• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Constitutional "Patch" Protection?

many school districts in California do not allow you to wear Red or Blue scarfs or bandanas to school. They also extend this to other gang identifiers. Some districts have gone so far as to suggest "uniforms" just to get around this type of issue.
 
Portland Police are like the mellowest cops I have ever talked to.

I was chatting with some that were talking a break at, of all places, a coffee house one time. :laughing

Another time a friend of mine threw up all over the windshield of my truck as he got sick sitting in the middle seat while the DD was driving us home from the bars. We bailed out to clean everything up at a random parkinglot. Portland PD drove by and I could see the cop do one of these :facepalm and keep on driving.
 
Last edited:
2strokeYardSale said:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/06/04/dnt.coffee.shop.bans.cop.kgw
Click to expand...

Sure, if he's just there for a cup of coffee that's his right as a business owner.

If he's there providing police service and you tell him to leave, he ain't leaving. Pushing that issue will only end up with you (the business owner) in handcuffs. Reference Section 148 of the California Penal Code for California residents.

You gotta know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em...
 
Dudez ...

redblack.jpg


Not much more to say.
 
someone should go in there and help themselves to his merchandise. Claim "it's for the people". Doubt the cops will respond now. :laughing
 
TheRiddler said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor

Why would the right to bear arms, for example, have anything to do with private citizens granting that right to each other?
Click to expand...

Nice red herring. Congress then SCOTUS have determined that discrimination from hotels and restaurants is not allowed to due the power Congress has over interstate commerce rendering the benefits of being a private actor moot in those situations. This is along a similar vein, the Congressman is saying that you shouldn't be able to discriminate against motorcycle clubs which is ridiculous. If I ran I business I wouldn't want to be forced to do business with people sporting Nazi tatoo's.
 
/dev/null said:
If I ran I business I wouldn't want to be forced to do business with people sporting Nazi tatoo's.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you are.

Now having those people in Nazi tattoos that then tell you not to serve the jews... that would be bad.
 
When one person starts a disturbance that person is dealt with. If they were wearing a blue shirt the next step isn't to throw out everyone else in the room that was wearing a blue shirt.

Don't we ever learn from the generations before ours? Do we not recognise incipient discrimination? Have we really forgotten that an ounce of prevention can be worth a ton of repression?

The point of the US is that while we will never agree on everything we will defend our right to disagree on anything.
 
JO EBRMC said:
This country has an idiotic love-affair with banning or outlawing things because they are sometimes associated with a particular behavior. Instead of arresting people for acting like assholes when they are drunk in public, we outlaw drinking in public.. Instead of shopkeepers telling people who act like assholes in their store to leave, they ban anyone who wears a patch because some small minority of patch-wearers are problematic.
Click to expand...

You're right on the nose, but, we're wired that way. It's an instinct that is (for many) hard to resist: If a business owner prevents a guy who's flying colors from coming into his bar, shop or whatever, he'll never have to worry about that guy being a problem. Doesn't matter if the guy is an upstanding citizen, it's easier to not take "that chance" than to possibly find out the hard way.

Nature gave us the ability to recognize patterns and behaviors. Are you more cautious when there's a cop following you? Why? Because you'd rather not deal with the consequences (real or imagined) of "cop behavior".

It's human nature.
 
Jenn said:
There's a big difference when discrimination is based on factors which a person can't control (ie, skin color, nation of origin, gender/sex, height, etc) and things intentionally displaying artifacts of offensive or objectionable political statements (ie, the swastika tattoo previously mentioned - represents a pretty powerful statement of political/cultural/racial superiority - nobody is born a Nazi).

I'm perfectly happy discriminating against fascists and potential criminals (ie, people who would just as soon cause me harm as otherwise). Makes my life a lot simpler and safer. That's a form of discrimination I'm okay with - not "you're just wearing the wrong color" - but if you're wearing red or blue bandanas in support of a criminal group - that's wrong.
Click to expand...
There's always going to be someone against something no matter what it is.

My point is that in this country you have the right to wear whatever you want and I have the right to tell you I think you're an a**hole for it.

If everyone's rights aren't protected then everyone's rights are at risk.
 
There's been all sorts of MC related violence in San Jose around where I live lately. I don't see why an owner should be forced to expose himself to that.
 
As to the legal case cited in an earlier post, Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court in and for County of Carson City:
Appellants in this action are individuals who were denied entrance to a Carson City, Nevada government building after refusing to remove clothing bearing symbols of motorcycle organizations. They appeal the district court's order denying their request for a preliminary injunction in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Appellees, the First Judicial Court, the County of Carson City, and related agencies and individuals. Appellants' underlying suit claims that a court policy banning individuals who are wearing such clothing from two floors of the government building violates the First Amendment. Because Appellants have demonstrated both probable success on the merits and irreparable harm, we reverse.​
They were kicked out of a Carson City government building for wearing colors (traffic court, as a matter of fact). They sued the local authorities in US District Court and asked for, but were denied, a preliminary injunction. The Circuit Court granted the injunction, citing First Amendment issues. That was apparently the end of the story, because I found nothing published about final resolution of the suit.

The owner of a private establishment doesn't have the same duty to recognize his customers' First Amendment rights as government has to recognize those of its citizens. Nor is he obliged to accommodate their preference to go barefoot, not wear a tie, or fart explosively.
 
2strokeYardSale said:
...and the Colorado legislator is attempting to change that.
Click to expand...

Seems odd. I just heard a story about how residents of Colorado Springs are doing everything in their power to reduce government interference in their lives. However, Colorado Springs is also home to the US Air Force Academy, and as such may be a more conservative region of the state. It's possible that the legislator in question is from a more liberal area.


Additionally, I know there are clubs/bars that will deny entrance to you if you're not dressed well enough. I have yet to see that contested as a First Amendment issue when it's the same underlying issue; discrimination based on a voluntary physical appearance.
 
I think there are much more important things that could be taken care of instead of this...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top