Arkansas woman to be banned from Walmart for racist remarks - what?

[wingnut-]

5 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

If this is nothing more than a liberty issue, then it seems we have to liberties that are clashing and they both cannot "win".  

One on side you have the freedom of speech liberty in which it seems that people should be able to say whatever they want whenever they want and there should be zero restrictions. 

Then on the other side you have the liberty of the private entity that owns the location/business.  They should have the liberty to set the rules and regulations in such a way that is conducive to their business making money, which is the only purpose of a business.  

Why, in the mind of those who are against WalMart doing this, is the first liberty more important than the second one?

 

Because the Constitution is the law of the land, and Walmart is in this land.

[LadyKay]

Well I went googling again. And I came across this on a law site. It says the following. I do think that the women was in violation of number 2 and number 3. 

You can usually refuse service in the following situations:

• When a customer is not properly dressed
• When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive    
• When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
• When there are safety concerns
• When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
• When a customer is intoxicated or high
• When you need to protect another customer's privacy

- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2011/11/have-you-reserved-your-right-to-refuse-service.html#sthash.g5MfN3x5.dpuf

[wingnut-]

3 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

Well I went googling again. And I came across this on a law site. It says the following. I do think that the women was in violation of number 2 and number 3. 

You can usually refuse service in the following situations:

• When a customer is not properly dressed
• When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive    
• When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
• When there are safety concerns
• When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
• When a customer is intoxicated or high
• When you need to protect another customer's privacy

- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2011/11/have-you-reserved-your-right-to-refuse-service.html#sthash.g5MfN3x5.dpuf

 

I agree, that is exactly why she was asked to leave.

[LadyKay]

12 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 I guess you won't understand if you don't see the video.  

Yes I did see the video. I seen it a few days before on youtube.  I'm not sure what that has to do with my post though. If I am misunderstanding you please say so but your saying that Wal Mart is violating her free speech by ban her but not by telling her to leave? Is that what you are saying? Or am I misunderstanding. Cause I do that sometimes. 

[LadyKay]

1 minute ago, wingnut- said:

I agree, that is exactly why she was asked to leave.

Well what are we arguing about then we agree with eachother. 

Without out of the way I can do the rest of my laundry. 

[wingnut-]

1 minute ago, LadyKay said:

Yes I did see the video. I seen it a few days before on youtube.  I'm not sure what that has to do with my post though. If I am misunderstanding you please say so but your saying that Wal Mart is violating her free speech by ban her but not by telling her to leave? Is that what you are saying? Or am I misunderstanding. Cause I do that sometimes. 

 

I'm saying they have the right to refuse her because of the disturbance she was causing, not because they don't agree with the words coming out of her mouth.

[wingnut-]

1 minute ago, LadyKay said:

Well what are we arguing about then we agree with eachother. 

Without out of the way I can do the rest of my laundry. 

 

Love ya sister.  

[Running Gator]

18 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

Because the Constitution is the law of the land, and Walmart is in this land.

Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land, and the Constitution could not be more clear to whom the 1st Amendment applies to. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Running Gator]

29 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

I'm not so sure they are apples and oranges. For instance, what if wal mart decides to institute a policy that says that one cannot speak arabic in their stores?

Legally, that falls under the prohibition against national origin discrimination.    I do not personally agree with it, I think a company should be able to discriminate in any way, shape or form they choose. 

I might add that a company can legally dictate what language their employees speak while on the clock.

[wingnut-]

2 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land, and the Constitution could not be more clear to whom the 1st Amendment applies to. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

I know exactly what it says, they are not allowed to make a law restricting free speech.  The SCOTUS has set a precedent that the law of the land overrides private entities from violating the law within the land.