Be aware, I am a staunch believer in the constitution.
He was on private property.
A business has the right to determine what is proper code of conduct on their property.
Just because this is "an establishment opened to the public for purposes of entertainment, commerce, etc" does not make it a "typical forum / venue for public speech".
In their code of conduct, it states, no solicitation. I have heard, haven't seen, no "religious solicitation".
This is in Minnesota. Let's apply an equivalent look at this. There's mooslims there. Do you want the mall filled with people trying to convert you to the the kid diddler religion?
He wasn't trying to convert people?
Well... facts need to be cleared on this. He allegedly was there priorly and WAS religiously soliciting. Left when asked, and returned with this shirt.
This shirt is 'not soliciting', BUT... applied equally, their policy does not constrict free speech, when based on Time Place and Manner, you do not have "free speech" on their property.
Just saying, offering an opposing, ie defendant's view on what this is going to look like in court.
Here's the thing.
Be aware, I am a staunch believer in the constitution.
He was on private property.
A business has the right to determine what is proper code of conduct on their property.
Just because this is "an establishment opened to the public for purposes of entertainment, commerce, etc" does not make it a "typical forum / venue for public speech".
In their code of conduct, it states, no solicitation. I have heard, haven't seen, no "religious solicitation".
This is in Minnesota. Let's apply an equivalent look at this. There's mooslims there. Do you want the mall filled with people trying to convert you to the the kid diddler religion?
He wasn't trying to convert people?
Well... facts need to be cleared on this. He allegedly was there priorly and WAS religiously soliciting. Left when asked, and returned with this shirt.
This shirt is 'not soliciting', BUT... applied equally, their policy does not constrict free speech, when based on Time Place and Manner, you do not have "free speech" on their property.
Just saying, offering an opposing, ie defendant's view on what this is going to look like in court.
Private companies rule our society and I guess that’s why our society is screwed in essence.