Is it wrong to deny OJ Simpson a service?

A business such as this reserves the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. I've seen these notices all my life.

I was once denied entry to a pool hall because I was wearing jeans with a rip in the left knee. (This used to be standard dress; my favorite clothes are what I call "ten-year clothes", after a green shirt I'd owned for over a decade, which I retired after wearing while receiving my daughter. What? They're the most comfortable clothes in the world!)

First off, the bar did have a right to deny me entry on the principle of anyone for any reason. Additionally, it was to my error; it was actually a posted rule that I was aware of, but had never been enforced against me through many prior occasions. To the other, though, management's response to the doorman was, "You what?!" Their other response was to revise the wording of the rule to from "No ...," to "We reserve the right ...". No, they never apologized to me, and they shouldn't have to. But everyone aside from the doorman was aghast that people who spent that much and tipped that well were denied entry. Especially on a dead night.

O.J. doesn't even have that going for him. The bar, technically, did not even need to post a rule to deny my entry. Comparatively, OJ and his lawyer need to shut the hell up.
 
I agree with you Tiassa. Still, the owner might want to put out a sign: No murderers allowed! :)
 
phlogistician said:
The owner was well within his rights. The restaurant is his property, and he can eject unwanted people from it.
Click to expand...

Sure. but what if he rejects people based on race or sex? Why is it different than rejecting based on criminal history?
 
I just watched a vid clip of the restaurant owner being interviewed. According to him, the table that O.J. was sitting at before the owner told him he wasn't going to serve him, was used after O.J. was booted, for a 30 member party, of which Michael Jordan was a part of, so to me, that indicates that race wasn't an issue.
 
They cannot do it based on he is black, however based on he is a murderer, yes they can. He could try to sue them and will probably fail.
 
The restaurant owner basically said that it was because of O.J.'s book, "If I did it, here's How I Would Have Done It". He said he's even had O.J. in there before and has had pictures taken with him. But he said that the book was the thing that pushed it too far.

It really doesn't matter (with the exception of blatant racial discrimination, which wasn't the case here) what a patron (any patron) does, restaurants have a right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.
 
Mind you, I am arguing here philosophically....

mikenostic said:
It really doesn't matter (with the exception of blatant racial discrimination, which wasn't the case here) what a patron (any patron) does, restaurants have a right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.
Click to expand...

I bet if the owner refused to serve old people his ass would be sued to hell....So the anytime for any reason doesn't always apply...

So no, there are groups of people whom can NOT be denied, like based on age (too young is OK) gender or race or nationality. I assume there could be a huge difference between a private restaurant and a restaurant in a chain. (publicly traded)....
 
Syzygys said:
Mind you, I am arguing here philosophically....



I bet if the owner refused to serve old people his ass would be sued to hell....So the anytime for any reason doesn't always apply...

So no, there are groups of people whom can NOT be denied, like based on age (too young is OK) gender or race or nationality. I assume there could be a huge difference between a private restaurant and a restaurant in a chain. (publicly traded)....
Click to expand...

True, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for any reason. That doesn't mean that the lawsuit is valid or not ridiculous. I mean, take that stupid bitch that won the lawsuit against McDonalds because she burned herself with HOT coffee.

I often wonder how a litigation attorney gets around "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason"
I honestly don't see how that can be misinterpreted in any way shape, size or form.

Maybe I should file a lawsuit agains the next woman that shoots me down after I ask her out. :rolleyes:
 
one_raven said:
Legally, no?
Click to expand...

Sure there is. Let's talk about golf courses, not restaurants. The Augusta Open refuses women to enter and although they probably got sued by the women advocates groups, since the Augusta is a PRIVATE club, they can make whatever RULES they want.

Now if we are talking about another golf course, which isn't private, but belongs to a publicly traded corporation, they can not discriminate based on age,gender or race.

I assume something similar applies to restaurants. As long as it is private, it is their business whom they do busniess with. But once they are public or corporate, federal laws apply....

But I am not a lawyer, I just play one on Sciforums...
 
Syzygys said:
Now if we are talking about another golf course, which isn't private, but belongs to a publicly traded corporation, they can not discriminate based on age,gender or race.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken.
A "Private" golf course can be incorporated.
What makes a golf course not "Private" has nothing to do with whether or not it is incorporated, it has to do with whether or not it is owned and operated by the government.
A county park with a golf course is a "Public" course.
A piece of land owned by an individual, a group of individiuals or a corporation is a "Private" course.
 
What I meant was publicly traded. (I actually wrote that) I can be wrong, but when there are stockholders and board of directors, the business better be open for everyone...
 
Syzygys said:
What I meant was publicly traded. (I actually wrote that) I can be wrong, but when there are stockholders and board of directors, the business better be open for everyone...
Click to expand...

That is often the practice (as I said, to save face) but there is no law stating such.
 
Syzygys said:
Sure. but what if he rejects people based on race or sex? Why is it different than rejecting based on criminal history?
Click to expand...
So you're saying that inborn qualities like race and sex are the equivalent of chosen activities such as rape and murder?

You realize that it would then follow that the state would be just as justified in jailing/executing someone based on race or sex as for being a murderer? Hitler just as justified in his genocide against Jews as the state of Illinois when it executed John Wayne Gacy?
 
From what I understand, O.J Simpson wasn't found guilty of murder in a criminal court. It couldn't be established beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty.

He was successfully sued in a civil court. On the balance of probabilities.

Big difference, folks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top