From: "John Beamish" 

But if he removed his t-shirt then surely the "No shirt, no shoes, no
service" rule would apply.

"Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
news:3e667c15$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> http://www.dailygazette.com/main.shtml#storyA08D0004
>
>
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=112222&category=REGIO
> N&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=3/5/2003
>
> two local papers on the action. Not that much different from the Reuters
> article
>
> The first mentions some of the legal issues.Based on the first story I
think
> Downs may have decided he wanted to be arrested after they asked him to
> remove the shirt or leave.
>
> Still I think the Mall should not have done what they did.
>
> Bob Lewis
>
> "John Cuccia"  wrote in message
> news:qcsc6vocilek92t3l6jfsb6bljo8n9v97s{at}4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:55:39 -0500, Gary Wiltshire 
> > wrote:
> >
> > >You don't know what you're talking about.  The local press, unlike the
> > >slanted Reuters quote,
> >
> > How do I know that Reuter's slanted and the local press is not?  I'd
> > bet that the mall pours lots of money into local coffers and spends
> > plenty of advertising money with local newpapers.
> >
> > At any rate, if the arrestees were harassing people, they should have
> > been evicted.  If not, then the mall/guards were in the wrong.
> >
> > >Also, Crossgates Mall is not a "public place" but
private property and
> > >there is plenty of legal precedent to back that distinction up.
> >
> > You can't refuse to serve people because of religion, gender, race or
> > sexual orientation, I do not believe that discrimination based on
> > political persuasion is permitted, either.
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4