If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KPBS San Diego)   Steampunk group forcibly ejected from mall from being too well dressed, nerds   (kpbs.org) divider line 234
    More: Asinine, security guards, steampunk, Dr. Watson, Oceanside  
•       •       •

15014 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:33 AM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-20 09:34:41 AM
Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops
 
2014-02-20 09:39:59 AM
The mall has a strict and clearly posted No Time Travelers rule.

uncomfortablehug.com

If you choose to dress in time traveler "colors," then don't expect security to be able to tell the difference between you and someone who actually just showed up from the Victorian Era.
 
2014-02-20 09:41:29 AM
People still go to malls?
 
2014-02-20 09:44:24 AM

Tom_Slick: People still go to malls?


Well, steampunk cosplayers are trying to live in the past.

/stupid move by the Blarts
 
2014-02-20 10:18:44 AM
What were they going to buy at the mall anyway? Is there a shop for welder goggles and pocket watches?

/steampunk people are like the goths of the 21st century, except that the goths had the common courtesy to loathe themselves
 
2014-02-20 10:38:03 AM

scottydoesntknow: Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops


It was a dick move by the mall cops, but it probably could have been avoided by making arrangements with mall management ahead of time. Just give them a heads up, you know.
 
2014-02-20 10:38:24 AM
Mall was probably worried they would glue cogs to everything.
 
2014-02-20 10:41:28 AM
tl,dr version:

Mall: "We're private property. As long as we won't get sued by the ACLU or piss off most of the shoppers, fark you!"
 
2014-02-20 10:43:26 AM
The carousel at City Park here in NOLA is truly historic and I doubt they would have been given any trouble. I would not be surprised if such groups have taken pictures there, actually.
 
2014-02-20 10:44:22 AM

scottydoesntknow: Steampunk is not a protected class.

i.stack.imgur.com

Ray guns do a good job at protecting people.
 
2014-02-20 10:44:42 AM
There is no mention of the use of force in the article, subby.
 
2014-02-20 10:44:57 AM
Steampunkers:  contact the mall ahead of time when you're a group that large.

Mall cops:  Seriously?  These people looked threatening in any way, shape, or form?  Stop taking the frustration that the police academy rejected your application out on innocent people having a bit of good, clean fun.
 
2014-02-20 10:45:19 AM
So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.
 
2014-02-20 10:45:22 AM
[Carousels] are also beautiful works of art and there are only so many left in the world.

And only so many malls left in the world. Only so many amusement parks left in the world. In fact, if you add those two together you'll have a rough estimate of the number of carousels.
 
2014-02-20 10:45:33 AM
On one hand, I think Steampunk is weird and the mall has every right to ask them to leave.

On the other hand, these people don't seem to be dressed up in a disruptive manner nor do they seem to have actually caused a problem outside of the rent-a-cop's narrow POV.
 
2014-02-20 10:45:39 AM
Look at pictures of people from the late 19th century.  Fat people were not common.  Fail.
 
2014-02-20 10:45:43 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-20 10:47:33 AM

TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.


1/10  You get one point for brevity
 
2014-02-20 10:47:40 AM

Weatherkiss: scottydoesntknow: Steampunk is not a protected class.
[i.stack.imgur.com image 420x560]

Ray guns do a good job at protecting people.


We definitely need more hot chicks in steampunk outfits...

img.wonderhowto.com
 
2014-02-20 10:48:33 AM
When did steampunkers get old??
 
2014-02-20 10:49:09 AM

Fissile: Look at pictures of people from the late 19th century.  Fat people were not common.  Fail.


Right, because if there's anything Steampunk is known for, it's excruciating historical accuracy.
 
2014-02-20 10:49:39 AM
www.uncoached.com
 
2014-02-20 10:50:11 AM

Fissile: Look at pictures of people from the late 19th century.  Fat people were not common.  Fail.


Yeah, Queen Victoria was a beanpole.

/rich people in the late 19th century were fat, that was because it was seen as a sign of wealth, not poor dietary/exercise habits
 
2014-02-20 10:50:29 AM
How Steampunkers see themselves:
www.andysowards.com

What the rest of the world sees:
i.somethingawful.com
 
2014-02-20 10:51:03 AM

Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity


Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.
 
2014-02-20 10:51:42 AM
I do think one point from TFA is valid--if some of those weirdos dress that way daily, are they still technically in costumes or are they in their plainclothes? The mall can eject them for inappropriate attire but calling all retro clothing "costume" seems like a stretch.

/owns a lot of 80s and 70s style costumes
 
2014-02-20 10:51:47 AM
static.tvtropes.org

What's the mall have against science?
 
2014-02-20 10:52:09 AM

Colour_out_of_Space: Mall was probably worried they would glue cogs

gears to everything.

ftfy

surprised I haven't seen this yet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFCuE5rHbPA
 
2014-02-20 10:53:37 AM

TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.


So you're going with moron then?

That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it works!
 
2014-02-20 10:53:50 AM
I'm not a huge fan of steampunk anything.  It's not appealing to me and it seems very much like a fad but what possible harm were the mall officials worried about?  Also god damn, if you run a mall in 2014 I would think that you would be happy if anyone walked through the door.

It reminds me of the time our party of 10 was told we couldn't enter a bar because one of the guys was wearing sneakers.  OK fair enough, he was violating the dress code after all, so I asked if I could go in without paying cover to collect some friends who were already inside so we could go elsewhere.  The bouncer agree and when I got inside I saw that there were maybe 20 people in a bar that was built for way more people and this was at 10:00 PM on a Saturday night.  Alright man we'll go buy overpriced booze somewhere else, have fun collecting a paycheck from your employer's failing business.
 
2014-02-20 10:54:40 AM

Wellon Dowd: There is no mention of the use of force in the article, subby.


Calling the police is use of force.
 
2014-02-20 10:54:56 AM
The mall cops weren't violating rights or doing anything legally wrong, they're just assholes.  "It's weird and makes me feel funny, kill it with fire" is all this amounts to.
 
2014-02-20 10:55:46 AM

scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.

So you're going with moron then?

That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it works!


Ah yes. The Fark way: "If You Can't Control Them, Ridicule Them"

Your parents must be so proud of you.
 
2014-02-20 10:56:20 AM

Wellon Dowd: There is no mention of the use of force in the article, subby.


The hovering of guards and the calling of police is not the use of force? What world are you living in?
 
2014-02-20 10:56:27 AM

TV's Vinnie: How Steampunkers see themselves:
[www.andysowards.com image 600x900]

What the rest of the world sees:
[i.somethingawful.com image 550x428]


What exactly do you think is wrong with the second picture?
 
2014-02-20 10:56:33 AM
Woohoo, now I have an excuse to put up pics of hot steampunk chicks! (and there are alot)!

i.imgur.com

thechive.files.wordpress.com

thechive.files.wordpress.com

www.myconfinedspace.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

thechive.files.wordpress.com

theburgandyboudoir.files.wordpress.com

www.noupe.com
 
2014-02-20 10:56:59 AM
Goggles.

Goggles everywhere.
 
2014-02-20 10:57:43 AM
What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!
 
2014-02-20 10:59:52 AM

blatz514: [www.uncoached.com image 620x827]


goggles = steampunk?
 
2014-02-20 10:59:56 AM

TheLopper: What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!


I didn't even know what steam punk was until I read this article. I think it looks pretty damn cool. Better than what hipsters wear, at least.
 
2014-02-20 11:00:38 AM

scottydoesntknow: Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops


No, not a protected class, but this falls under arbitrary discrimination, and since California has a specific, state level non discrimination policy called the Unruh civil rights, they would appear to have a good case for a 'suin.

Unruh was enacted to stop discrimination against people not specifically listed in the civil rights act, basically, gays etc, but is broadly interpreted to protect you from arbitrary discrimination.


I am not a lawyer, but if I was them, I would certainly be contacting one.
 
2014-02-20 11:01:22 AM

TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.


Except for the part where that's never happened.
 
2014-02-20 11:02:36 AM

redmid17: On one hand, I think Steampunk is weird and the mall has every right to ask them to leave.

On the other hand, these people don't seem to be dressed up in a disruptive manner nor do they seem to have actually caused a problem outside of the rent-a-cop's narrow POV.


Pretty much this.  I think steampunk people are silly, but it's not like they were really dressed inappropriately.  IMO, the only reason to kick someone out of a mall for dress reasons would be if they aren't wearing  enough clothing.  Nobody wants to see you walk around the mall in nothing but a jockstrap.  But this group was wearing plenty of clothes, even if they were odd.
 
2014-02-20 11:02:43 AM
This is why you should only play dress up in your parent's basement, or at appropriate conventions.
 
2014-02-20 11:02:51 AM

TNel: blatz514: [www.uncoached.com image 620x827]

goggles = steampunk?


She's wearing goggles?
 
2014-02-20 11:03:43 AM
Man, you young people are screwed up. We faced the same shiat in the 60s, and I thought we had all learned about personal freedom. So what that these folks dressed differently? How about we all stand up for their right to be weird? Because ALL you Farkers be weird. So there.
 
2014-02-20 11:03:51 AM

TerminalEchoes: TheLopper: What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!

I didn't even know what steam punk was until I read this article. I think it looks pretty damn cool. Better than what hipsters wear, at least.


I only became interested in Steampunk after getting some gun called the Righteous Bison out of Team Fortress 2.

Later found out it was an actual product made by WETA Workshop and started looking up pictures and music and whatnot.

www.figures.com

I know Second Life has a pretty strong Steampunk following.
 
2014-02-20 11:03:56 AM

Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.


Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.
 
2014-02-20 11:04:39 AM

TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.


The state of Ohio is preparing to pass a law that gives private business owners the right to refuse service to 'protected classes' if it goes against their religious beliefs.
 
2014-02-20 11:05:04 AM

TNel: blatz514: [www.uncoached.com image 620x827]

goggles = steampunk?


www.thestranger.com

The goggles, they do nothing!
 
2014-02-20 11:06:12 AM

blatz514: TNel: blatz514: [www.uncoached.com image 620x827]

goggles = steampunk?

She's wearing goggles?


It took me a few minutes to find them also.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:25 AM

Cold_Sassy: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

The state of Ohio is preparing to pass a law that gives private business owners the right to refuse service to 'protected classes' if it goes against their religious beliefs.


Good luck getting that passed. Columbus is more queer than a $2 bill.
 
2014-02-20 11:06:44 AM

kling_klang_bed: Woohoo, now I have an excuse to put up pics of hot steampunk chicks! (and there are alot)!

[i.imgur.com image 500x716]

[thechive.files.wordpress.com image 500x750]

[thechive.files.wordpress.com image 500x666]

[www.myconfinedspace.com image 540x800]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x742]

[thechive.files.wordpress.com image 500x812]

[theburgandyboudoir.files.wordpress.com image 400x544]

[www.noupe.com image 491x545]


I highly doubt that group would have gotten kicked out. Put 40 pounds and 30 years on them and yeah, please leave sounds reasonable...


/DNRTFA
//I only look at pictures
///Coffee please
 
2014-02-20 11:08:17 AM

Weatherkiss: TerminalEchoes: TheLopper: What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!

I didn't even know what steam punk was until I read this article. I think it looks pretty damn cool. Better than what hipsters wear, at least.

I only became interested in Steampunk after getting some gun called the Righteous Bison out of Team Fortress 2.

Later found out it was an actual product made by WETA Workshop and started looking up pictures and music and whatnot.

[www.figures.com image 338x222]

I know Second Life has a pretty strong Steampunk following.


I'm not really a gamer. I'm old, married, work, the typical grind. I'm really behind in pop culture and whatnot. I remember seeing steam punk in---crap what's that movie? Wild West? The one with Will Smith and Kevin Cline. Looked pretty steam punk to me and I loved the concept of mixing Victorian Era wardrobes with technology. I just didn't know there was a term for it. Would Bioshock Infinite be classified as steam punk? Never played it but I watched someone play it on YouTube. Looked pretty cool.
 
2014-02-20 11:08:22 AM

TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.


I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners
 
2014-02-20 11:09:23 AM
For some reason I want to go look up Steampunk porn now. . .
 
2014-02-20 11:10:38 AM

Weatherkiss: Columbus is more queer than a $2 bill.


You...don't work at Taco Bell, by any chance?
 
2014-02-20 11:12:13 AM

Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners


Is this good enough for you?
 
2014-02-20 11:12:48 AM
Okay, I'm a freaking cosplayer, so I'm well versed in looking like an idiot in a public space and have no problem with people dressing up, but...

...sorry guys, grow up and stop expecting the world to accommodate your hobbies, and stop giving some poor schlub on security a headache of having to deal with you. You can try, but don't freaking whine about being kicked out, because you didn't ask, and they're not obligated to let you attention whore in their space.

No, you're not "freaking the mundanes", you're annoying people, that's all. I've gone to a bunch of places for photos where we didn't have permission, and if the people there have a problem, you suck it up and leave, period. I've also done it and had people there think it's awesome and be great about it, and that's great too. Sometimes you liven up their boring day and they let you get photos posing on the cop motorcycles, or they bend the rules to let you get a better shot, sometimes you're a headache and they ask you to leave. Bend the rules a bit, but realize you're ultimately the one in the wrong and GTFO if they have a problem with it.

Don't expect others to bend over backwards for your arrested development, and this is coming from a guy who occasionally dresses as a cartoon character for fun.
 
2014-02-20 11:14:37 AM

Wellon Dowd: There is no mention of the use of force in the article, subby.


The calling of police can now technically be considered forcibly, since they shoot people for any reason.. even being injured in a car crash and needing help. Seriously, how much more god damned force is there than that?
"You hurt? *BOOM* lol He's not hurting now!!!!"
"WOW nice head-shot! You want to plant the weapon, or me? Or, do we even need to do that anymore"
 
2014-02-20 11:15:17 AM

Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners


http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/06/judge-orders-colorado-cake-mak er -to-serve-gay-couples/
 
2014-02-20 11:15:37 AM
Not exactly related, but I find it strange that country singer Fred Eaglesmith appears to have gone all steampunk.

Well, maybe not that strange.  He has publicly stated that he likes trains on more than one occasion.
 
2014-02-20 11:15:37 AM

TerminalEchoes: Weatherkiss: TerminalEchoes: TheLopper: What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!

I didn't even know what steam punk was until I read this article. I think it looks pretty damn cool. Better than what hipsters wear, at least.

I only became interested in Steampunk after getting some gun called the Righteous Bison out of Team Fortress 2.

Later found out it was an actual product made by WETA Workshop and started looking up pictures and music and whatnot.

[www.figures.com image 338x222]

I know Second Life has a pretty strong Steampunk following.

I'm not really a gamer. I'm old, married, work, the typical grind. I'm really behind in pop culture and whatnot. I remember seeing steam punk in---crap what's that movie? Wild West? The one with Will Smith and Kevin Cline. Looked pretty steam punk to me and I loved the concept of mixing Victorian Era wardrobes with technology. I just didn't know there was a term for it. Would Bioshock Infinite be classified as steam punk? Never played it but I watched someone play it on YouTube. Looked pretty cool.


I believe the current interpretation of Steampunk has been around since the 80's. I think its popularity is waning now, but I could be wrong.

In my opinion it's one of those things where there's a razor thin line between looking cool and looking ridiculous.
 
2014-02-20 11:15:46 AM

Nappy Imus: For some reason I want to go look up Steampunk porn now. . .


Success! ;-D
 
2014-02-20 11:15:53 AM

Weatherkiss: Cold_Sassy: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

The state of Ohio is preparing to pass a law that gives private business owners the right to refuse service to 'protected classes' if it goes against their religious beliefs.

Good luck getting that passed. Columbus is more queer than a $2 bill.


Maybe, but the politicians and the rest of the state especially south and east are very conservative.  Time will tell...
 
2014-02-20 11:16:18 AM

TerminalEchoes: Weatherkiss: TerminalEchoes: TheLopper: What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!

I didn't even know what steam punk was until I read this article. I think it looks pretty damn cool. Better than what hipsters wear, at least.

I only became interested in Steampunk after getting some gun called the Righteous Bison out of Team Fortress 2.

Later found out it was an actual product made by WETA Workshop and started looking up pictures and music and whatnot.

[www.figures.com image 338x222]

I know Second Life has a pretty strong Steampunk following.

I'm not really a gamer. I'm old, married, work, the typical grind. I'm really behind in pop culture and whatnot. I remember seeing steam punk in---crap what's that movie? Wild West? The one with Will Smith and Kevin Cline. Looked pretty steam punk to me and I loved the concept of mixing Victorian Era wardrobes with technology. I just didn't know there was a term for it. Would Bioshock Infinite be classified as steam punk? Never played it but I watched someone play it on YouTube. Looked pretty cool.


Yeah, Wild Wild West would. So would that second Hellboy movie. Some online webcomic called Wondermark is also influenced by Steampunk. You could argue that the Smashing Pumpkins 'Tonight, Tonight' music video was heavily influenced by steampunk (though it was more of a homage to the first sci-fi movie ever made).

There's also that god-awful League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie.

I'm like you in that I liked the genre and whatnot before I knew there was a term for it. Once I knew what the term was it was easier to look up artwork/music/costumes/etc.
 
2014-02-20 11:17:15 AM

TerminalEchoes: scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.

So you're going with moron then?

That's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it works!

Ah yes. The Fark way: "If You Can't Control Them, Ridicule [ALL THE THINGS]  Them"

Your parents must be so proud of you.


FTFY
 
2014-02-20 11:17:21 AM

TerminalEchoes: TheLopper: What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!

I didn't even know what steam punk was until I read this article. I think it looks pretty damn cool. Better than what hipsters wear, at least.


That's kind of shooting fish in a barrel, since ANYTHING looks better than a Hipster.

/Yes, even Juggalos.
 
2014-02-20 11:18:21 AM
By and large, most Steampunk followers are bi and LARGE.
 
2014-02-20 11:18:31 AM

TV's Vinnie: TerminalEchoes: TheLopper: What? People are dressing differently than I want them to? To the outrage mobile!

I didn't even know what steam punk was until I read this article. I think it looks pretty damn cool. Better than what hipsters wear, at least.

That's kind of shooting fish in a barrel, since ANYTHING looks better than a Hipster.

/Yes, even Juggalos.


Just wait till liking ICP becomes retro and ironic.
 
2014-02-20 11:18:52 AM

Cold_Sassy: Weatherkiss: Cold_Sassy: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

The state of Ohio is preparing to pass a law that gives private business owners the right to refuse service to 'protected classes' if it goes against their religious beliefs.

Good luck getting that passed. Columbus is more queer than a $2 bill.

Maybe, but the politicians and the rest of the state especially south and east are very conservative.  Time will tell...


Having grown up in those conservative areas before moving to Columbus, yeah. But they'll just stick out their bottom lip and pout when they realize it's the urban areas that typically have the final say on how these things go.
 
2014-02-20 11:19:25 AM

TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners

Is this good enough for you?


So he was given no punishment and the judge threatened nonspecific fines if he kept discriminating?

My point stands: he was not forced to make anything for anyone, including the couple he refused in the first place.
 
2014-02-20 11:19:47 AM

Wellon Dowd: There is no mention of the use of force in the article, subby.


www.3dm3.com

If only this were possible.
 
Skr
2014-02-20 11:20:01 AM

TNel: blatz514: [www.uncoached.com image 620x827]

goggles = steampunk?


the goggles are perfect for team spunk

/pardon the dyslexia
 
2014-02-20 11:21:04 AM
are we really a society that says that someone who is a bit different or weird is not welcome in public establishments?

Why yes, they are saying that. I guess you weren't paying attention all this time. That little microcosm you experience at the convention? Yeah. This is what happens when you wander away from it. People don't like the strange or the unusual roaming freely. They prefer to keep it roped off in the circus sideshow area.

 Should we not be judged by our actions and not by the length of our skirts or the wearing of a top hat? If we were not harming anyone, should the mall have kicked us out?


Look on the bright side, at least you weren't arrested or beaten.

/schadenfreude....I haz it
//yeah yeah I'm a bad trans person and I should feel bad
///slashies!!


We now return you to your regularly scheduled cheesecake pinup fest.
 
2014-02-20 11:23:22 AM

LincolnLogolas: By and large, most Steampunk followers are bi and LARGE.


ROFLMOAR
 
2014-02-20 11:23:56 AM

TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners

Is this good enough for you?


Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (Title 24, Article 34, Part 6 Colorado Revised Statutes) specifically makes GLBT status a protected class.

So yes, your original statement is still very stupid.
 
2014-02-20 11:26:34 AM

Delta1212: [Carousels] are also beautiful works of art and there are only so many left in the world.

And only so many malls left in the world. Only so many amusement parks left in the world. In fact, if you add those two together you'll have a rough estimate of the number of carousels.


You forgot the one in DC in front of the Smithsonian, on the National Mal-- oh. Well played.
 
2014-02-20 11:27:15 AM
s3-live.tapcdn.com
 
2014-02-20 11:27:28 AM

TheGreatGazoo: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/06/judge-orders-colorado-cake-mak er -to-serve-gay-couples/


If someone offers me I dunno, $150 bucks to make a f*cking cake, why should I give a sh*t whether those people are gay or not? Seriously, what is your logical argument? Is it finding two men or two women to put at the top of the cake? Is that going to affect the bottom line?

Your job is to make cakes for people, not to decide who gets the cake and who doesn't based on your belief system. If the gay couple says, 'hey you have to make us a cake and then give us both a reach around' then you can start complaining.

People seem to easily forget that 50 years ago, black people couldn't go to a bakery for 'white people'. That's the same kind of discrimination going on here.
 
2014-02-20 11:27:40 AM

TNel: blatz514: [www.uncoached.com image 620x827]

goggles = steampunk?


no, morbid obesity = steampunk, apparently.
 
2014-02-20 11:28:37 AM

Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners

Is this good enough for you?

So he was given no punishment and the judge threatened nonspecific fines if he kept discriminating?

My point stands: he was not forced to make anything for anyone, including the couple he refused in the first place.


The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.
 
2014-02-20 11:31:41 AM

gonegirl: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners

Is this good enough for you?

Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (Title 24, Article 34, Part 6 Colorado Revised Statutes) specifically makes GLBT status a protected class.

So yes, your original statement is still very stupid.


Yet federal law trumps state law. Weird how a lot of people (especially liberals) defer to federal law until it works against them. Then they become just as "derp derp muh states' rights" as the conservatives.
 
2014-02-20 11:31:58 AM

tripleseven: scottydoesntknow: Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops

No, not a protected class, but this falls under arbitrary discrimination, and since California has a specific, state level non discrimination policy called the Unruh civil rights, they would appear to have a good case for a 'suin.

Unruh was enacted to stop discrimination against people not specifically listed in the civil rights act, basically, gays etc, but is broadly interpreted to protect you from arbitrary discrimination.


I am not a lawyer, but if I was them, I would certainly be contacting one.


From the description in TFA, Unruh would appear to apply.  But from the plain text of the statute:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

It doesn't appear to cover clothing.  Perhaps with later case law there's something there, but I can't really see how.

However, CA is one of the "shopping mall free speech" states, so there may well be a cause of action based upon that.
 
2014-02-20 11:32:47 AM

TV's Vinnie: How Steampunkers see themselves:
[www.andysowards.com image 600x900]

What the rest of the world sees:
[i.somethingawful.com image 550x428]


It's true.  And I bet if they were good looking people, they wouldn't have been kicked out at all.
 
2014-02-20 11:33:57 AM

TerminalEchoes: Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class.


They are when it comes to hate crimes, as of October 28 2009.
 
2014-02-20 11:34:13 AM

MythDragon: [static.tvtropes.org image 230x344]

What's the mall have against science?


I was wondering how many "Spark" references we would have.
 
2014-02-20 11:34:35 AM

tripleseven: scottydoesntknow: Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops

No, not a protected class, but this falls under arbitrary discrimination, and since California has a specific, state level non discrimination policy called the Unruh civil rights, they would appear to have a good case for a 'suin.

Unruh was enacted to stop discrimination against people not specifically listed in the civil rights act, basically, gays etc, but is broadly interpreted to protect you from arbitrary discrimination.


I am not a lawyer, but if I was them, I would certainly be contacting one.


RTFA. It might have come down to the "no photos" policy.
 
2014-02-20 11:34:53 AM

bdub77: What were they going to buy at the mall anyway? Is there a shop for welder goggles and pocket watches?

/steampunk people are like the goths of the 21st century, except that the goths had the common courtesy to loathe themselves


Well, apparently if there is one thing a Steampunk likes, it's attention (just like Goths... well, not like me, I like dressing as weird as I am :-P ) and talking in fake 19th century British aristocracy accents. Can't have that sitting at home, so instead they go out to conventions and have events like this. The difference between that and Goth though (other than loathing ourselves... well, actually it's more loathing life [but enjoying it as best as possible] and having humor in the fact that us Goths dress silly, yet we like it), is that Goths dress how they are in everyday life (outside of work and certain social situations) and just enjoy being themselves, rather than it being for a convention and/or attention.

But at least you differentiated between Goths and Steampunkers. Some Steampunkers (maybe it's true for a small amount of individuals) claim Steampunk is just "Goths discovering brown", of course the problem with that idea is the fact that then Goths would have to give up their enjoyment of Goth bands for "Steampunk bands" (I am not even sure how to classify their style, other than most of their style reminds me of the Jewish Hora), start talking in fake accents, and give up Edgar Allen Poe for H.G. Wells.

Honestly I just think Steampunk is another one of those things that Hipsters started in order to gain their own subculture (probably one of the reasons Portlandia made fun of their personalities in an episode, where the Steampunk people tried to "save" a friend from making the "mistake" of dropping steampunk for whatever she newly enjoyed away from Steampunk), because it seems there are more overt "rules" to follow as a Steampunker like being part of an "airship squadron", or you can "put a gear on it and calling it steampunk" (as the parody song portrays, it was put up above), or talking in an specific accent with a backstory behind your "Steampunk persona" (Portlandia made great fun of this, I am not sure if it's true though in all areas [the Steampunk convention nearby me that I went to seemed to have more regular type talking, but that was years ago], that if you cross your fingers while in costume that means your "talking with your normal personality rather than your manufactured personality"; as opposed to Goths who dress in odd clothes, even Victorian/Edwardian style [with less brown, like me!], but are completely straightforward themselves) - Portlandia - Steampunk Convention
 
2014-02-20 11:35:24 AM

TerminalEchoes: gays are not yet a federally protected class.


But they are protected in Colorado and California.
 
2014-02-20 11:36:19 AM

TerminalEchoes: gonegirl: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: Strolpol: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

Except for the part where that's never happened.

Looks like someone doesn't watch the news.

I consume more news before 9 AM than you do all day, son.

Find me a single example do an American court declaring that cake makers were legally obligated to create a cake for a gay couple under legal penalty if they failed to do so.

/every single one of these stories is about community backlash against bigotry, not the big bad gummint making God-fearing bakers create pastries for sinners

Is this good enough for you?

Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (Title 24, Article 34, Part 6 Colorado Revised Statutes) specifically makes GLBT status a protected class.

So yes, your original statement is still very stupid.

Yet federal law trumps state law. Weird how a lot of people (especially liberals) defer to federal law until it works against them. Then they become just as "derp derp muh states' rights" as the conservatives.


Then you probably shouldn't have used a judge applying state law for proving your point
 
2014-02-20 11:36:28 AM
Ok, so the mall security decided they didn't like a bunch of costumed weirdo adults riding their carousel and kicked them out. That's all fine and dandy, it's their right.

But they CALLED THE FARKNG COPS? Because there were costumed weirdos there? What the fark is wrong with people? The cops should have given the mall a farking ticket for calling them there over absolutely nothing.
 
2014-02-20 11:36:30 AM
Those were possibly the lamest steampunk outfits of all time.
 
2014-02-20 11:37:06 AM

Wellon Dowd: There is no mention of the use of force in the article, subby.


You missed the part where they called in the Jägermonsters.
 
2014-02-20 11:37:24 AM

kregh99: Steampunkers:  contact the mall ahead of time when you're a group that large.

Mall cops:  Seriously?  These people looked threatening in any way, shape, or form?  Stop taking the frustration that the police academy rejected your application out on innocent people having a bit of good, clean fun.


funny, but i don't think the same strategy would work for a large group of young men wearing hoodies.

can't imagine why.
 
2014-02-20 11:37:53 AM

Schmerd1948: Man, you young people are screwed up. We faced the same shiat in the 60s, and I thought we had all learned about personal freedom. So what that these folks dressed differently? How about we all stand up for their right to be weird? Because ALL you Farkers be weird. So there.


You DO realize that the "personal freedom" generation is the one that now owns the malls and makes these stupid rules, right?

I *love* it when the Loudest Generation gets nostalgic for the time before they all sold out.

/admit it: y'all never meant it in the first place, you were just in it for the sex. Oops, I mean the Free Love.
 
2014-02-20 11:38:08 AM

Need_MindBleach: Ok, so the mall security decided they didn't like a bunch of costumed weirdo adults riding their carousel and kicked them out. That's all fine and dandy, it's their right.

But they CALLED THE FARKNG COPS? Because there were costumed weirdos there? What the fark is wrong with people? The cops should have given the mall a farking ticket for calling them there over absolutely nothing.


They were armed with ray guns.
 
2014-02-20 11:39:14 AM

bdub77: TNel: blatz514: [www.uncoached.com image 620x827]

goggles = steampunk?

[www.thestranger.com image 500x328]

The goggles, they do nothing!

/ Love that joke (classic Simpsons)

 
2014-02-20 11:39:32 AM
Is there a problem classification higher than 1st world?
Because this fits it.
 
2014-02-20 11:39:38 AM

TerminalEchoes: The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.


Let's take a trip in our time machine to the 1960s and look at that post again.

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay African American rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays black people at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays black people are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays black people, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay an African American business should be allowed to refuse service to straight white people.

My problem isn't with gay black people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.


See how stupid that sounds now?
 
2014-02-20 11:40:00 AM
Sadly, malls are all that is left of public spaces in some regions...and they are officially private so dress conservatively citizen....and consume or leave
 
2014-02-20 11:40:14 AM

Need_MindBleach: But they CALLED THE FARKNG COPS? Because there were costumed weirdos there?


Would you say the same about furries?  After all, steampunkers are basically furries that grow such as old phonograph parts instead of hair.
 
2014-02-20 11:40:37 AM
The article was clear, well written, apparently factual and devoid of hyperbole.  What the HELL is going on here?
 
2014-02-20 11:41:22 AM
This was one thing that William Gibson is simply not getting correct: yeah, communication, military and medical technology is advancing in ways that are surprising and interesting, creating new questions about humankind and it's relationship with technology.

But we're going to be dressed in a consensus normal manner when we do that.
 
2014-02-20 11:41:46 AM
The local 3pc patch-wearing Motorcycle Club I was a member of for quite some time used to have a once-a-year trip to the Boardwalk to goof off for the evening.

The first time we did it yeah, security got their panties twisted because a bunch of leather clad patch wearing bikers were wandering around their amusement park.  But after about an hour of watching us eat ice cream and ride bumper cars they finally got a clue that we were harmless and pissed off back to harassing teenagers in hoodies.
 
2014-02-20 11:43:00 AM

Jument: tripleseven: scottydoesntknow: Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops

No, not a protected class, but this falls under arbitrary discrimination, and since California has a specific, state level non discrimination policy called the Unruh civil rights, they would appear to have a good case for a 'suin.

Unruh was enacted to stop discrimination against people not specifically listed in the civil rights act, basically, gays etc, but is broadly interpreted to protect you from arbitrary discrimination.


I am not a lawyer, but if I was them, I would certainly be contacting one.

RTFA. It might have come down to the "no photos" policy.


They were approached by security as they were eating. No photos taken.
 
2014-02-20 11:43:10 AM
TerminalEchoes:

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.


Everyone discriminates, whether on a conscious or unconscious level. All or nothing is a losing and specious argument. I have a very real problem with people who refuse to provide services that have nothing to do with that person's needs and instead are rooted in hatred of that individual based upon some characteristic of themselves. To refuse to cut a bald man's hair is one thing. To refuse to cut someone's hair because you don't like their face or race or the way they speak is entirely another. I apply this to every situation. However, most people do not bother to legally challenge these situations. Most of the time we just go on facebook and complain or put up a bad review on Yelp or whatever.

In this case, the gay couple did take it as a gay rights issue, and the judge made a determination that it was discriminatory.

In this country, you only get what you fight for. Blacks did it in the 60s, women did it in the suffrage movement. Gays are doing it now. You are of course welcome to your opinion that gay people do not deserve equal treatment, but you'll be on the wrong side of history. And hey, racists and bigots still exist even now.

Now, if these steampunk people tried to get protected status for being kicked off of private property, they will probably be laughed out of court. But then, there isn't a concerted effort among the public and religious organizations to deny costumed people service.
 
2014-02-20 11:43:37 AM

moike: The local 3pc patch-wearing Motorcycle Club I was a member of for quite some time used to have a once-a-year trip to the Boardwalk to goof off for the evening.

The first time we did it yeah, security got their panties twisted because a bunch of leather clad patch wearing bikers were wandering around their amusement park.  But after about an hour of watching us eat ice cream and ride bumper cars they finally got a clue that we were harmless and pissed off back to harassing teenagers in hoodies.


I'd imagine the $15 an hour rent a cop is much more willing to harass a guy wearing a top hat and propeller tie than a guy in a biker jacket.
 
2014-02-20 11:43:46 AM

Xcott: Need_MindBleach: But they CALLED THE FARKNG COPS? Because there were costumed weirdos there?

Would you say the same about furries?  After all, steampunkers are basically furries that grow such as old phonograph parts instead of hair.


Are they screwing in the mall?  Because otherwise they'd just be, what, wearing animal costumes?

It would be one of the more entertaining trips through a mall I'd taken in a while.

/As long as they weren't screwing
 
2014-02-20 11:45:21 AM
The mall's "no costume" rule is intended to keep gangs off the premises, and it was used correctly in this case. While your standard street gang might cause intimidation and fights, a roving gaggle of these Steampunk hoi polloi might spark calamitous kerfuffles, dithyrambic discombobulations, and all manner of opprobrious truculence and tintamarre, and since your average beat cop won't be able to spell any of those things in a report, they're likely to get away with it. It's always better to shut down these nefarious vintage slubberdegullions before they can set forth their vitiated intendments, because once they get going in full earnest, they can be a real pain in the thesaurus.
 
2014-02-20 11:47:48 AM

asmodeus224: Sadly, malls are all that is left of public spaces in some regions...and they are officially private so dress conservatively citizen....and consume or leave


Really? What regions don't have city/county/state parks?
 
2014-02-20 11:49:24 AM

Weatherkiss: scottydoesntknow: Steampunk is not a protected class.
[i.stack.imgur.com image 420x560]

Ray guns do a good job at protecting people.


Well, it better be fully charged, because that corset is going to get her into trouble.
 
2014-02-20 11:50:52 AM
I wonder if anyone questioned mall security's "Law Enforcement" costumes...
 
2014-02-20 11:51:26 AM

scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

Let's take a trip in our time machine to the 1960s and look at that post again.

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay African American rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays black people at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays black people are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays black people, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay an African American business should be allowed to refuse service to straight white people.

My problem isn't with gay black people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

See how stupid that sounds now?


I think that about sums it all up.

No one's forcing the man to be a baker; he can quit it if he doesn't want to follow the same rules as everyone else.
 
2014-02-20 11:53:55 AM

bikerbob59: When did steampunkers get old??


Ever since they started showing up at Ren Faires and comic conventions 6 or 7 years ago. From what I've seen they've always tended to be much older than other groups. Lots of white beards, few if any teens or 20 somethings.
 
2014-02-20 11:55:09 AM
The door at the mall clearly states "NO VICTORIAN ERA GARB ALLOWED."

They knew they were going to cause trouble from the minute they walked in.
 
2014-02-20 11:57:47 AM

James!: Need_MindBleach: Ok, so the mall security decided they didn't like a bunch of costumed weirdo adults riding their carousel and kicked them out. That's all fine and dandy, it's their right.

But they CALLED THE FARKNG COPS? Because there were costumed weirdos there? What the fark is wrong with people? The cops should have given the mall a farking ticket for calling them there over absolutely nothing.

They were armed with ray guns.


The article specifically states that they left their ray guns at home so as not to frighten mall-goers.
 
2014-02-20 11:58:36 AM
look at the second picture in the article, one of them is carrying a knife around for fark sake!
 
2014-02-20 11:59:52 AM

scottydoesntknow: Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops


California case law apparently protects unusual dress in most circumstances.
 
2014-02-20 12:01:04 PM

TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.


But because you don't know the basic facts of the cake case does make you are an idiot.
 
2014-02-20 12:01:12 PM

TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.


The court case your likely citing was in Colorado, and sexual orientation IS a protected class in that State.
 
2014-02-20 12:01:21 PM
IMO, Steampunk is a joke!

If you're going to get all "Retro Fiction", then go with the early 1930's style, a la "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".

ww4.hdnux.com

It's a lot more sophisticated than gluing gears onto a top hat.
 
2014-02-20 12:02:27 PM
the girl on the bottom left has a knife! kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com
 
2014-02-20 12:03:06 PM

cgraves67: James!: Need_MindBleach: Ok, so the mall security decided they didn't like a bunch of costumed weirdo adults riding their carousel and kicked them out. That's all fine and dandy, it's their right.

But they CALLED THE FARKNG COPS? Because there were costumed weirdos there? What the fark is wrong with people? The cops should have given the mall a farking ticket for calling them there over absolutely nothing.

They were armed with ray guns.

The article specifically states that they left their ray guns at home so as not to frighten mall-goers.


So it does.  That is hilarious.
 
2014-02-20 12:04:09 PM

TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.


Maybe not, but your willful lack of attachment to facts in general does. If you stopped just making stuff up then maybe people wouldn't find you to be such a blithering idiot. At the very least, you could actually bother to RTFA, which you plainly have not in this case, or the other that you referenced, but then there was an entire thread of people telling you what a moron you were for failing to read the facts of the case, over and over and over, so successful troll is successful.
 
2014-02-20 12:04:49 PM

MindStalker: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

The court case your likely citing was in Colorado, and sexual orientation IS a protected class in that State.


And I ROFL every time some fundie claims "religious freedom" to be a bigoted butthole. It's like "what's the point of having a religion if I can't practice it by mistreating people?" with them. I mean, really? Your whole "faith" is wrapped around you being a jerk?
 
2014-02-20 12:05:08 PM
They look well dressed and clean cut. Which is not how your suppose to look like at the mall.
 
2014-02-20 12:05:22 PM
On the way to or from different events I have shopped at the grocery store, eaten in numerous restaurants, and otherwise interacted normally with people.

You cannot wear steamedpunk costumes and interact normally with anyone.
 
2014-02-20 12:07:56 PM
Fire the mall cops for running off customers who weren't hurting anything.  Hire someone with a more common sense than urge to throw around their authority.
 
2014-02-20 12:10:19 PM

Zachery: Fire the mall cops for running off customers who weren't hurting anything.  Hire someone with a more common sense than urge to throw around their authority.


Yeah I'm sure there are other people waiting in line for that minimum wage position.  I mean look at those cool hats you get to wear.
 
2014-02-20 12:16:35 PM

TNel: Zachery: Fire the mall cops for running off customers who weren't hurting anything.  Hire someone with a more common sense than urge to throw around their authority.

Yeah I'm sure there are other people waiting in line for that minimum wage position.  I mean look at those cool hats you get to wear.


hey I know a group of people who are really keen to wear silly hats, they can take the job! Steampunks. seriously though can we get rid of the word punk in there, and just call them something like steamjobs or something? Absolutely nothing they are doing is punk
 
2014-02-20 12:17:01 PM

James!: I'd imagine the $15 an hour rent a cop is much more willing to harass a guy wearing a top hat and propeller tie than a guy in a biker jacket.


Same reason PETA never bothered to throw red paint on us for wearing head to toe leather.
 
2014-02-20 12:18:06 PM

TV's Vinnie: IMO, Steampunk is a joke!


If you're going to get all "Retro Fiction", then go with the early 1930's style, a la "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".


[ww4.hdnux.com image 628x353]


It's a lot more sophisticated than gluing gears onto a top hat.



I disagree. Go 1970s bacofoil, spandex and feathered hair.
fandomania.com
Space disco 4 life.
 
2014-02-20 12:20:58 PM

Fissile: Look at pictures of people from the late 19th century.  Fat people were not common.  Fail.


Actually they were. When you look at middle aged people of middle or upper class you see quite a few overweight people in the 1800s. It's not that obesity didn't exist, it's that being underweight (or sometimes even normal weight) was seen as problematic or at least one of the focal points for advertisements directed at women. Also often many of the pictures you see are public pics chosen for their aesthetic value by modern standards. And of course many people think of Civil War era photos out of context (where people are thinner b/c of the war). If you look at public photos which have decent crowd shots, you get a much better idea of average people. Or if you're lucky enough to have family photos from that era.

NO argument that obesity is a much bigger problem today and more widespread (no puns intended that time) but it's pretty common back then too. I personally think it's just more widespread now due to processed foods, but there's a lot of questions as to why and not any one good answer.
 
2014-02-20 12:21:55 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-20 12:23:06 PM

advres: Those were possibly the lamest steampunk outfits of all time.


Came to say this.  The old couple they showed first also seem to think old timey=steampunk.
 
2014-02-20 12:26:26 PM
This happened in San Diego county, home of the largest comic convention on the west coast. That said, the people there also have the biggest stick up their asses when anything goes on that's not sanctioned by an authority of some sort (i.e. makes them money). These people came to the mall dressed better than most of the inbreds who showed up in stretch pants, flip flops and other moron uniforms, yet they get kicked out while Billy Bob and his 4th time pregnant sow who both look as if they just stepped out of the pages of "Trailer Park Monthly" roam free.

Sad sh*t.
 
2014-02-20 12:31:38 PM

blatz514: Weatherkiss: scottydoesntknow: Steampunk is not a protected class.
[i.stack.imgur.com image 420x560]

Ray guns do a good job at protecting people.

We definitely need more hot chicks in steampunk outfits...


That's my friend nova han. She is amazing, she choreographs the most epic shows! Yay for hot, talented women!
 
2014-02-20 12:32:03 PM

trappedspirit: On the way to or from different events I have shopped at the grocery store, eaten in numerous restaurants, and otherwise interacted normally with people.

You cannot wear steamedpunk costumes and interact normally with anyone.


Sure you can.  When dealing with a Goth, I made a habit of not acting shocked, outraged or even curious about their lifestyle.  You could see the disappointment in their eyes.  Treating them as one of the "mundanes" is actually kind of cruel, when you get down to it, but, when you're out attention whoring, you have to realize you don't have an absolute right to receive that attention.

/ 63 and a "Different strokes for different folks" type
// These people should not have been kicked out of the mall
/// But, since they were, they now feel validated
//// "What does not ignore them, makes them stronger"
 
2014-02-20 12:54:07 PM

scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

Let's take a trip in our time machine to the 1960s and look at that post again.

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay African American rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays black people at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays black people are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays black people, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay an African American business should be allowed to refuse service to straight white people.

My problem isn't with gay black people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

See how stupid that sounds now?


Not really.  It's a private business.
 
2014-02-20 12:55:01 PM
kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com

wtf
 
2014-02-20 12:55:15 PM

MemeSlave: Not really. It's a private business.


Then you need to be educated on what a private business actually means.
 
2014-02-20 12:55:24 PM

Cold_Sassy: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

The state of Ohio is preparing to pass a law that gives private business owners the right to refuse service to 'protected classes' if it goes against their religious beliefs.


Ohio? I'd have expected that from my state or the states to the north and south of us, but Ohio?!

*waits for the SCOTUS ruling declaring it unconstitutional* (because you know it'll happen)

Something I don't understand (no snark, genuine question): why would you want to do business with some asshole who clearly doesn't want your business because he or she is a bigoted idiot with the social skills of a caveman (and I'm being generous)? Doesn't it make more sense to use your wallet and your time and effort to support businesses that aren't run by idiots and assholes and let the ones that are run like Amy's Baking Company fail miserably like they need to?
 
2014-02-20 12:56:32 PM

TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.


You honestly do not see the difference.  You were better off when you were thought to be a troll.
 
2014-02-20 01:35:40 PM

MemeSlave: scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

Let's take a trip in our time machine to the 1960s and look at that post again.

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay African American rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays black people at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays black people are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays black people, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay an African American business should be allowed to refuse service to straight white people.

My problem isn't with gay black people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

See how stupid that sounds now?

Not really.  It's a private business.


The Civil Rights Act, including its section on anti-discrimination in public accommodations, is 50 years old. How have you never heard of it until now?
 
2014-02-20 01:37:52 PM

TV's Vinnie: IMO, Steampunk is a joke!

If you're going to get all "Retro Fiction", then go with the early 1930's style, a la "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".

[ww4.hdnux.com image 628x353]

It's a lot more sophisticated than gluing gears onto a top hat.


"Iron Sky" is another good example of that.

www.aceshowbiz.com

whysoblu.com
 
2014-02-20 01:49:39 PM

Xcott: Wellon Dowd: There is no mention of the use of force in the article, subby.

You missed the part where they called in the Jägermonsters.


Ve Hunt!
 
2014-02-20 01:50:45 PM

TV's Vinnie: IMO, Steampunk is a joke!

If you're going to get all "Retro Fiction", then go with the early 1930's style, a la "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".

[ww4.hdnux.com image 628x353]

It's a lot more sophisticated than gluing gears onto a top hat.


Subby here. While I do prefer the look of dieselpunk, steampunk style can be fun, too.  As the little girl said,

static.gamespot.com

So far the mall has done nothing but dodge the issue and make statements like "if you tell us you're coming, we'd be glad to have you back." So people have to make an appointment to go to the mall now? And if wearing a cravat is my choice of attire, I'm not welcome?

Technically, this is a clear violation of California's Unruh Civil Right Act, which prohibits a business's discrimination of customers based on "Unconventional Dress".

By the way, please sign the petition to get the mall to make an apology to the group.
 
2014-02-20 01:58:28 PM

Theaetetus: MemeSlave: scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

Let's take a trip in our time machine to the 1960s and look at that post again.

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay African American rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays black people at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays black people are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays black people, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay an African American business should be allowed to refuse service to straight white people.

My problem isn't with gay black people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

See how stupid that sounds now?

Not really.  It's a private business.

The Civil Rights Act, ...


That doesn't mean it's not stupid.   It just has the veneer of tradition.
 
2014-02-20 01:59:52 PM
Nytfall: advres: Those were possibly the lamest steampunk outfits of all time.
 
Came to say this.  The old couple they showed first also seem to think old timey=steampunk.

They intentionally toned down their attire for the mall. It says that in the article. "Most of the people were in simple Victorian dress because it looks so good on a carousel animal for a photo."


But even simple Victorian attire was just too much for this mall to handle, apparently.
 
2014-02-20 02:01:08 PM

JonnyBGoode: So far the mall has done nothing but dodge the issue and make statements like "if you tell us you're coming, we'd be glad to have you back." So people have to make an appointment to go to the mall now? And if wearing a cravat is my choice of attire, I'm not welcome?

Technically, this is a clear violation of California's Unruh Civil Right Act, which prohibits a business's discrimination of customers based on "Unconventional Dress".

By the way, please sign the petition to get the mall to make an apology to the my group.


It's ok you don't have to hide it.
 
2014-02-20 02:02:16 PM

bigbadideasinaction: Okay, I'm a freaking cosplayer, so I'm well versed in looking like an idiot in a public space and have no problem with people dressing up, but...

...sorry guys, grow up and stop expecting the world to accommodate your hobbies, and stop giving some poor schlub on security a headache of having to deal with you. You can try, but don't freaking whine about being kicked out, because you didn't ask, and they're not obligated to let you attention whore in their space.

No, you're not "freaking the mundanes", you're annoying people, that's all. I've gone to a bunch of places for photos where we didn't have permission, and if the people there have a problem, you suck it up and leave, period. I've also done it and had people there think it's awesome and be great about it, and that's great too. Sometimes you liven up their boring day and they let you get photos posing on the cop motorcycles, or they bend the rules to let you get a better shot, sometimes you're a headache and they ask you to leave. Bend the rules a bit, but realize you're ultimately the one in the wrong and GTFO if they have a problem with it.

Don't expect others to bend over backwards for your arrested development, and this is coming from a guy who occasionally dresses as a cartoon character for fun.


I was actually disappointed your profile didn't have a picture of you in costume, not sure why, but I was curious
 
2014-02-20 02:12:41 PM
So, a "culture" based upon a notion of what life would be if we never evolved past steam as a primary power source.  Sounds fun.  I man, they ain't showing up in face masks and swords.  I think white people should be allowed to dress funny, too.
 
2014-02-20 02:12:53 PM

TNel: JonnyBGoode: So far the mall has done nothing but dodge the issue and make statements like "if you tell us you're coming, we'd be glad to have you back." So people have to make an appointment to go to the mall now? And if wearing a cravat is my choice of attire, I'm not welcome?

Technically, this is a clear violation of California's Unruh Civil Right Act, which prohibits a business's discrimination of customers based on "Unconventional Dress".

By the way, please sign the petition to get the mall to make an apology to the my group.

It's ok you don't have to hide it.


I'm not affiliated with the group in any way. I live about 180 miles from them.
 
2014-02-20 02:16:52 PM
My steampunk hat would have given the fat mall cops an aneurysm.

www.headnhome.com
 
2014-02-20 02:18:06 PM

OgreMagi: My steampunk hat would have given the fat mall cops an aneurysm.

[www.headnhome.com image 850x755]


Omg it has BULLETZ! I think they would have wet themselves.
 
2014-02-20 02:19:43 PM

kregh99: Steampunkers:  contact the mall ahead of time when you're a group that large.

Mall cops:  Seriously?  These people looked threatening in any way, shape, or form?  Stop taking the frustration that the police academy rejected your application out on innocent people having a bit of good, clean fun.


They should have known that if you want to go to the mall, you must look bland, shabby, or vulgar in a bland, shabby kind of way.  Absoluely nothing imaginative allowed.
 
2014-02-20 02:20:12 PM
Btw, all this dime store authoritarian chest beating from failed pizza delivery drivers is just gonna keep getting more abrasive.
 
2014-02-20 02:20:21 PM

JonnyBGoode: OgreMagi: My steampunk hat would have given the fat mall cops an aneurysm.

[www.headnhome.com image 850x755]

Omg it has BULLETZ! I think they would have wet themselves.


They're dummy round (no powder or cap), but I'm sure the GFWs (Gun Fearing Wussies) would still insist they are evil and dangerous.
 
2014-02-20 02:21:47 PM

JonnyBGoode: Nytfall: advres: Those were possibly the lamest steampunk outfits of all time.
 
Came to say this.  The old couple they showed first also seem to think old timey=steampunk.

They intentionally toned down their attire for the mall. It says that in the article. "Most of the people were in simple Victorian dress because it looks so good on a carousel animal for a photo."


But even simple Victorian attire was just too much for this mall to handle, apparently.


Funny thing is, it really wasn't "toned down" because that's how most steampunkers look without the fake weapons. But yeah, malls are someplace of an oddity, they claim they want uniformity and conformity among the stores and the guests and then can't understand why a mall dies out. If the mall allowed some variety in it's renters, instead of every store being a Gap or Express or Radio Shack, then it might get some more customers, since most purchasing for those products can be done online. Everytime I go to the flea markets here in Jersey, they're packed to the brim with people despite the fact that the quality of products and food aren't up to the supposed standards of malls. Of course when a mall is "dying" - http://www.deadmalls.com/ - they suddenly let in the non-conventional lease holders, though usually by then it's too late to save that mall (Nearby me, Seaview Square mall, had a Slot Car racing patron in a large store about a year or two before they closed it's doors). Malls also love to pretend to be "upscale" and change their design to an "lifestyle center" (aka "outdoor mall") which mimics as best they can the downtown that mall replaced when it was originally built. Malls should welcome this oddity to come in (they welcomed the Punk and Goth crowds in) though it will be hard to service them when your most "alternative" stores are Hot Topic and Spencers Gifts.
 
2014-02-20 02:24:55 PM

TV's Vinnie: IMO, Steampunk is a joke!

If you're going to get all "Retro Fiction", then go with the early 1930's style, a la "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".

[ww4.hdnux.com image 628x353]

It's a lot more sophisticated than gluing gears onto a top hat.



Only if airships are involved.  I'll put up with a lot of nonsense in order to watch a good Zeppelin scene.
 
2014-02-20 02:28:25 PM

zimbomba63: trappedspirit: On the way to or from different events I have shopped at the grocery store, eaten in numerous restaurants, and otherwise interacted normally with people.

You cannot wear steamedpunk costumes and interact normally with anyone.

Sure you can.  When dealing with a Goth, I made a habit of not acting shocked, outraged or even curious about their lifestyle.  You could see the disappointment in their eyes.  Treating them as one of the "mundanes" is actually kind of cruel, when you get down to it, but, when you're out attention whoring, you have to realize you don't have an absolute right to receive that attention.


Sigh. Let me explain something to you...

Those people in the whiteface with ridiculous harlequin makeup and clothes they bought at a specialty shop?  They're not goths.  They're something else. They may call themselves "goth" and you may think they're goth, but they're not. They're vampires, most likely. Baby goths, if you must. They're mostly just emos who stole the word "goth", though.

I was part of the group that would eventually be called goth in the 70s/80s. I wasn't an attention whore, and in fact, the whole point of my style was that I wanted people to  leave me alone, but that I also wanted to display my artistic side. Of course, the look was not this garish stupid look you see today. We wore dark clothes, but they were invariably poached from second-hand or thrift shop and then altered by us. We took a little punk, a little classic horror, and a lot of 1920s silent film style and wrapped it in a modern look. There was no whiteface. The eye makeup was more subtle, designed to emphasize the eyes in the same way it did for film stars like Clara Bow, Rudy Valentino, Charles Chaplin, or Louise Brooks. The horror influence was subtle-- We didn't pretend to be vampires or cover ourselves in Halloween trinkets or symbols.

Our clothes were not made for us by some mall shop or online goth shop. We did it all ourselves, recycling cool outfits from previous decades and altering them a bit to fit modern needs and aesthetics.

A few of us had odd hair-- Big hair, mohawks, multi-colored hair, etc.-- but that was the punk influence (we were, after all, originally called "postpunk" or simply "alternatives"). We also loved our combat boots like any good punk would.

And despite you thinking we might have been seeking attention, we were actually intensely PRIVATE people. We had a tight-knit, small group in those days. When outsiders asked us questions or made observations about our appearance, we were often insulted because part of the intention of dressing in an artistic, alternative way was to steer people away, not to invite questions.

And because we were a branch of punk, we weren't afraid to drive our Doc Martins up your ass if you tried to rag on us for our taste in art, music, or clothing. These modern "goths" are wimps compared to what goth was originally; A mix of eclectic artists, musicians, and intellectuals who DID NOT WANT the preppies, jocks, burnouts, nerds, or other cliques to infiltrate our group or bother us.

You think a goth looks like this:
img.fark.net

th09.deviantart.net


When actually, we looked a lot more like this:
24.media.tumblr.com
25.media.tumblr.com
(This girl's more early 90s, but still hanging on to the ideals)


25.media.tumblr.com
(of course, we all tried to individualize our look, too, but it wasn't far off from this)

The vampire look (begun, by most accounts, by The Damned) was picked up by the posers who started to infiltrate our subculture in the late 80s, and by the early 1990s  goth was dead. The subculture can't exist if the members are not mainly artists and intellectuals. That was who we were; We were the artsy-fartsy branch of punk. When the dumbasses started dressing like The Crow and following us around, they watered down the group with idiocy and made our previous pursuits and conversations impossible. Not to mention we were all entering the world as adults, spreading out, losing touch, and finding ourselves.

On the west coast and down in Florida the new batch of kids who saw what we had done and took it to the ridiculous Hot Topic extremes kept calling themselves "goth", but they weren't. I guess they are now, because they're what people associate with the word, leaving us-- the original goths (who didn't call ourselves that, anyway; That was the media's fault) having to call ourselves "postpunk" or "old school goth" to make it clear we were nothing like the twit goth cosplayers you see today.

The irony is that we were all rather camera-shy, so there aren't many photos of actual goths hanging out. We all covered our faces or scattered when someone pointed a camera at us. I'm not kidding! So all people see today to reference this era of gothic punk are the celebrities, and they took things a bit further than we did because they WERE trying to drum up attention. That was their job, after all.

Straight punks, on the other hand, loved having their picture taken, and they were usually quick to have their middle finger out and a rude look on their face when it happened. They are closer to what we were than the modern "goths" are, for sure, but they were also more extreme than we were. They were the extroverts of the alternative scene, while we were the introverts. We were happy with small groups; They liked big, loud events. We were happy with each other; They wanted everyone to see them and respect their lifestyle choices. We were out of the public eye; They were in your face.

Just like greasers from the 1950s, original goths were the product of a specific era. They existed because of that era, not because of the clothes. You can dress someone like Danny from Grease,  but he's not an actual member of that subculture, and never can be. That time is done.
 
2014-02-20 02:38:45 PM

studebaker hoch: [kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com image 450x275]

wtf


Seriously!  I would have thought Peter Sagal would look more like Alton Brown!
 
2014-02-20 02:47:10 PM
Mall cops are some of the worst "security" officers I've ever encountered.  Speaking from the viewpoint of a security officer/investigator, they do things that (and are seeming allowed to do things) that I would have fired people for.  I was dating a girl that worked at a store in the mall and would often come and talk to her if I was in town and she had an empty store.  Without fail, when the mall cop would walk by, he would come over and ask her if I was bothering her.  She always would reply, "no, he is fine, ect ect He is my boyfriend."  The officer would leave,usually grumbling under his breath.  About a week before Christmas, I came in to drop her off some lunch.  I walked to her store, brown bag in hand, exchanged a pleasantry, and felt a hand on my shoulder.  I turned around, and guess what, it was the same guy.  He starts yelling at me, "I am going to arrest you for loitering, if you do not leave immediately!" To which I replied, "You need to take your hand off of me, right now." His eyes grew wide and face reddened. He cued his mic, and requested backup.
  A little back ground in security law for the readers.  Most security forces are put into two or three categories, based upon job guidelines.  Now this varies by the state, but usually they are broken down into watchmen, which are strictly observe and report, armed security, and unarmed security.  Watchmen, which was the category that this particular idiot fell under, are by no means actually supposed to address anyone at any time, they are not even allowed defensive weapons. They are used to gather descriptions of offenders and report this to a law enforcement agency.  They have no powers of arrest.
        His "backup" arrived, three other mall officers one of which had a stun gun in his hand.  They were all out of breath, probably running from the far corner of the mall where the food court was.  They all exchanged a brief mishmash of radio codes, company lingo, and other words describing the situation.  Their conversation was as if someone had tossed a military radio protocol book, a police radio protocol book, and some internal security document into a blender and tried to assemble a sentence. The one with the stun gun held my particular attention, as I did not want to "ride the lightning" and possibly wet myself in front of my at the time girlfriend.  I yelled at them, "Next person that touches me, better have a license to do so!" and prepared for a fight, not exactly sure how this would all play out.  They looked very confused at my statement, but continued to close on me. I pointed my back down the isle, training taking over, so that I wouldn't have to fight them all at once.   At this time, I took out my cel phone and said "that's it, Im calling the cops and filing a complaint." That slowed them in their tracks and the first one said, "you really dont want to do that, you'll go to jail." Now I was really confused. What would I go to jail for? Do these guys know anything about their jobs? I saw one of the guards fumbling for a set of handcuffs from his belt.  The training part of my mind is screaming at me that I have to take down "sparky" first to have a chance at getting past the rest.  At this time, another uniformed officer walked into the front of the store. The two watchmen at the back, followed him as he pushed past them.  I recognized him as an actual police officer of the town we were in, and luckily, he recognized me from some shooting events we had been in together.  I smiled.  He spun around and ordered the watchmen to back up, and for the one to put down the stun gun.  They all snapped to, but continued to leer at me.  The cop called me by name, and came closer with a very puzzled look on his face.  He said under his breath, "what the fark is going on here?" I gestured to at the time girlfriend and explained my situation.  He looked even more confused.  He turned around and questioned the watchmen.  I saw him gesture a few times in my direction and they departed.  He came back, hand extended and as I shook his hand he simply shook his head.  With a laugh he said, "so, I guess you are going to want to file a complaint?" I nodded.

I filed a formal complaint later that day, and within a few days I received a letter from a law firm stating that I was banned from mall property unless I retracted my complaint. I gave the letter to our company lawyer reminding them that since I was also a process server, that they could not legally bar me from the property while I was acting on the court's behalf.  A return letter was never received, and I returned a few weeks later, mostly out of spite, to hand deliver a document that would have usually been mailed.  One of the watchmen did see me, and scuttled away talking on his radio.  I went back to talk to my then girlfriend and one of her coworkers said that they were very nervously asking her what she knew about what I did for a living, and my relationship was to the police.

I wonder, how many times has this situation played out before, only instead of someone like me, it was some goofy kid doing goofy things.  Had that letter that was sent to me been enough to keep some terrified kid quiet?  Is this mall service company just too big to care about their day to day workers' behavior?
 
2014-02-20 02:48:19 PM

DarkVader: tripleseven: scottydoesntknow: Malls are private property. They have the right to determine who shops there. We are not denying this. However, state law also restricts how they can determine who can or cannot shop on their property.

Steampunk is not a protected class.

/Still an asinine move by the mall cops

No, not a protected class, but this falls under arbitrary discrimination, and since California has a specific, state level non discrimination policy called the Unruh civil rights, they would appear to have a good case for a 'suin.

Unruh was enacted to stop discrimination against people not specifically listed in the civil rights act, basically, gays etc, but is broadly interpreted to protect you from arbitrary discrimination.


I am not a lawyer, but if I was them, I would certainly be contacting one.

From the description in TFA, Unruh would appear to apply.  But from the plain text of the statute:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

It doesn't appear to cover clothing.  Perhaps with later case law there's something there, but I can't really see how.

However, CA is one of the "shopping mall free speech" states, so there may well be a cause of action based upon that.


^^^THIS^^^

I am not a lawyer yet (3rd year of law school) but SCOTUS has been pretty clear that states, like California, can include privately owned places that are open to the general public, namely shopping malls, concert venues, and the like, when drafting statutes regarding free speech.

California has such a statute and the mall it would appear by the facts presented pretty well ran right over it with a bulldozer.

In many states, as long as the person or persons is not impeding commerce, or violating community standards of decency, then they can dress and say what they please in any place open to the general public. If they were inside a store and the store owner asked them to leave thats one thing, but it seems from the facts presented that they were not asked to leave from any specific commercial establishment or refused service for their dress. They were in the public area of the mall where free speech is explicitly protected.

Hope these guys hired good legal counsel because it looks like they're going to need it.
 
2014-02-20 02:50:23 PM

TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.


Quite true. It's the other way around.
 
2014-02-20 02:52:53 PM

Theaetetus: The Civil Rights Act, including its section on anti-discrimination in public accommodations, is 50 years old. How have you never heard of it until now?

MemeSlave: That doesn't mean it's not stupid.   It just has the veneer of tradition.


Well, okay, other than the fact that you want to bring back legal segregation, what do you think is stupid about anti-discrimination laws? In particular, just so we can figure out whether you're racist, sexist, or some other kind of bigot, who do you want the freedom to be able to discriminate against?
 
2014-02-20 03:03:23 PM

Nix Nightbird: stuff...



Hey look!  An honest  goth god "I was gothing before gothing was cool" statement.  What we have here folks is a Gothic Hipster...sensitive but badass in his Doc Martens combat boots.

Aren't you a little old to be so butthurt about what you believe to be or not to be a goth?  I mean I was an alt kid (skater I guess?) and all, but...let it go man...
 
2014-02-20 03:16:58 PM

zimbomba63: When dealing with a Goth, I made a habit of not acting shocked, outraged or even curious about their lifestyle.  You could see the disappointment in their eyes.


Oh, my goth, Becky... Look at her corset.
It is so narrow. [scoff] She looks like,
one of those vamp guy's girlfriends.
But, you know, who understands those rap guys? *scoff*
They only talk to her, because,
she looks like a Victorian prostitute, 'kay?
I mean, her waist, is just so tiny.
I can't believe it's just so round, it's like,
in there, I mean - gross. Look!
She's just so ... pale!

I like goth punk and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And no flesh tones in her face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that gut was stuffed
Deep in the stays she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get with you
And get your daguerreotype
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that leather you got makes me so horny
Ooh, Rump-o'-smooth-skin
You say you wanna listen to the Cure?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupie
I've seen them dancin'
To hell with romancin'
She's a star, rawr,
Got it goin' like Cugnot's steam car
I'm tired of broadsheets
Sayin' pastels are the thing
Take the average black outfit, put her in that,
And I'll come back
So, fellas! (Yeah!) Fellas! (Yeah!)
Has your girlfriend got the corset? (Hell yeah!)
Tell 'em to shake it! (Shake it!) Shake it! (Shake it!)
Then pass out from lack of air!
Bring that goth back!
 
2014-02-20 03:17:10 PM

OgreMagi: My steampunk hat would have given the fat mall cops an aneurysm.

[www.headnhome.com image 850x755]


What's the gear for?  If it's used to tighten the hat then cool.
 
2014-02-20 03:19:16 PM

TNel: OgreMagi: My steampunk hat would have given the fat mall cops an aneurysm.

[www.headnhome.com image 850x755]

What's the gear for?  If it's used to tighten the hat then cool.


It's an intentional poke at the joke "just glue a gear to it".
 
2014-02-20 03:19:18 PM

TNel: OgreMagi: My steampunk hat would have given the fat mall cops an aneurysm.

[www.headnhome.com image 850x755]

What's the gear for?  If it's used to tighten the hat then cool.


I'm amused by the fact that the chain on the pocket watch is too short for him to be able to look at the watch while wearing the hat.
 
2014-02-20 03:30:17 PM

2KanZam: Nix Nightbird: stuff...


Hey look!  An honest  goth god "I was gothing before gothing was cool" statement.  What we have here folks is a Gothic Hipster...sensitive but badass in his Doc Martens combat boots.

Aren't you a little old to be so butthurt about what you believe to be or not to be a goth?  I mean I was an alt kid (skater I guess?) and all, but...let it go man...


I have to agree, all this "Goth is dead by the XX (timeframe)" is bullshait. Especially with Nightbird claiming that he/she "have to call ourselves old school goth or postpunk" to differentiate themselves from the "not Goth" crowd of XX and beyond (timeframe). Postpunk is a crap term made up by a magazine writer in the late 70s who didn't know what the hell music he was listening to with some Punk bands doing a darker style, even when the term "Gothic" was used by Tony Curtis (Joy Division producer, owner of Factory Records) in an interview with the BBC in 1979 to describe the style of Joy Division. Now "Post Punk" is used by Hipsters who don't like putting the Gothic label on Goth bands. I don't know if your new love is Hipster or not, Nightbird, but that was one hell of a stupid encompassing post.
 
2014-02-20 03:32:37 PM

Theaetetus: I'm amused by the fact that the chain on the pocket watch is too short for him to be able to look at the watch while wearing the hat.


LOL didn't even notice that.

OgreMagi: It's an intentional poke at the joke "just glue a gear to it".


That's were I was going with it also.
 
2014-02-20 03:33:54 PM

Nix Nightbird: Sigh. Let me explain something to you...


You couldn't possibly have been all that intellectual if your plan for being left alone was to differentiate yourself from the herd.  Then again the acts of violence as retaliation for insults that you reported show exactly how enlightened you were.
 
2014-02-20 03:49:38 PM

Nix Nightbird: Sigh. Let me explain something to you...


LOL you do know they made a Southpark episode just for people like you right?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1312845/

I'm different.
 
2014-02-20 03:56:55 PM

scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

Let's take a trip in our time machine to the 1960s and look at that post again.

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay African American rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays black people at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays black people are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays black people, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay an African American business should be allowed to refuse service to straight white people.

My problem isn't with gay black people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

See how stupid that sounds now?


You are trying to compare 1) A federally protected class to a non-federally protected class, and 2) 1960s values to 21st century values. Do you even logic?
 
2014-02-20 04:02:52 PM

zimbomba63: trappedspirit: On the way to or from different events I have shopped at the grocery store, eaten in numerous restaurants, and otherwise interacted normally with people.

You cannot wear steamedpunk costumes and interact normally with anyone.

Sure you can.  When dealing with a Goth, I made a habit of not acting shocked, outraged or even curious about their lifestyle.  You could see the disappointment in their eyes.  Treating them as one of the "mundanes" is actually kind of cruel, when you get down to it, but, when you're out attention whoring, you have to realize you don't have an absolute right to receive that attention.


You can interact normally with them, but if they have on steamspunk costumes then they have already opened an abnormal interaction channel.

/ 63 and a "Different strokes for different folks" type
// These people should not have been kicked out of the mall
/// But, since they were, they now feel validated
//// "What does not ignore them, makes them stronger"


So you are saying it's a win-win?  They get the validation, the rest of the mall patrons don't have to look at them?  LOL, I agree.

/yeah, yeah
 
2014-02-20 04:03:13 PM

Nix Nightbird: Sigh. Let me explain something to you...

Those people in the whiteface with ridiculous harlequin makeup and clothes they bought at a specialty shop?  They're not goths.  They're something else. They may call themselves "goth" and you may think they're goth, but they're not. They're vampires, most likely. Baby goths, if you must. They're mostly just emos who stole the word "goth", though.... blah blah blah

i.eatliver.com

 
2014-02-20 04:05:36 PM

Leishu: TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.

Maybe not, but your willful lack of attachment to facts in general does. If you stopped just making stuff up then maybe people wouldn't find you to be such a blithering idiot. At the very least, you could actually bother to RTFA, which you plainly have not in this case, or the other that you referenced, but then there was an entire thread of people telling you what a moron you were for failing to read the facts of the case, over and over and over, so successful troll is successful.


What exactly am I making up? As far as I can see, I'm one of the few who are actually using facts instead of arguing with emotion. You should try it some time.
 
2014-02-20 04:08:55 PM

TerminalEchoes: You are trying to compare 1) A federally protected class to a non-federally protected class, and 2) 1960s values to 21st century values. Do you even logic?


Actually what I'm showing you is that this situation mirrors the segregation of 1960s damn near perfectly. Plenty of people also believed it should be their choice to discriminate at their business. And in the 1960s, they (African Americans) were NOT a protected class. And apparently 21st century values are still pretty close to 1960s values, at least for some people (like you).
 
2014-02-20 04:10:40 PM
What can you really sue for? emotional damage? The right to access a shiatty mall? Why bother spending the time and money even if you are right on this?

/white people problems.
 
2014-02-20 04:20:36 PM

TV's Vinnie: IMO, Steampunk is a joke!

If you're going to get all "Retro Fiction", then go with the early 1930's style, a la "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".

[ww4.hdnux.com image 628x353]

It's a lot more sophisticated than gluing gears onto a top hat.


Ahh.. AKA Crimson Skies: The Movie. Holy crap did they steal almost everything out of the game for the movie... Hell, they even took the logo for the game and slapped it on the big-ass robot at the end
 
2014-02-20 04:22:02 PM

TerminalEchoes: My problem isn't with gay people.


Yeah, I'm just gonna go ahead and call BS on that.
 
2014-02-20 04:41:15 PM

Raoul Eaton: kregh99: Steampunkers:  contact the mall ahead of time when you're a group that large.

Mall cops:  Seriously?  These people looked threatening in any way, shape, or form?  Stop taking the frustration that the police academy rejected your application out on innocent people having a bit of good, clean fun.

They should have known that if you want to go to the mall, you must look bland, shabby, or vulgar in a bland, shabby kind of way.  Absoluely nothing imaginative allowed.



Dress like the Comix Book Guy from the Simpsons!
 
2014-02-20 04:51:15 PM

JonnyBGoode: TV's Vinnie: IMO, Steampunk is a joke!

If you're going to get all "Retro Fiction", then go with the early 1930's style, a la "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow".

[ww4.hdnux.com image 628x353]

It's a lot more sophisticated than gluing gears onto a top hat.

Subby here. While I do prefer the look of dieselpunk, steampunk style can be fun, too.  As the little girl said,

[static.gamespot.com image 288x288]

So far the mall has done nothing but dodge the issue and make statements like "if you tell us you're coming, we'd be glad to have you back." So people have to make an appointment to go to the mall now? And if wearing a cravat is my choice of attire, I'm not welcome?

Technically, this is a clear violation of California's Unruh Civil Right Act, which prohibits a business's discrimination of customers based on "Unconventional Dress".

By the way, please sign the petition to get the mall to make an apology to the group.


Thanks for the link, I hope the mall loses a lot of business over this fiasco. I think they looked rather nice, and they certainly didn't seem to be causing any sort of issue. I hope they sue, too.
 
2014-02-20 05:07:25 PM

TerminalEchoes: scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay business should be allowed to refuse service to straight people.

My problem isn't with gay people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

Let's take a trip in our time machine to the 1960s and look at that post again.

The fact that a judge even intervened makes all the difference in the world. Future fines, though undeclared, were threatened. Look, I understand how passionate people get about certain issues. Gay African American rights is one of those issues people fiercely defend and that's fine. I happen to defend personal freedom. I have no problem with gays black people at all, but I do have a problem with government walking all over people. Thus far, gays black people are not yet a federally protected class. One day I'm sure they will be, but right now, if a business wants to refuse service to gays black people, they should be allowed to do so, just like a gay an African American business should be allowed to refuse service to straight white people.

My problem isn't with gay black people. My problems is with hypocrisy. "It's okay for us to do it to these people but not those people." It should be an all-or-nothing thing to me.

See how stupid that sounds now?

You are trying to compare 1) A federally protected class to a non-federa ...


No, you are trying to compare a Federally protected class to a State protected class without realizing that a State law must include all Federally protected classes but can also include any class not specifically excluded by Federal law.  Gay is not specifically included nor excluded so a state can include them for state protection at will.  If your state wanted to protect bigamists or only some religions, then it would be unconstitutional.

\I'm the third member of the bar to try and explain this to you in this thread.  You might want to defer to the experts.
 
2014-02-20 05:07:54 PM
From a glance at that pic, there denial had nothing to do with their clothes.  I do believe there is a weight limit for escalators which may have had some influence on this occurrence.
 
2014-02-20 05:09:38 PM

TerminalEchoes: Leishu: TerminalEchoes: Cheron: TerminalEchoes: So malls (private property) have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish as long as it's not a protected class (steam punk). Meanwhile, wedding cake makers (private property) are forced by the courts to give service to another non-protected class (two gay people).

Interesting.

1/10  You get one point for brevity

Just because I'm not afraid to call out bullshiat hypocrisy doesn't make me a troll, son.

Maybe not, but your willful lack of attachment to facts in general does. If you stopped just making stuff up then maybe people wouldn't find you to be such a blithering idiot. At the very least, you could actually bother to RTFA, which you plainly have not in this case, or the other that you referenced, but then there was an entire thread of people telling you what a moron you were for failing to read the facts of the case, over and over and over, so successful troll is successful.

What exactly am I making up? As far as I can see, I'm one of the few who are actually using facts instead of arguing with emotion. You should try it some time.


You see it that way because you are willfully ignoring the facts. It's easy to pretend that your opinion fits reality when you are making up your "reality" as you go. Once again, you have actually yet to present a single situation which is not the OPPOSITE of the facts.
 
2014-02-20 05:11:46 PM
So malls dont want people in there that are causing no problems and spending money. They just want obnoxious teens and mall walkers. Sounds like a hell of a business plan.
 
2014-02-20 05:29:19 PM

TNel: Yeah I'm sure there are other people waiting in line for that minimum wage position. I mean look at those cool hats you get to wear.


Yeah, but you also get to follow around young, nubile girls in their tight low-rise jeans, their sweet buttcheeks twitching and rolling as they strut between the "Food" Court and Hot Topic.
 
2014-02-20 05:39:42 PM
Look, if these emo punks would stop shoving their retro-goth style in everybody's faces they could rejoin the rest of society. What a bunch of mod beatnik hipsters.
 
2014-02-20 05:49:50 PM
They kicked attention-whores out for attention-whoring? Imagine that.
 
2014-02-20 05:55:34 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Look, if these emo punks would stop shoving their retro-goth style in everybody's faces they could rejoin the rest of society. What a bunch of mod beatnik hipsters.


A bunch of macaroni, for sure.
 
2014-02-20 05:56:00 PM
I don't care about steampunk one way or another, but I find it hard to understand why the mall would tell a group of people "Hey, you there, get the hell out.  You aren't causing any trouble, you aren't wearing outrageously skimpy clothing, you are spending money, and I want you to leave".

It's a really, really stupid business plan.  If I lived in the area, even though I have no ties to steampunk at all, I'd avoid that mall just because I'd assume that if the management are jerks who kick people out for random reasons, I simply don't want to do business there.
 
2014-02-20 05:59:01 PM
Can we get back on topic?  Sheesh!

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-20 06:30:40 PM
I used to work at the mall they were able to take pictures at. Seems pretty normal for that shiaty mall.

/glad to hear it's not Westfield anymore
// fark Westfield
///comes in threes
 
2014-02-20 06:40:28 PM
www.annetrent.com

/Oblig. [picture is a link]
 
2014-02-20 06:41:26 PM
While the group probably should have let the mall know, the mall shouldn't have had a problem with them.  Their costumes aren't that far off from normal fashion and better than the young folks with their pants hanging down around their knees and the baggy sports jerseys.
 
2014-02-20 06:47:57 PM
Eh, Malls are private property. It isn't in the public. The rules do not discriminate against a protected class. The Mall can do this.


But Malls are evil. Don't go there.

\Used to work in a Mall. First job. Seen it first hand.
 
2014-02-20 06:51:10 PM
Sounds like quite a few people should read the ENTIRE article... particularly this part:

Besides, the state of California limits how you can determine who belongs on your property with the Unruh Civil Rights Act (CA Civil Code 51 and 52). In addition to the particular forms of discrimination specifically outlawed by the Act (sex, race, color, etc.), courts have held the Act "prohibit[s] discrimination based on several classifications which are not specifically enumerated in the statute. These judicially recognized classifications include unconventional dress or physical appearance, families with children, homosexuality, and persons under 18."
 
2014-02-20 07:17:28 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Sounds like quite a few people should read the ENTIRE article... particularly this part:

Besides, the state of California limits how you can determine who belongs on your property with the Unruh Civil Rights Act (CA Civil Code 51 and 52). In addition to the particular forms of discrimination specifically outlawed by the Act (sex, race, color, etc.), courts have held the Act "prohibit[s] discrimination based on several classifications which are not specifically enumerated in the statute. These judicially recognized classifications include unconventional dress or physical appearance, families with children, homosexuality, and persons under 18."


Yes, clearly a civil rights violation under California law, if the group ever decided to press the matter.
 
2014-02-20 08:12:05 PM
Oh, look, my mall. Meaning the one I go to about once a year because it's near me. I don't remember if they have a Hot Topic, but that would be funny and hypocritical.

I've never dressed Steampunk, but I love the look of it. I wouldn't say no to some decor or subtle fixtures themed S.P. I should get some gears and go randomly glue them around the mall. They'd never suspect my frumpy soccer-mom facade.
 
2014-02-20 08:50:27 PM

Jument: RTFA. It might have come down to the "no photos" policy.


And the policy specifically stated that the photo would be allowed with permission from the subject OR mall management.  All that they would have to say/prove is that they approve of having their photo taken.  Done.
 
2014-02-20 09:04:11 PM

Benjimin_Dover: Jument: RTFA. It might have come down to the "no photos" policy.

And the policy specifically stated that the photo would be allowed with permission from the subject OR mall management.  All that they would have to say/prove is that they approve of having their photo taken.  Done.


Which is what they did say. But the mall cops were still too stupid to deviate from their stance in any way.
 
2014-02-20 09:46:18 PM

topcon: The door at the mall clearly states "NO VICTORIAN ERA GARB ALLOWED."

They knew they were going to cause trouble from the minute they walked in.


Problem is could be argued that no one from the Victorian era would wear goggles and crazy crap on their arms without good reason.
 
2014-02-20 10:20:12 PM

JuggleGeek: I don't care about steampunk one way or another


I wrote that earlier, but hockeypuck15 is making a strong argument that I should care.
 
2014-02-20 10:29:50 PM

The_Philosopher_King: Eh, Malls are private property. It isn't in the public. The rules do not discriminate against a protected class. The Mall can do this.


But Malls are evil. Don't go there.

\Used to work in a Mall. First job. Seen it first hand.


Really, you have to abandon your idea that a property where business takes place is "private property"

It's actually a little embarrassing to have to see you post this.
 
2014-02-20 10:54:29 PM

tripleseven: The_Philosopher_King: Eh, Malls are private property. It isn't in the public. The rules do not discriminate against a protected class. The Mall can do this.
But Malls are evil. Don't go there.
\Used to work in a Mall. First job. Seen it first hand.
Really, you have to abandon your idea that a property where business takes place is "private property"
It's actually a little embarrassing to have to see you post this.


OK, I admit it was a while since I read about it. So I did a quick search. Couldn't find anything. So when was Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board overturned?

The Mall considered dress an interruption to normal business.

Malls and other businesses have long held the right to put up such restrictions

NO Shirt
NO Shoes
NO Service
 
2014-02-20 11:03:20 PM

JuggleGeek: JuggleGeek: I don't care about steampunk one way or another

I wrote that earlier, but hockeypuck15 is making a strong argument that I should care.


You should probably check out steamgirl.com. Run by a friend of mine, I'm proud to say.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-20 11:05:48 PM

The_Philosopher_King: tripleseven: The_Philosopher_King: Eh, Malls are private property. It isn't in the public. The rules do not discriminate against a protected class. The Mall can do this.
But Malls are evil. Don't go there.
\Used to work in a Mall. First job. Seen it first hand.
Really, you have to abandon your idea that a property where business takes place is "private property"
It's actually a little embarrassing to have to see you post this.

OK, I admit it was a while since I read about it. So I did a quick search. Couldn't find anything. So when was Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board overturned?

The Mall considered dress an interruption to normal business.

Malls and other businesses have long held the right to put up such restrictions

NO Shirt
NO Shoes
NO Service


It's California.  Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is still controlling law.
 
2014-02-20 11:07:05 PM
The mall issued a half-assed apology on their Facebook page today. Basically, "we're sorry... if you call ahead, we'll give you a 'hosted' carousel ride." In other words, you're not welcome unless you give us advanced notice, and if you do come, expect an armed guard escort.  Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
 
2014-02-20 11:15:19 PM

Fissile: Look at pictures of people from the late 19th century.  Fat people were not common.  Fail.


Seen fleeing the scene:
bespokebybrouhaha.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-20 11:17:36 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: Sounds like quite a few people should read the ENTIRE article... particularly this part:

Besides, the state of California limits how you can determine who belongs on your property with the Unruh Civil Rights Act (CA Civil Code 51 and 52). In addition to the particular forms of discrimination specifically outlawed by the Act (sex, race, color, etc.), courts have held the Act "prohibit[s] discrimination based on several classifications which are not specifically enumerated in the statute. These judicially recognized classifications include unconventional dress or physical appearance, families with children, homosexuality, and persons under 18."


I saw that.  I'm not sure how the courts got to "unconventional dress" from the text of Unruh.  I'd be interested in reading a decision covering that.

But I don't think Unruh even matters for them to have a case.  CA is a "shopping mall free speech" state.
 
2014-02-20 11:19:10 PM

The_Philosopher_King: tripleseven: The_Philosopher_King: Eh, Malls are private property. It isn't in the public. The rules do not discriminate against a protected class. The Mall can do this.
But Malls are evil. Don't go there.
\Used to work in a Mall. First job. Seen it first hand.
Really, you have to abandon your idea that a property where business takes place is "private property"
It's actually a little embarrassing to have to see you post this.

OK, I admit it was a while since I read about it. So I did a quick search. Couldn't find anything. So when was Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board overturned?

The Mall considered dress an interruption to normal business.

Malls and other businesses have long held the right to put up such restrictions

NO Shirt
NO Shoes
NO Service


No Shoes, no shirt violates health laws.


Next?
 
2014-02-20 11:20:37 PM

Fissile: Look at pictures of people from the late 19th century.  Fat people were not common.  Fail.


www.mybrightonandhove.org.uk

Disagrees.

As does

www.executedtoday.com
 
2014-02-20 11:22:12 PM
DarkVader:  It's California.  Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is still controlling law.

That makes more sense. I didn't know about that case. But I can see the argument that Steampunk clothes don't meet the criteria for "Speech" and their only effect was a disruption of trade.
 
2014-02-20 11:28:15 PM
JonnyBGoode:

By the way, please sign the petition to get the mall to make an apology to the group.

----- "server misbehaving" page.
I think traffic caused a crash!!

IDIOT MALL COPS.
THIS IS WHY YOU DO WHAT YOU DO, you're just a moron jock who couldn't get hired anywhere else after your 2 years of C- grades at community college.
 
2014-02-20 11:32:09 PM
tripleseven:
Malls and other businesses have long held the right to put up such restrictions
NO Shirt
NO Shoes
NO Service

No Shoes, no shirt violates health laws.
Next?


Wrong.
 
2014-02-20 11:34:00 PM

The_Philosopher_King: DarkVader:  It's California.  Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is still controlling law.

That makes more sense. I didn't know about that case. But I can see the argument that Steampunk clothes don't meet the criteria for "Speech" and their only effect was a disruption of trade.


Dressing in unconventional garb does not constitute disruption of trade.  With the religious connotation aside, could they ban Hindus for dressing in saris in there was a bunch of them?  Could they ban Hasidic Jews for showing up en masse?

What if a bunch of people showed up wearing traditionally religious clothes, yet they were not religious at all?
 
2014-02-20 11:34:38 PM

puddleonfire: JonnyBGoode:

By the way, please sign the petition to get the mall to make an apology to the group.

----- "server misbehaving" page.
I think traffic caused a crash!!


It's up and down right now. Might be "Farked", who knows.
 
2014-02-20 11:37:43 PM

The_Philosopher_King: DarkVader:  It's California.  Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins is still controlling law.

That makes more sense. I didn't know about that case. But I can see the argument that Steampunk clothes don't meet the criteria for "Speech" and their only effect was a disruption of trade.


Well, most of the clothing as speech case law is school related, and while Tinker hasn't been reversed per se, it's been significantly undermined.  But this isn't a school, it is, per the CA constitution, a public place.  I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to come up with a good argument that clothing worn for the purpose of enjoyment of a hobby, necessary for the enjoyment of that hobby, used in part to communicate participation in that hobby to other participants, and in no way violating any decency or any other laws is not subject to free speech protection.

I think you're going to have a significantly harder time arguing that it was disruption of trade, given that the only disruption that occurred was caused by the mall's security, that the participants were in no way disrupting other persons at the mall other than security personnel, and that they were in fact participating in trade.
 
2014-02-20 11:38:18 PM

The_Philosopher_King: tripleseven:
Malls and other businesses have long held the right to put up such restrictions
NO Shirt
NO Shoes
NO Service

No Shoes, no shirt violates health laws.
Next?

Wrong.


Perhaps, It would vary by jurisdiction, however it would appear that not too many health codes actually stipulate you need to wear shoes or shirts in reatuarnts, etc.

So, your original statement of:

NO Shoes
NO Shirt
NO Service

Would actually be wrong.

What do you have to say about that?
 
2014-02-20 11:44:18 PM

Nix Nightbird: A mix of eclectic artists, musicians, and intellectuals


Ah, I always love it when someone describes their clique in such an elitist manner.  "We were artists and intellectuals, you know."  Pro-tip: Never use "artist", when you are staring into the mirror, the proper term is "artiste".  It give gives you that certain sense of gravitas, it shouts, "My art is fresh and important, smashing the bourgeois facade of our crumbling society!"  Oh yes, and the intellectuals!  Excuse me, is there some kind of certificate that one receives, stating that one has attained intellectual status, or is it a dorm room circle jerk, where one dope tell another, "Based on what you've said, you're an intellectual, and based my realizing you're an intellectual, that must mean I am one, too."
 
2014-02-20 11:50:47 PM

zimbomba63: Nix Nightbird: A mix of eclectic artists, musicians, and intellectuals

Ah, I always love it when someone describes their clique in such an elitist manner.  "We were artists and intellectuals, you know."  Pro-tip: Never use "artist", when you are staring into the mirror, the proper term is "artiste".  It give gives you that certain sense of gravitas, it shouts, "My art is fresh and important, smashing the bourgeois facade of our crumbling society!"  Oh yes, and the intellectuals!  Excuse me, is there some kind of certificate that one receives, stating that one has attained intellectual status, or is it a dorm room circle jerk, where one dope tell another, "Based on what you've said, you're an intellectual, and based my realizing you're an intellectual, that must mean I am one, too."


You, my friend, are an intellectual.

I Guarantee It ©
 
2014-02-20 11:52:10 PM
tripleseven:
So, your original statement of:
NO Shoes
NO Shirt
NO Service
Would actually be wrong.
What do you have to say about that?


No, think again. It means I am right. The stores take it on themselves to restrict what people wear and they get away with it. Which was kind of my point in the first place.

And your other comment about religious wear . . . That at least is protected. Which is why the Mall had the exception listed in TFA.
 
2014-02-21 12:03:06 AM

The_Philosopher_King: tripleseven:
So, your original statement of:
NO Shoes
NO Shirt
NO Service
Would actually be wrong.
What do you have to say about that?

No, think again. It means I am right. The stores take it on themselves to restrict what people wear and they get away with it. Which was kind of my point in the first place.

And your other comment about religious wear . . . That at least is protected. Which is why the Mall had the exception listed in TFA.


I proposed what if a bunch of people showed up wearing religious garb, yet, weren't religious at all.  Could you refuse?

Just having a sign, or blindly stating that you will not serve people with no shoes or shirt will  not indemnify you against a lawsuit.  You can do your own case law studies, but even the federal civil rights act has been interpreted to include arbitrary discrimination.

As for your previous assertion that a place of public accommodation is "private property", you are wrong.


Again, I am NOT a lawyer.
 
2014-02-21 12:06:47 AM

tripleseven: zimbomba63: Nix Nightbird: A mix of eclectic artists, musicians, and intellectuals

Ah, I always love it when someone describes their clique in such an elitist manner.  "We were artists and intellectuals, you know."  Pro-tip: Never use "artist", when you are staring into the mirror, the proper term is "artiste".  It give gives you that certain sense of gravitas, it shouts, "My art is fresh and important, smashing the bourgeois facade of our crumbling society!"  Oh yes, and the intellectuals!  Excuse me, is there some kind of certificate that one receives, stating that one has attained intellectual status, or is it a dorm room circle jerk, where one dope tell another, "Based on what you've said, you're an intellectual, and based my realizing you're an intellectual, that must mean I am one, too."

You, my friend, are an intellectual.

I Guarantee It ©


Hey buddy, watch the language!
 
2014-02-21 12:58:26 AM
screw westfield and screw simon, generic crappy malls, same stores, same products,
hello amazon
 
2014-02-21 02:43:23 AM

delysid25: look at the second picture in the article, one of them is carrying a knife around for fark sake!


Probably only had it with her to cut the gay cake, they were planning on ordering at the mall bakery.
 
2014-02-21 11:30:36 AM

JuggleGeek: JuggleGeek: I don't care about steampunk one way or another

I wrote that earlier, but hockeypuck15 is making a strong argument that I should care.



Always happy to help.
 
2014-02-21 01:58:51 PM
tripleseven:As for your previous assertion that a place of public accommodation is "private property", you are wrong.


Again, I am NOT a lawyer.


Yep, you're not a lawyer.

It IS private property.  But by being a public accommodation, it is subject to different rules than, say, your house.  In CA, that means allowing free speech on that property.

But a mall owner in CA could, if they really wanted to, stop all free speech on the property perfectly legally.  They would be fully within their rights to shut down the mall.  They won't do that, because they like making money more than they like restricting free speech.
 
2014-02-21 02:46:47 PM

DarkVader: tripleseven:As for your previous assertion that a place of public accommodation is "private property", you are wrong.


Again, I am NOT a lawyer.

Yep, you're not a lawyer.

It IS private property.  But by being a public accommodation, it is subject to different rules than, say, your house.  In CA, that means allowing free speech on that property.

But a mall owner in CA could, if they really wanted to, stop all free speech on the property perfectly legally.  They would be fully within their rights to shut down the mall.  They won't do that, because they like making money more than they like restricting free speech.


So, you're agreeing with me.
 
2014-02-21 11:54:20 PM
Meanwhile, the Getty Center asked a steampunk band to help them promote their new Victorian photography exhibit.

Maybe the steampunks just weren't "ghetto" enough for Westfield.
 
Displayed 234 of 234 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report