Calif mall outlaws religion speech

[Salty]

Matthew Snatchko, a youth pastor was arrested in a Calif mall for religious speech to a stranger.

From Pacific Justice

The Christian Examinier

One News Now

New World Order 101

 

[targus]

A shopping mall is private property.

The mall owner is within his rights to decide what is and is not acceptable behavior / dress in his mall.

Kind of like "no shoes, no shirt - no service".

Apparently this mall owner believes that religious proselytizing will hurt business.

You have the right to free speech - what you do not have is the right to come onto my property against my wishes to exercise your free speech.

If Christians are offended by this mall owner's decision they have the equal right to take their shopping business elsewhere and to encourage others to do the same.

 

[Matt Black]

Unfortunately, Targus is correct. The answer: pray, write to/petition the mall owner and boycott the mall unless s/he/it has a change of heart.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

A shopping mall is private property.

If Christians are offended by this mall owner's decision they have the equal right to take their shopping business elsewhere and to encourage others to do the same.

Good perspective Targus - I agree 100%.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Good perspective Targus - I agree 100%.

If the guy was pestering the mall's customers, they certainly should intervene. It is good business to insure your customers have a good experience. If they are constantly harassed, they will stop coming.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If the guy was pestering the mall's customers, they certainly should intervene. It is good business to insure your customers have a good experience. If they are constantly harassed, they will stop coming.

According to the article these folks agreed to a discussion about their faith.

It is a balancing act, lose the customers who might be 'harassed' or lose the customers who you try to tell what what they can and cannot discuss.

It's his place, he has every right in the world to make up these kind of rules. That is the whole point here.

I would not shop in a place that tried to dictate to me and people I meet what we can and cannot quietly discuss.

 

[Johnv]

Matthew Snatchko, a youth pastor was arrested in a Calif mall for religious speech to a stranger.

Eh, yes and no.

The mall in question has rules of conduct. Those rules include a dress code (including no attire displaying profanity, or overt controversial language), and rules banning a patron's use of verbal oscenities or profanities. Among those rules are a ban on "solicitation" rules, which includes stangers approaching approaching patrons to engage them in a soliciting conversation. I'm sure Snatchko meant well, but a private shopping mall is a private shopping mall. Heaven forbid they limit visitor activity to, say, shopping!! If they want to restrict activity whose purpose is something other than shopping, that's their right, and there's no logical reason why any Christian would oppose it.

I myself have been approached by strangers wanting to preach. Some of them get quite offended when I politely tell them "no thanks, I'm already saved". But the fact is, it's a shopping mall, and if they're not there to shop, or to meet people for the purpose of shopping, they're disrespecting the property owner. As Christians, we should welcome such restrictions, not oppose them.

 

[Johnv]

BTW, according to some family friend that live in the area, the Roseville Galleria Mall has had a long-stnading problem with clandestine solicitors, people who come in and try selling merchandise, passing out fliers about local events, handing out advertizing, and prostheletizing. It's not unreasonable for them, therefore, to ban these activities if they feel it's diruptive to the shopping environment.

There's no reason to oppose them doing so.

 

[Salty]

BTW, according to some family friend that live in the area, the Roseville Galleria Mall has had a long-stnading problem with clandestine solicitors, people who come in and try selling merchandise, passing out fliers about local events, handing out advertizing, and prostheletizing. It's not unreasonable for them, therefore, to ban these activities if they feel it's diruptive to the shopping environment.

There's no reason to oppose them doing so.

I agree, but the two talking had mutually agreed -

But why are only politics and religon are banned.
Suppose someone started a conversation about the Super bowl - and lets say, I detest the violence of the game - and the individaul would not give up, then should the mall cops also arrest him
or how about (fill in the blank)

 

[targus]

I agree, but the two talking had mutually agreed -

But why are only politics and religon are banned.

Because those are two topics that total strangers feel free to stop you on the street to attempt to convince you to believe as they believe.

I have yet had a total stranger attempt to influence my opinon of a football team.

Suppose someone started a conversation about the Super bowl - and lets say, I detest the violence of the game - and the individaul would not give up, then should the mall cops also arrest him
or how about (fill in the blank)

Yes, that is harassement. If you take your complaint to the mall security no doubt they would ask that person to leave. If they refused to leave then they would most likely call the police.

 

[Johnv]

I agree, but the two talking had mutually agreed

That doesn't make what he did okay. It' no different than if a peddler comes up to you and tries to sell you something. The fact that you're willing to buy doesn't change the fact that he's peddling. Again, I think the guy meant well, but he was on private property, and he needs to respect the rules. The fact that he's suing certainly doesn't attest to a positive Christian witness.

But why are only politics and religon are banned.

I asked the same question of my niece. According to her, that's not the way it is. The mall's code of conduct prohibits disuptive conduct or attire which includes politics and religon, but are not limited to such. I suspect the reason they include those in the rules expressly is probably because those are the areas they've had issues with the most. I can't say first hand. That's what my niece tells me, so I'll have to take her word on it.

... should the mall cops also arrest him or how about (fill in the blank)

The links are a bit vague, but it doesn't appear he was arrested outright. He was approached by a security guard and instructed to leave. He apparantly agreed to do so, but when he didn't he was placed under citizen's arrest by a security guard, after a scuffle, and charged with tresspassing and battery. The mall chose to drop the charges.

This incident occurred in 2006, but the Pacific Justice Institute decided, literally, to make a case of it by suing the mall. A superior court judge found in favor of the mall in 2008, but the PJI decided to file an appeal. And here we are today.

 

[Marcia]

I feel I need more info on this than what is given in the links I looked at.

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.

In fact, I am so skeptical, that even if someone approached me in public and said they were a Christian, I would stilll tend to wonder if he/she were in some kind of cult (like Int'l Church of Christ, Word Faith church, etc). Maybe because it's happened to me a few times.

 

[Aaron]

A shopping mall is private property.

The mall owner is within his rights to decide what is and is not acceptable behavior / dress in his mall.

Kind of like "no shoes, no shirt - no service".

Apparently this mall owner believes that religious proselytizing will hurt business.

You have the right to free speech - what you do not have is the right to come onto my property against my wishes to exercise your free speech.

If Christians are offended by this mall owner's decision they have the equal right to take their shopping business elsewhere and to encourage others to do the same.

What if the mall owner decided to lease only to businesses owned and operated by white Christian males?

 

[targus]

What if the mall owner decided to lease only to businesses owned and operated by white Christian males?

That would be discrimination on the basis of race and creed which is illegal.

 

[Aaron]

So? If it were illegal for the owner to prohibit "religion speech" on his property, would you think the owner's rights trampled? I believe you would, but you don't think his rights trampled when other forms of discrimination he may wish to exercise are made illegal?

Why?

 

[abcgrad94]

BTW, according to some family friend that live in the area, the Roseville Galleria Mall has had a long-stnading problem with clandestine solicitors, people who come in and try selling merchandise, passing out fliers about local events, handing out advertizing, and prostheletizing. It's not unreasonable for them, therefore, to ban these activities if they feel it's diruptive to the shopping environment.

There's no reason to oppose them doing so.

Right. The mall is a place of business, and the owner's ultimate goal is to make money, not turn the mall into a church or ball stadium or club for indoor walkers.

When I go to the mall, it is to SHOP, not to be approached by strangers wanting my attention. I also do not like to get run over by people power walking in the air-conditioned mall. If it continually happens, I'll take my business elsewhere.

Our mall here is a large, three story structure complete with parking garages, a food court, and various businesses and stores. Sometimes area youth pastors will take their youth groups to the mall to do "surveys" to teach them witnessing, or to have scavenger hunts. Once I was approached by two young men who stopped me and said "He is risen." I guess it was part of a scavenger hunt and they were looking for certain people who answered a certain way. Another time I was stopped by two guys who asked the time, even though there are various clocks throughout the mall.

Sorry, I don't like that. I don't like being approached by strangers who are acting odd, whether it's for a church youth outing or just dope heads trying to steal my purse. Since it's hard to tell the difference sometimes, I'd rather the mall NOT allow this sort of thing. I want to buy what I need and leave, that's it.

 

[targus]

So? If it were illegal for the owner to prohibit "religion speech" on his property, would you think the owner's rights trampled? I believe you would, but you don't think his rights trampled when other forms of discrimination he may wish to exercise are made illegal?

Why?

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.

 

[billwald]

>That would be discrimination on the basis of race and creed which is illegal.

Should it be and if so, why? Seems to me there is a world of difference between public and private property. The legal argument is that having a business license converts private property into quasi-public property. Does this compute?

Second, the worst thing about politically correct legislation is the side effect of the ruination of perfectly good and understandable words. "Discrimination," for example. Most Americans no longer know the difference between prejudice and discrimination as illustrated by this thread. Discrimination is the process of choosing between two things on the basis of individual characteristics. When I was a kid, a person who had "class" was a person of discrimination. "Class," as in "classy." You all understand?

 

[billwald]

>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?

 

[targus]

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?

She did not say that it is acceptable.

She said that she thought that they have the right to do it.