RE: Our kickin' sitchyashun

[eevans@moscow.com]

Alan Partridge wrote:
> So if I read between the lines properly...

Eh? You did not read between the lines properly. At all. Not even a little. You 
did demonstrate an amazing ability to make things up about people you don't 
know. I don't mind if you battle against your own inventions, just don't drag 
me into it.

Anyway, you _did_ bristle against my little thought experiment (quite a lot!). 

So here it is again in the generalized form. A scenerio to think about, that I 
have no intention to act out.

What if a bunch of guys heckled a fellow out of a diner because they disagreed 
with his religion? Legal? Intolerant?

<snnnnnnnnnip>

Cheers,
-Ed Evans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed [mailto:eevans@moscow.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:46 PM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: Our kickin' sitchyashun
> 
> I don't know about that.. What if a bunch of Aryans heckled a Jewish guy
> out 
> of a diner? Legal? Maybe so.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Ed Evans
> 
> On Thursday 26 September 2002 17:27, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
> > Lucy,
> > If you look to Idaho Code 67-5902(5) for the definition of person, it
> reads
> > "Person" includes an individual, association, corporation, joint
> > apprenticeship committee, joint-stock company, labor union, legal
> > representative, mutual company, partnership, any other legal or
> commercial
> > entity, the state, or any governmental entity or agency;
> >
> > I believe the Act applies to employers and proprietors, not
> individuals
> > such as the diners in a restaurant.  While in the Bertollini example
> the
> > diners were rude, I doubt they are liable under the Act.
> >
> > However, I urge you not to take my word for this, and should you
> choose to
> > heckle a fellow diner, do not claim that I said it would be okay.
> This is
> > just an estimate, and your results may vary.
> >
> > Sunil Ramalingam
> >
> > From: "Lucy Zoe" <lucyzoe@moscow.com>
> >
> > >Reply-To: <lucyzoe@moscow.com>
> > >To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
> > >Subject: RE: Our kickin' sitchyashun
> > >Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:28:13 -0700
> > >
> > >Ron wrote:
> > >As I understand it, the proprietor didn't evict him-- the other
> diners
> > >just
> > >gave him a hard time verbally until he left (exercised their free
> > >speech?).
> > >
> > >Lucy says:
> > >You'll notice Ron, that the ACT doesn't say For a *proprietor,*
> > >it says For a *person.*  Therefore, it doesn't really make a
> difference
> > >*who* denies another individual according to the Act.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.net/