1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

No steak for O.J.

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Bob Slydell, May 9, 2007.

  1. Double J

    Double J Active Member

    Scott Peterson wasn't an internationally known superstar athlete with an all-American good guy image that he had been publicly showcasing for 30 or so years immediately prior to the violent death of his wife.

    This bears repeating:

  2. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    Your personal caring or not caring is irrelevant. Those who have ancestors who were lynched care. They don't care that you don't care. That you don't care is why many rooted for OJ's acquittal.

    That's correct. "Things happened." Here's something that 'happened:' OJ was acquitted, and this idiot restaurateur couldn't let it go. He tried to be the law instead of accept what a jury had decided. That's what this thread is about, remember that. If you want to do the whole 'things happened, let it go' speech, seek him out, please. And you picked up the "did you forget about the national television 'requirement'" to buck; please don't try to play victim to me. You hate playing the 'victim,' right?

    You and Junkie are, IMO, incredibly ignorant. You also seem self-focused, as well as self-pitying. You are focused on what is difficult for you, and not what might be difficult for others. That's too bad. It's not, however, surprising. I understand where you're coming from, but you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend the other side of the argument without being cocooned by feelings of guilt. Hopefully you will move beyond this point.

    I don't have time to educate anyone anymore on this thread tonight, as I've already provided at least one legal link and gone over several legal concepts in this thread. You can only lead the horse so close to the pond. Peace.
  3. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    He is an idiot. A jury found OJ not guilty, and this man's arbitrary discrimination DOES NOT supersede the findings of a jury. PERIOD. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPT?!?!?! You and I don't get to apply our own version of justice - DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?!?!? Doing so runs you into conflicts with the justice system, which tends to take its work seriously.

    This is not the wild west. We do not live in a society based on frontier justice. This guy is allowed to think whatever he wants about OJ's guilt or innocence; he is NOT permitted to arbitrarily discriminate based on his feelings.

    Educate yourself on the law, please. This is embarrassing. I can't believe you made that statement about him being 'well within his rights.' Farcical.

    One of the main reasons the law exists - particularly this branch of law - is to keep fools like you and this owner from violating others' rights. Again, your type of view is what led to lynchings. I am sickened and appalled at the unbelievable ignorance this thread has brought out.
  4. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    Just wanted to preserve you equating Junkie's beliefs with "leading to lynchings."
  5. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    And I want to preserve your continuing ignorance, Doc. When I feeling like taking a moment to amuse myself, I'll educate you.

    Again. I always wonder if you are just trolling for attention or if you are really as intellect-challenged as you appear to be. I used to think the former, but I'm now leaning towards the latter. Comprehension just seems to elude you.
  6. Chi City 81

    Chi City 81 Guest

    You want to figure out a way for us to match our intellects, I'm game. I'm secure enough about my intelligence to not have to constantly brag about it like you and your brother. Of course, I'm sure we all didn't have to take almost a decade to graduate college like you did.
  7. PopeDirkBenedict

    PopeDirkBenedict Active Member

    Sorry, Junkie, but that is not the law. Under federal accomodations law, you cannot simply say, "I refuse to serve you" unless there is a valid reason (you are obviously drunk, you are causing a disruption, you smell like a meat rendering plant). Rok is right on this one.
  8. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    Doc - No, you are beneath me. I can't trifle with a fool such as you. Sorry. You have demonstrated your ignorance repeatedly. You are what is known as 'light work.' You are not a challenge, and I have nothing to gain from intellectual 'competition' with you. You are not worthy. Hulk Hogan doesn't wrestle Spike Dudley. You are, however, more than a match for me in googling, alternate identities and trolling. In those areas, I have no hope of contesting you. You are without a doubt my better.

    Junkie - You have now fallen into Doc's category of mental challangedness. Please refer to post #20 to see just how incredibly ignorant you are. Like Doc, you are out of your depth and beyond your ken. To put it plainly, you don't know what you're talking about.
  9. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    Had to alter that last post to include Junkie's relevant quote that I was responding to.
  10. cake in the rain

    cake in the rain Active Member

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    If you are a place of public accommodation, race is most definitely NOT a reason for denying service.

    That's not some liberal message-board lament. That is THE LAW, and has been for quite a long time. The fact that you don't know that calls into question much of what you say.
  11. Hulk Hogan doesn't wrestle Spike Dudley?
  12. ifilus

    ifilus Well-Known Member

    The restaurant owner can easily claim that Simpson's infamy was unwittingly "causing a disruption" on the premises that possibly could endanger his other customers -- not necessarily because OJ is a double murderer, but because he is publicly perceived as a double murderer whose very presence could negatively effect the evening's business. Or he can just claim he thought Juice was plastered.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page