Gay couple asked to reverse shirt at Dollywood

[fj1200]

Offensive to whom?

Does it matter?

[ConHog]

It was before you joined and gabby logged in for the day...

It would appear, at least at first glance, that the other posters on this board respect my posts more than yours. But eh..

[Missileman]

to their customers?

Holy shit! They've got bonafide clairvoyants employed at Dollywood? S'pose they'll tell me what the next powerball numbers are going to be?

Does it matter?

Uhh, yeah!

[J.T]

If this were a case of a cross-dresser they'd maybe have a claim, as were another gender to dress the same way, it'd be fine.

Depends. Many would consider it obscene or inappropriate for a female to be topless yet acceptable for a male to be shirtless. A woman trying to claim discrimination because they wouldn't let her in wearing 'man clothes' would be bullshit if the reality was she wanted to walk around topless and they said she had to cover her breasts.

They don't have freedom of speech there do they?

No. It's a private enterprise. If I think someone's being too loud, abusive, or inappropriate in my place of business, then I've every right to tell them to leave. Same goes for dress codes and offensive or inappropriate articles of clothing, images, etc.

See that's my problem with the law as written . It's my property shouldn't I have the right to said property, not a customer? But we have it backwards, we are giving customers the right to do business with people who may or may not want to do business with them. Just as an example.

At the time, it was the lesser of two evils- a necessary measure to break the systematic and systemic oppression and discrimination faced by an entire race of people, predominantly in the Southern States.

What a ridiculous argument. If a person is a bigot and doesn't want to do business with say a Muslim, then that isn't hurting that Muslim, he can simply go do business elsewhere

Yes... no harm was done to the Negroes... they should have known their place, eh, piggie?

, and besides why , other than causing trouble, would he WANT to do business with someone who wants nothing to do with him?

Yeah, those damn uppity niggers just wanna cause trouble

People have a right to be offended but not a right to not be offended. The message on the shirt wasn't obscene or vulgar. In fact, it's a cute double entendre.

Cute or not, the persons who run the business deemed it inappropriate, potentially offensive, and a violation of the dress code. They made a perfectly reasonable request of the patrons- turn the shirt inside-out and please be more considerate of others if you visit again. I don't see the problem.

Why should this place be "more inclusive"?

How were they being exclusive?

Was there a sign posted somewhere that said no shirts with any print on them? It's not really a code if ya just make things up as you go along.

Do I really need a sign saying 'Don't be a jackass'? If I show up with a picture of an aborted foetus on my shirt and the words 'Whose body, whose choice?', do they need to already have a posted dress code in order to say 'Yea, that's unnecessarily provocative and offensive. We're gonna have to ask you to turn your shirt inside-out or change your top, asshole. We're all just tryin' to have a good time, jackass'? Or is there some room for common sense and reason here?


As for whoever made this an issue... I nominate them for Stewart's next installment of You're Not Helping

[fj1200]

Uhh, yeah!

Why?

[Missileman]

Or is there some room for common sense and reason here?

Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.

Why?

For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.

[ConHog]

Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.

What part of PRIVATE PROPERTY are you not understanding?


Let me ask you this. Let's say I came to your house and stood on your front lawn screaming obscenities at your wife and children. Now let's say you came out and asked me to leave because I was being offensive, and I responded that to me what I was saying was not offensive. Who should have the call on what is or isn't offensive on YOUR property?

For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.

Irrelevant.

[J.T]

Common sense dictates that a standard of "could be considered offensive" is too vague.

Only if you're too stupid to apply common sense or critical thinking.

[fj1200]

For starters, maybe nobody found her shirt offensive.

So if one person complained you'd support their right to enforce their code?

[Missileman]

What part of PRIVATE PROPERTY are you not understanding?


Let me ask you this. Let's say I came to your house and stood on your front lawn screaming obscenities at your wife and children. Now let's say you came out and asked me to leave because I was being offensive, and I responded that to me what I was saying was not offensive. Who should have the call on what is or isn't offensive on YOUR property?

That's not their policy though. If their policy was to prohibit "anything we, Dollywood, Inc finds offensive" that would be a different story. They are trying to enforce a totally arbitrary standard. Anyone can find any thing offensive...it's in the eye of the beholder as much as beauty.

[ConHog]

That's not their policy though. If their policy was to prohibit "anything we, Dollywood, Inc finds offensive" that would be a different story. They are trying to enforce a totally arbitrary standard. Anyone can find any thing offensive...it's in the eye of the beholder as much as beauty.

It's their freaking property, they don't owe you , or anyone else, an explanation for how they decide what is too offensive.

How fucking hard is that to understand? I mean really.

[Missileman]

So if one person complained you'd support their right to enforce their code?

A person could have a shitload of fun for a whole day making people turn their shirts inside out...worth the price of admission.

[ConHog]

A person could have a shitload of fun for a whole day making people turn their shirts inside out...worth the price of admission.

So people don't have a right to police their customers because some MIGHT complain about silly things?

[Missileman]

So people don't have a right to police their customers because some MIGHT complain about silly things?

They certainly exercised that EXACT right in this case.

[ConHog]

They certainly exercised that EXACT right in this case.

And you would agree that we as Americans can exercise our rights any time we wish, correct?