Augusta National is a private club...that is not open to the public....I don't give a damn that he was put out or care where he eats....imo this isn't about O.J., it's about one's right to frequent a public place....

well, there's oj's rights, and then there's the owners rights, the other patrons rights....
was anyone else disturbed by the hoopla of oj being there? did anyone complain? there's a lot more to it than just oj being put out. the man who asked oj to leave owns the property, it's HIS right to refuse service. he knows as a public property owner, that it's a fine line-he chose to ask oj to leave.
so what?

[quote=DaHoss9698]He absolutely has the right to eat there. Would I like to be in there with him? Hell no! But the guy was charged with a crime, he was found not to be guilty. Whether or not a person believes in his guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Bring his old court room team back on this one and they win him the amount of money he owes in his civil judgements. I bet Johnnie Cochran is turning over wanting to do this closing argument....

Now if there was a lot more to it than that's different....My opinion is based soley on the fact that the owner put him out because he didn't like the fact that he got away with murder and someone was giddy because he was there, which was all that was said in the article...if there were complaints, disruptions, disturbance, and the rights of the other patrons were compromised then absolutely he has the right to ask him to leave.....but he cannot and should not do it based on his personal points of view.....

Man fella's this is the best debate I've had in awhile.....

Augusta National is a private club and there are two ways you get in....you get invited or you win the Masters. Actually winning the Masters may only give you playing rights and not an actual membership. This guy's restaurant is not a private establishment where he can choose who comes in and who doesn't based on his beliefs....his business license does not afford him the right to scrutinize based on his personal beliefs, that I guarantee you.

Like I said, I understand the owner's disgust, but....

I think you are wrong. As long as there is no illegal discrimination such as race or religion, there is justification for refusal based on just about anything.

[quote=Samarta]Sam: Johnnie has enough problems right now....I saw the live interview with the owner. He said OJ had eaten there before,and he'd had drinks with him on occasion, but their situation changed when OJ tried to do the book. He tols OJ..."I'm not comfortable with you being here now"...OJ said he understood.."let me get my people and go" Five mins after OJ and party leave Michael Jordan and a group of 30 fill the chairs! No race card to be played. Eddie George and some other NFL types were there also. This will just fade....

If the man owns the restaurant, he can refuse to serve anyone he wishes to so long as it doesn't fall under discrimination statutes. Therefore, as long as he's not refusing to serve him based on his race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation (in certain states), etc then he can do whatever he wants.

Hell, he can wait until the middle of Mother's Day brunch when half the meals are served and kick everyone out on Sunday if he just feels like the restaurant is being put under undue burden.

As not PC as it may be (and as much of a champion I may usually be of those sorts of things), he can refuse service to someone just because he doesn't like them at any hour of any day of the year with no legal consequences unless someone can prove he did it out of discrimination based on a protected class.

Being O.J. Simpson is not a protected class last time I checked. Thank God, too.

Buddy: this is the "Age of Entitlement" where all the downtrodden(PC only) are scooped up and put into a special class....enabled by the Nimrods who would change the Constitution because "We've evolved as a society and culture" Throw that in the air and see if it flies!:eek:

Brian,

I agree 100% and as I said, this isn't about O.J. at all, nor do I think it's about race....my opinion simply is that once he takes out a license to own a public establishment, he cannot decide to serve or not to serve based on his personal beliefs...and had this been anyone but O.J., (who is an egotistical ass on top of being a double murderer, but had sense enough to leave without incident) they would have been on every tv channel is Louisville telling their story and then some civil action attorney lurking in the shadows would come out, draft up a lawsuit, and if the owner doesn't settle or file bankruptcy, they go to court and the owner loses.

Yeah but that all goes to hell when the owner is asked on the stand, "how many white people have you thrown out of your establishment just because?"

[quote=timmgirvan]Oh I know Timm and I am just enjoying the debate, like I said, my argument isn't pro-OJ at all...he killed two people in cold blood and walked. To his credit, it sounds like he respected the owner and his opinion based on their past and honored his request.

I know it is my right to disagree with you....:D

okay.....As you, I'm just voicing my opinion. Not trying to prove anything, I'm just offering up my opinion.....

Yes he can. That's what you're missing. As long as there is no proof that the owner refused to serve them based on a protected class (ie, the Denny's thing from way back with their black customers...) then he can do whatever the hell he wants to with his restaurant.

You can think it was wrong all day long, but the fact remains that he was well well well within his legal bounds to do what he did.

This is about standing up for what is right & not living in fear of litigation, or "taking the chance of being sued" as others have said. Do the right thing! If OJ's slimy lawyer sues and wins (which I doubt), so be it. At least you can sleep at night with your spine intact. The owner did the right thing. End of story.