Marine Vet Told to Leave Six Flags in NJ Due to Patriotic T-Shirt

[GreenBean]

Issue seems like a straight-foward 1st Amendment freedom of expression issue to me, private property isn't exempt from that.

Actually it is.

You can say whatever you want but I am not obligated to provide you the venue.

It may have been Privately Owned , but it was open to the General Public - basically anyone who could pay the admission and conduct themselves in a civil manner , ownership does not bestow the right to dictate or infringe on anothers freedom of speech.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Issue seems like a straight-foward 1st Amendment freedom of expression issue to me, private property isn't exempt from that.

Actually it is.

You can say whatever you want but I am not obligated to provide you the venue.

It may have been Privately Owned , but it was open to the General Public - basically anyone who could pay the admission and conduct themselves in a civil manner , ownership does not bestow the right to dictate or infringe on anothers freedom of speech.

I disagree. Private property is just that.

If you paid to get into a venue climbed up on a bench and started orating the property owner has every right to remove you from his property

 

[rightwinger]

How can a shirt be "threatening"?

And last time I checked no one has ever been killed by a picture on a T shirt

Great Adventure doesn't just ban shirts with guns on them. They ban gang colors, shirts with a profane or sexual message, girls in skimpy outfits, guys walking around without a shirt

It is their dress policy. They find that it works. If you don't like it, stay home

It's obviously not clearly posted anywhere. But that has nothing to do with my question does it?

There is a generic policy as you approach the gates. It is their discretion what is acceptable. If they don't want shirts glorifying guns it is their right

Six Flags tries to compete with Disney I doubt if Disney would allow the shirt either. If he is that intent on wearing that shirt, I am sure he can find a carnival somewhere that will allow it.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's easy to hurt liberal's feelings. I wore a tshirt in Jersey with an American Indian tossing a child in a war party, the Battle of Elderbush Gulch. Hey, I was young. It was funny as hell to get the reaction from libs, well worth the price.

 

[Iceweasel]

It may have been Privately Owned , but it was open to the General Public - basically anyone who could pay the admission and conduct themselves in a civil manner , ownership does not bestow the right to dictate or infringe on anothers freedom of speech.

Open to the public doesn't mean publicly owned. There is no freedom of expression on someone else's property unless a local government intervenes and favors the cause.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Great Adventure doesn't just ban shirts with guns on them. They ban gang colors, shirts with a profane or sexual message, girls in skimpy outfits, guys walking around without a shirt

It is their dress policy. They find that it works. If you don't like it, stay home

It's obviously not clearly posted anywhere. But that has nothing to do with my question does it?

There is a generic policy as you approach the gates. It is their discretion what is acceptable. If they don't want shirts glorifying guns it is their right

Six Flags tries to compete with Disney I doubt if Disney would allow the shirt either. If he is that intent on wearing that shirt, I am sure he can find a carnival somewhere that will allow it.

None of that has anything to do with my question.

How is a t shirt "threatening"

I think I've made my point clear that I believe a business owner should be able to deny service to anyone at any time for any reason

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can't refuse service to a black person in your open-to-the-public restaurant any more than you can demand people not wear clothes you think are in bad taste. As long as it doesn't break no-nudity laws where applicable can wear anything you want. ACLU wins suit after suit for schools trying this crap nevermind an amusement park.

 

[Seawytch]

If the guy got thrown own for a red white and blue pot leaf, you'd be supporting their property rights...but because it was a GUN, it's sacrosanct.

 

[Peach]

He is defacing the flag; that noted, I disagree with Six Flags, hardly patriotic, this just a guy with a 'statement', using the Flag as a prop. Still, Six Flags is a public business, thus even individuals such as he, should be treated as other customers.

 

[rightwinger]

It's obviously not clearly posted anywhere. But that has nothing to do with my question does it?

There is a generic policy as you approach the gates. It is their discretion what is acceptable. If they don't want shirts glorifying guns it is their right

Six Flags tries to compete with Disney I doubt if Disney would allow the shirt either. If he is that intent on wearing that shirt, I am sure he can find a carnival somewhere that will allow it.

None of that has anything to do with my question.

How is a t shirt "threatening"

I think I've made my point clear that I believe a business owner should be able to deny service to anyone at any time for any reason

And their reason is wearing a shirt with a gun on it. They probably make it easy for security and say all shirts with guns, all shirts with profanity, all gang colors. Their park, their rules
Don't like it.......find another park to patronize

 

[rightwinger]

I think Six Flags Great Adventure security does a great job.

I remember the old days with kids running wild, shoving and fighting, cutting lines, swearing in front of your kids. Drinking in the parking lot. Security didn't care as long as they weren't damaging park property
About twenty years ago they had a riot at a rap concert. It became a place that families kept their kids away from. They changed to a family oriented policy, lost some business first but security took a zero tolerance towards bad behavior
Dress code is part of that policy

Don't like it....too bad

 

[chikenwing]

Threat
noun
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course;

"I'm going to kill you if you shoot at me" is without question a threat.

So a response to a threat, is a threat, I don't think so, it's called self defense.

A "response to a threat"?

What threat is he responding to, exactly? Who threatened him?

Willfully obtuse,hey I heard the moon was made of green cheese,and Elvis is still alive living on it.

 

[kaz]

Issue seems like a straight-foward 1st Amendment freedom of expression issue to me, private property isn't exempt from that.

Actually it is.

You can say whatever you want but I am not obligated to provide you the venue.

It may have been Privately Owned , but it was open to the General Public - basically anyone who could pay the admission and conduct themselves in a civil manner , ownership does not bestow the right to dictate or infringe on anothers freedom of speech.

That's ridiculous. Why does transacting business mean your private property is no longer your own? I made the same argument for the anti-gay baker, it's his property, government has no legitimate right to compel him to do business with anyone. Same here, it's their property, their choice. I am consistent.

 

[kaz]

I think Six Flags Great Adventure security does a great job.

I remember the old days with kids running wild, shoving and fighting, cutting lines, swearing in front of your kids. Drinking in the parking lot. Security didn't care as long as they weren't damaging park property
About twenty years ago they had a riot at a rap concert. It became a place that families kept their kids away from. They changed to a family oriented policy, lost some business first but security took a zero tolerance towards bad behavior
Dress code is part of that policy

Don't like it....too bad

Now if he were gay, then of course that would be different...

 

[Seawytch]

Overweight white guys in t-shirts someone might find offensive are not a protected class. You're welcome to get them added to Public Accommodation laws though. Good luck.

 

[Iceweasel]

Overweight white guys in t-shirts someone might find offensive are not a protected class. You're welcome to get them added to Public Accommodation laws though. Good luck.

I thought all US citizens were a protected class. Not to the gay mafia, apparently.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This same issue comes up when Muslim women wanna wear hijab (face/head covers,) when people suspected of dressing in gang attire are refused admission (Disney's California Adventure,) when people's hair styles are deemed objectionable as in Virginia with dreadlocks, etc. Same 1st Amendment protections are in play. You may NOT exclude or refuse service or admission to a public facility because of how someone's dressed. Park's individual rules do not exempt them from the Bill of Rights.

 

[Darkwind]

I think he was "denied admission" because his shirt was vaguely threatening and included an assault rifle, not because it was "patriotic".

What is "patriotic" about threatening to kill people, anyway?

Self defense is not 'threatening' to kill people.

Unless of course, you missed the part about "Return Fire".....it implies that you are already under fire.

There is nothing remotely threatening about the shirt, however, the amusement park is a private business and they are well within their rights to deny entry.

Unless of course, he was a minority or something.

What "self defense" about it?

"Return fire" can mean a host of things.

In fact..what's patriotic about killing human beings? Unless of course you are defending your country.

No, it cannot. I don't start shooting first and then claim I am returning fire. I don't return fire if I am alone. I don't threaten to kill someone if I am returning fire.

I am actually killing them.

Patriotism is defending your rights against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In the case of Six Flags, they like most such parks have various veterans events, special days, and in a statement about this very incident say how they support US veterans. So in that support of veterans are they under the impression we use spitballs and harsh language to win wars? So that's what's patriotic about killing people. Can't claim to support veterans then raise a stink about killing people.

Objections over attire happens a lot. And every time it gets smacked down in court. I hope this guy in NJ sues Six Flags for so much they remove all entry-related policies for fear of it ever happening again.

 

[Seawytch]

You may NOT exclude or refuse service or admission to a public facility because of how someone's dressed. Park's individual rules do not exempt them from the Bill of Rights.

Not true, you can deny based on appearance.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members. [...]
In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.​