It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

T-shirt gets Van Nuys woman kicked out of federal building

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 



Yes and it needs to be stopped maybe if this lout of a guard gets fired he can be the first of many examples.


I hate to tell you this, but the tide is going in the other direction in this country. The police-state is here. If this guy gets fired, I'll be surprised. Maybe they'll post him in a different building, but even that is just to placate the public and has no real meaning.



I notice how you highlighted the "Unlimited power" but left out the rest of the sentence that says "to question with the absence of probable cause requirements".


So? A guard doesn't need probable cause. Even a cop needs that and they get away with shooting a guy 50 times.




posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:11 PM
link   
What a fascist country you guys must live in.

Can't even cope with differences as tiny as someone simply wearing the word lesbian. lol.
Oh no, my eyes! That word is in the dictionary too, I had to rip that whole page out! lol... give me a break.

If you seriously are afraid of introducing children to the knowledge of sexuality, then might I suggest you keep your children away from dictionaries, encyclopedias, sex ed classes, and the general public?

What are you really afraid of? That your child might come to the realization that they too might actually have been gay all along?

Sheltering them from a word isn't going to prevent that. If they're gay, they're gay. They won't know what to call it, but they'll sure as heck still practice it when they get old enough to want to.

But go ahead, shelter your kids from the world... they'll make excellent uneducated minions for MY kids.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Who appointed the 'guard' to be some sort of moral and standards policeman.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong or if it's different in the USA, (and I am wrong quite frequently!), but wouldn't it have been the guards remit to ensure order within the building he was employed in.
Surely a matter such as this, if suspected to be outside of the law, should have been in the jurisdiction of a law enforcement officer, not a security guard?

The guard has imposed his own opinion and bigotry upon someone else.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Do we twist the meaning of words to match our causes?
Is sexuality about learning what the words gay or lesbian mean?

Sexuality is almost something sacred. At least it should have been understood as such by our most "progressive" societies in our planet. (LOL)

Now that I think more about this there is nothing progressive about homosexuality anyway. First time this kind of social debate rose it was 2000 plus years ago during the Athenian reign. They too had similar debates about how legal homosexuality should be and they first introduced the twisting of the meanings of words to match the intended cause, although they made the first laws against homosexuality and they were harsh. I can hardly call the views of homosexuals progressive. It is as old as time itself probably and people were never asked to "choose". There is no choice to be made. It was common sense that it was just tolerable and nothing more about it. Now it seems it must be elevated to the status of determining the possible outcome of a vote, its a "progressive" vote. Give me a break! rofl.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


You don't have to be breaking any law to be kicked out of a building by a security guard here in the States. As a guard, I can tell you to leave the building any time I feel like it, without any "reason" at all. Now that doesn't mean that you can't go over my head to be allowed back into the building at another time, but you could be arrested for failing to comply during initial contact. It's entirely at the discretion of the guard.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Wow, so if a guard just takes a personal dislike to you for any reason whatsoever he / she can simply ask you to leave even though no law has even been suspected of being broken?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


That's exactly correct. I don't have to state any reason, but of course, I could come up with plenty. I could say a simple body gesture was threatening. Or that your demeanor was suspicious. In other words, even if you just look at me wrong, you're looking for trouble.

EDIT to add: What a guard cannot do is arrest someone who has not committed a crime, the police can. But of course, it's not hard to push someone's buttons enough to get them to be "disorderly" which is a misdemeanor that you can be arrested for.



[edit on 8/28/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   
From a little googling I find this

As a security guard, you are NOT a peace officer! Security guards do not have the same job duties as peace officers; the same training; or the same powers as peace officers, according to the law.

Security personnel in the U.S. derive their powers not from the state, as public police officers do, but from a contractual arrangement that give them 'Agent of the Owner' powers. This includes a nearly unlimited power to question with the absence of probable cause requirements that frequently dog public law enforcement officers, provided that the security officer does not tread on the rights and liberties of others as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This does not come without checks, however, as private security personnel do not enjoy the benefit of civil protection, as public law enforcement officers do, and can be sued directly for false arrests and illegal actions if they commit such acts.

The key words in the above is "provided that the security officer does not tread on the rights and liberties of others as guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

So, the question then becomes, did this security guard tread on the rights and liberties of this woman?

Hay hay, now I have a bit more information of what MY rights are if a security guard decides for whatever reason that I MIGHT have "looked" at him/her wrong.



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


Your "civil rights" aren't worth the paper they're printed on. The guard in this case could have easily said that the woman's shirt might have caused a disturbance, which throws her "right" to wear it right out the window.

The wrong look can easily be interpreted as a terroristic or violent threat.

EDIT to add: By the way, you should credit your source, and post in in proper format as an "external source."

I believe the source you have referenced is Wikipedia.



[edit on 8/28/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The guard in this case could have easily said that the woman's shirt might have caused a disturbance, which throws her "right" to wear it right out the window.
[edit on 8/28/0808 by jackinthebox]


Its funny because the only person who caused a disturbance is the security guard himself...and now he can find himself being sued. Don't really seem like "Unlimited power" to me. *shrugs*

Again your "interpretation" is quite amusing, you honestly think because my shirt "might" cause a disturbance it removes my right to wear it if You a security guard says so and I'm shopping in the mall you secure?



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 



Its funny because the only person who caused a disturbance is the security guard himself...and now he can find himself being sued.


People get sued all the time. She would never win. The guard was completely within his rights to exercise his own discretion. Especially if the post orders designate visitor attire as being within the realm of his duties. Would you sue the quickie-mart for them not allowing you to buy beer and gas without your shirt and shoes?



Again your "interpretation" is quite amusing, you honestly think because my shirt "might" cause a disturbance it removes my right to wear it if You a security guard says so and I'm shopping in the mall you secure?


That's exactly correct. In fact, my local mall is now openly practicing age discrimination on the weekends, as another example. Try snapping pictures with a big old camera the next time your in a "public" mall and see what happens.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
But that's exactly what the thread is about. It DOES interfere in your daily life when somebody walks into a public building with the word "Lesbian" on their shirt. I take offense at that, because I don't want to know what her sexual preferences are and I don't expect to have my children informed of some stranger's sexual desires in a public place.


I'd bet you wouldn't be offended if someone had a t-shirt that said HETEROSEXUAL.COM" or STRAIGHT.COM

Beyond that, I don't particularly want to know someone's political affiliation. If someone had a shirt that said "Conservative," "Liberal" or "Libertarian," or "Socialist," should they prohibited from wearing that shirt just because I don't want to know?

[edit on 29-8-2008 by ClintK]



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I walked into a supermarket one night deliberately wearing the shirt "Harry is a Pothead and the Sorceror is Stoned". A little kid saw the shirt and yelled to his mother "Mummy look! Harry Potter!!". The mother looked around, saw what was actually written on my shirt and hurried her child into the next isle.

A few minutes later a guard comes up to me, grin on his face, and asks if I wouldn't mind taking off the shirt or covering it up. He pointed out that he personally didn't find it offensive but that the woman had complained and they just wanted no trouble caused. I agreed with the guard and put my jumper on.

You may be asking the point of that story. My point is that while I was wearing something that was considered offensive by some, others did not find it offensive and we acted together to form a resolution that pleased all. This was not done in the case outlined by the OP. The wearer was subjected to ridicule and embarrassment instead. The guard acted out of his own dislike of the shirt, not for any other reason.

PS: mythatsabigprobe your name offends me. Please make your way to your nearest convenient Police Station and submit yourself to arrest.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
It's been mentioned already. And yes it is funny, but you know that whole alien probe thing...



Really? I missed that.



Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
As for your other points, as usual, your educated and reasoned response leaves no room for debate. Bugger..




That's actually very nice of you.

Thank you.


I like you guys



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Well it is all said and done now. I dont think she will bother with any kind of charges, as since she was waiting for social security, she probably cant afford a lawsuit at this time. she will just come back with a different T-Shirt. How unfortunate.

If I were a witnessing bystander, I would have jumped into the mix.



posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Well it is all said and done now. I dont think she will bother with any kind of charges, as since she was waiting for social security, she probably cant afford a lawsuit at this time. she will just come back with a different T-Shirt. How unfortunate.

If I were a witnessing bystander, I would have jumped into the mix.


Actually the article states "she headed for a line to pick up a Social Security card for her son"

A social security card, something every American has to have! Though now days you usually have to file the forms before you even leave the hospital when a child is born.

I sincerely hope a lawyer steps up to take the case pro bono.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by amazed]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
My apologies, I did not read the article with my full attention. But as I say, I think people need to stop being scared and get involved when you see injustice happening.

This could technically be classified as a hate crime. The word lesbian is a legitamate word in the English language with no obscene meaning tied to it. It is a noun, that can either describe a geographical location as described earlier, or a specific type of person. Saying a person is a lesbian is just like saying a person is black, white, hispanic or asian.

By refusing entry to this individual for havign an article of clothing that stated a noun directed to a website. That is a judgement based on the person in question's lifestyle choice/ideology. It is not a judgment based on law or any legal decree, but on the personal feelings of the gaurd and his biased feelings against people of that group.

therefore I declare that this gaurd be judged with a hate crime, and if I were in the scene at that time I would have called the police with the fact that a hate crime is being committed.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



Wrong, the entire issue of homosexuality is an abomination and should be removed from society everywhere. The t-shirt was noting more than "trolling" for vile homosexual desires. She should have been jailed, tried, then stoned................as should all who practice homosexuality.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by heliosprime
 


You have the right to your opinion, as does everyone else. I think in this thread though you will find the pro outweighs the against.

All you are showing is your clear ignorance of homosexuality and the people who choose to live that lifestyle. Personally, while I am a straight, married man, I have several gay and lesbian friends whom I think absolutely no different of just because of their sexual preferences.



Wrong, the entire issue of homosexuality is an abomination and should be removed from society everywhere.


That is your opinion, not the opinion of the majority.



The t-shirt was noting more than "trolling" for vile homosexual desires.


Or advertising a cause she believes in.



She should have been jailed, tried, then stoned................as should all who practice homosexuality.


Really? Who made you judge, jury and executioner? Not me, I know that much. Perhaps it is you who should be jailed, tried and stoned for your total and utter ignorance of anything that rattles your redneck lifestyle.




top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join