Calif mall outlaws religion speech

[Steven2006]

There very well could be language in the leases with many of the large nationally chain type of stores that require the ownership to limit this type of activity. It is a matter of professionalism.

 

[Salty]

>However, I have to say that I would object if I were at a shopping mall and two JWs or a Mormon or another cult member approached me as I shopped. It is private property. This happens on the streets a lot but I think they have a right there to do this, but not on private property.

Why is it acceptable to bother people on public property. What is the moral/logical difference between aggressive (in your face) begging and aggressive evangelizing?

If you don't want to talk to a JW, you shouldn't have too - and the mall cops should accommodate you. The situation in the OP is about 2 people who do not know each other, who agree to have a discussion about religion! That is crossing over the line.

 

[targus]

If you don't want to talk to a JW, you shouldn't have too - and the mall cops should accommodate you. The situation in the OP is about 2 people who do not know each other, who agree to have a discussion about religion! That is crossing over the line.

From the linked articles...

"...a youth pastor visiting the Roseville Galleria Mall, approached several shoppers and asked them if he could talked to them about their faith..."

"However, he was initially arrested and removed from the [Roseville Galleria Mall] because the shopping mall has a policy that forbids any discussions of faith with anyone else in the shopping mall unless you directly knew them prior to the visit to the shopping mall."

No doubt the mall owner made his rule because he doesn't want shoppers to be bothered by uninvited solicitation.

In this particular instance the people that this youth pastor approached did not mind the intrusion.

Other customers might.

It was the youth pastor that crossed the line by approaching strangers on property belonging to someone else who does not wish for his business to be disrupted by someone trying to engage in their own business at his potential expense.

 

[targus]

Salty, would you have a problem with me coming into your church during services to sell life insurance or mutual funds?

 

[mcdirector]

malls are tricky places. Some of those people at the kiosks are very obtrusively in my space.

Do you mind if I ask you a question?

Yes

Well, would you just tell me about your glasses?

No

This wonder product will really benefit you!

Just leave me alone!

Then you hit a store and it's let me give you a spray of this or an application of that.

NO thank YOU!

I want people at the mall to leave me alone. I don't want to be approached to have to tell them no.

 

[Salty]

Salty, would you have a problem with me coming into your church during services to sell life insurance or mutual funds?

That question is so ridiculous that I wont even think of giving an answer. This is not even comparing apples and oranges, its more like comparing the destruction of a BB-gun versus a M-1 A2 Abrams main battle tank


Salty

 

[targus]

That question is so ridiculous that I wont even think of giving an answer. This is not even comparing apples and oranges, its more like comparing the destruction of a BB-gun versus a M-1 A2 Abrams main battle tank


Salty

Why are they not comparable?

Both involve a question of someone coming on to private property and attempting to conduct business that interfers with the business of the property owner.

I think that my question is checkmate to your objections.

 

[Aaron]

Sometimes there is a conflict between a particular right of one person and a particular right of another.

It is a case by case basis as to who's particular right superceeds another's particular right.

I wanted to show that most people aren't consistent in their politics, and I think it's obvious now. To uphold one's right to control speech on the basis of creed on his own private property on the one hand, and to infringe his right to control access to that property on the basis of race or gender is self contradictory.

To say that government can legitimately control private corporations in the realm of their hiring practices is to say that government can control private individuals in their homes. They've already won the philosophical battle. It's only a matter of time before they clamp us in irons. In fact, it's at the door.

 

[Salty]

Why are they not comparable?

Both involve a question of someone coming on to private property and attempting to conduct business that interferes with the business of the property owner.

I think that my question is checkmate to your objections.

Unless there is a church in the mall - than no business was being interfered with.
Now, if I was talking to someone who was trying to check out their purchases - thats one thing.
But I constantly talk to people in line, at the mall about a multitude of subjects - and its not problem - as long as I am not interfering with other actions.
Problem is too many of us are wimps - we get too sensitive about minor things. Lets start being more like the original Americans who forged out our country. Lets get a backbone.
If someone wants to talk to you, and you don't, think Nancy Reagan - "JUST SAY NO!"

AARON - post # 28 Excellent !!

Salty
I would love to have a JW meet me in a mall - and I would talk to them - then when they left, I would remind them I wasted their time!

 

[targus]

Unless there is a church in the mall - than no business was being interfered with.

Incorrect. Most people go the the mall to shop. Most people don't care to be approached by strangers to talk about religion.

The mall owner has a legitmate concern about some percentage of his shoppers choosing not to come to his mall again because they want to avoid the unwelcome advances of people proselytizing.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Now, if I was talking to someone who was trying to check out their purchases - thats one thing.
But I constantly talk to people in line, at the mall about a multitude of subjects - and its not problem - as long as I am not interfering with other actions.

Then you should not mind if someone were to stand by your table in a restaurant while you are dining with your family so they can attempt to convert you to their church - right?

By your logic if all they do is talk to you it shouldn't be a problem for you - correct?

Problem is too many of us are wimps - we get too sensitive about minor things. Lets start being more like the original Americans who forged out our country. Lets get a backbone.

But you are not consistent here.

You are objecting because the owner of the mall has a backbone and is protecting his property rights.

Are there any other basic Constitutional Rights that you wish to deny to the rest of us?

 

[Salty]

The mall owner has a legitmate concern about some percentage 
of his shoppers choosing not to come to his mall again because 
they want to avoid the unwelcome advances of people proselytizing.
 
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

First, I don't believe it is a major problem. Often, if only one person complains - then people overreact.

Then you should not mind if someone were to stand by your table 
in a restaurant while you are dining with your family so they can 
attempt to convert you to their church - right? 
By your logic if all they do is talk to you it shouldn't be a problem 
for you - correct?

Actually, personally, I wouldn't have a problem if someone did.
Second, very few if anyone would actually do that -
esp "proselytizing"

But you are not consistent here.
 
You are objecting because the owner of the mall has a backbone
and is protecting his property rights. 
 [/

QUOTE]
Again, we are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
We are not talking about a man with a megaphone preaching in the
middle of the mall.

Then in your thinking we should outlaw all speech - don't even
say thank you when someone holds the door open, don't say
excuse me if you bump someone, don't ask someone which
floor is Sears on, ect, ect ect.

Are there any other basic Constitutional Rights that you wish to 
deny to the rest of us?

What "rights" do you think I want to deny you?
Currently, the all governments are denying many of my rights

 

[targus]

First, I don't believe it is a major problem. Often, if only one person complains - then people overreact.

But you see, you are not the owner of the mall.

Since it is his property to use as he chooses, it is his decision, not yours, to decide if it is a major problem.

And even if it is not a problem of any size, it is still his decision.

Actually, personally, I wouldn't have a problem if someone did.
Second, very few if anyone would actually do that - esp "proselytizing"

And why do you think that very few people would do that?

Perhaps because they see the inappropriateness of it?

Because they know that people go to restaurants to eat and not to be proselytized?

Why do you fail to see the same inappropriateness of doing the same in a mall where one has been asked by the owner not to do it?

Again, we are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
We are not talking about a man with a megaphone preaching in the
middle of the mall.

No you are the one making a mountain out of a molehill.

So some mall owner didn't want some youth pastor stopping random customers in his mall to talk about the Gospel?

So what?

Then in your thinking we should outlaw all speech - don't even
say thank you when someone holds the door open, don't say
excuse me if you bump someone, don't ask someone which
floor is Sears on, ect, ect ect.

I think nothing of the such.

I just think that property rights should be respected.

Apparently you do not share that sentiment.

What "rights" do you think I want to deny you?

Property rights. obviously.

Currently, the all governments are denying many of my rights

That governments deny citizens rights means that Christians should do the same?

 

[Salty]

I have started a poll about this question from the OP

 

[Marcia]

>However, I have to say that I would object if I were at a shopping mall and two JWs or a Mormon or another cult member approached me as I shopped. It is private property. This happens on the streets a lot but I think they have a right there to do this, but not on private property.

Why is it acceptable to bother people on public property. What is the moral/logical difference between aggressive (in your face) begging and aggressive evangelizing?

As Targus pointed out, I was saying this is legal on the streets but not on private property.

I'm with abcgrad on this; I've been approached before by a strange man or men and it was sometimes scary - I think in particular for women this is worrying. There have been several rapes at malls in this area, for example.

 

[donnA]

here it is considered a public place, and unless you prove harressment, you can't limit people, this is not someones house, but a place of business they ahve chosen to make a public place.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

here it is considered a public place, and unless you prove harressment, you can't limit people, this is not someones house, but a place of business they ahve chosen to make a public place.

That doesn't appear to be right. Here is a mall in Lexington whose rules of conduct posted on the Internet say:

This shopping center is private property and no rights shall accrue to the public by virtue of the public’s entry into this mall or on mall property.

From HERE

A shopping mall is a place of public accommodation, and thus subject to certain anti-discrimination laws, but it does remain private property. They can establish and enforce rules, as well as things like if they will let you take photos inside.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

And here is a lawyers opinion re: if a mall in KY is public or private property. CLICK HERE

 

[donnA]

That doesn't appear to be right. Here is a mall in Lexington whose rules of conduct posted on the Internet say:

This shopping center is private property and no rights shall accrue to the public by virtue of the public’s entry into this mall or on mall property.

From HERE

A shopping mall is a place of public accommodation, and thus subject to certain anti-discrimination laws, but it does remain private property. They can establish and enforce rules, as well as things like if they will let you take photos inside.

I don't live in lexington
and just how does a person get arrested for public intoxication on private property? they couldn't.
can a private person limit your constutional rights? I think not.

 

[abcgrad94]

So, for those of you who think this is ok, do you want members of the occult trying to strike up conversations about their beliefs at the mall when you're trying to shop? What about skinheads and KKK members? Muslims? Hell's Angels? What about pimps recruiting young women to work for them?

The point is the mall is a place of business and the owner has every right to make rules that affect his business. If he doesn't want people bringing their pets inside, kids rollerblading in the mall, pastors handing out tracts or evangelizing, smoking in the building, etc. he can decide that. I think too many Christians want to yell "persecution" when it's not the case. Being disrespectful of the business owner's rules is not a good way to win people to Christ.

 

[donnA]

limit because one and you limit yourself too, you allow your freedoms to be stripped away too, not just theirs.
I for one would not shop in a store who wanted to strip away my constutional freedoms. When people can tell you what you can and can not sit down with a person and talk about in public you know you've reached a communist state.
What this also means is you can not walk through the mall and talk about anything christian, even to your family and friends.