True many people hate him and think he's a murderer, but he has never been found guilty of anything.
Is it right and legal to discriminate against him?
2007-05-09 11:59:50 · 22 answers · asked by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I think most people share the same view of O.J. I have that view of him too. But there are millions of bad people who frequent restaurants every day. We just don't know them. People, convicted or not, are guilty of all sorts of terrible things. I guess maybe it is 'legal' to kick him out. But it still doesn't make total sense. He was found 'not guilty'. And now he is being judged by people who know very little about the case in any real way.
Should restaurant owners be allowed to deny service to someone who has never been convited of a crime? How would you feel if you were on trial and during the trial you were kicked out of a bar or restaurant?
Where do you draw the line?
2007-05-09 12:16:50 · update #1
By the way, I am in NO way suggesting that the decision to ask Simpson to leave the restaurant had anything to do with race.
2007-05-09 15:56:18 · update #2
I understand that it is legal for restaurant owners to deny dervice to anyone. But, is that morally right?
Restaurants provide a service to people, don't they? Taxi cabs, for example, are, in most cities, prohibited from denying service to people unless there are extraordinary corcumstances. They can't just say "we;;, I don't think this is a good person because of what I have heard about them".
Why should it be different for a restaurant?
Another issue that comes to mind is nightclubs. They tend to choose people in the line-ups to thier entrences based on what they perecive to be most attractive. Those folks get picked first while others wait. Certain municipalities have actually made laws against this, and forced nightclus to just take people on a 'first come, first served' basis.
Anyway, I just think that O.J. is being discrimintaed against - not because he's black - but because he was tried and accuitted. And that just seems wrong.
Only the courts can decide who is guilty.
2007-05-10 13:09:48 · update #3
There are a group of laws that might cover that, a proprietor is allowed to choose who he serves as long as its not on the basis of race or sex or religion. He could choose not to serve motorcyclists, or antique car owners, or people accused of murder who got off because Californians don't know that leather gloves shrink when wet with blood.
He was ordered to pay damages during the civil trial. He was arrogant and moved to Florida to avoid it. To date he hasn't paid a penny. He was convicted under the civil trial so he has been found guilty of something, but we all know its for his arrogance not his legal status. I wouldn't serve that slime either.
2007-05-16 22:37:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes he was guilty on the civil suit regarding the case. He still has the suspicion around him. Even though he was in this restaurant maybe the owner had another reason for telling him to leave. This is not descrimination by no means.Where are the murderers then, no other clues but the ones involving O. J.
2007-05-09 19:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Right and legal are two different questions. One is guided by precedent and the other by opinion.
Was it legal...as long as it was not because of his race or religion. As he'd eaten there before and there was a picture with him and the owner to prove it, I believe it wasn't because of race or religion.
Was it right? Well it was right according to the owner and that's really all that matters in this instance. Also, he was found guilty in civil suit which doesn't necessitate 'guilty beyond a resonable shadow of doubt'. So...he was found guilty and the owner kicked him to the curb.
2007-05-09 19:16:14 · answer #3 · answered by Danielmcfate 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a group of laws that might cover that, a proprietor is allowed to choose who he serves as long as its not on the basis of race or sex or religion. He could choose not to serve motorcyclists, or antique car owners, or people accused of murder who got off because Californians don't know that leather gloves shrink when wet with blood.
EDIT
He was ordered to pay damages during the civil trial. He was arrogant and moved to Florida to avoid it. To date he hasn't paid a penny. He was convicted under the civil trial so he has been found guilty of something, but we all know its for his arrogance not his legal status. I wouldn't serve that slime either.
2007-05-09 19:06:27 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Though I'm no fan of O.J., I do not feel it was right for him to be kicked out of a restaurant if he was minding his own business, was not causing a ruckus, or was not wielding a weapon in public view. So if he's just eating and minding his own darn business, then he should be left alone to eat. Though he is still held in suspicion, especially by Caucasian Americans, he is a legally free man to be about the country. A restaurant is a PUBLIC place, and as long as he's acting sane and has proper attire he should be allowed to dine. Just because he creates media attention, that's still no reason to refuse the man. I believe, if I can be PERFECTLY honest, it was a mere case of him being denied because he was a black man who'd be previously accused of murder. Would this seemingly prejudiced restaurantuer refuse a white man who'd been accused of murder? I think things would be different. This is MY honest opinion.
2007-05-09 19:41:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No I do not feel that it is right for O.J Simpson to be kicked out of the restaurant if he was not creating any disturbance. On the another hand if the restaurant feels that strong about it I would suggest that he does not try to eat there, for safety reasons.
2007-05-17 17:36:57 · answer #6 · answered by ladydjt0752 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People can call it anything they want but an owner of any establishment has the right to ask any customer to leave.
Was the guy racist? That's hardly the question.
As the guy said, when Simpson was accused of killing his wife - he took the picture of himself and Simpson off the wall.
In the 'big picture' ...To get a picture with Simpson even before the trial took place, was he a racist?
2007-05-09 19:12:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
legally a restaurant owner can discriminate against anyone they wish.. as far as the service side of the table... ever see the sign.. "No shirt, no shoes, no service"
Is it right? I guess your conscious will decide that one. I wouldn't want that guy in my place of business either. Just because you buy your way out of a murder charge doesn't mean you get a pass with me.
2007-05-09 19:05:30 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Mr. Simpson is getting off way too easy, being kicked out of a resturaunt should be the least of his concerns or ours. I believe most of the country saw through the lies at the time of the trial. He made the bed, now he can sleep in it.
2007-05-17 17:36:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do you think that an OWNER of a restaurant should NOT have the RIGHT to determine who he wants to serve as long as it is not racially, sexually, or religiously motivated? You are preaching rights for OJ and lack of rights for the restaurant owner. Comprendo?
2007-05-17 11:57:53 · answer #10 · answered by just the facts 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋