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  
•       •       •

15012 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:33 AM (29 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 34 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report