]

It's prpbaly all moot now anyway. OJ stated publically that he will will not pursue this legally..........Oh, wait, what does this mean really?  :o