No steak for O.J.

Health concerns, I believe (at least on the no shoes). There has been a good amount of debate on the no shoes thing. I'm not sure about the shirt thing; it probably has to do with public decency (like, what if girls decide to go no shirt?) and/or health issues. Not sure about that one.

Shot - thanks.

 

"No shirt, no shoes...no dice."

"Right. Learn it. Know it. Live it."

 

The Public Accommodations Act of 1964 is the single most important piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. I remember when all blacks were refused service by restaurants in the south. I guess the law's not that absolute anymore. Is it OK to refuse to serve Pacman Jones? As for OJ's expulsion not having to do with race, how many black restaurant owners would have kicked OJ out? Have you ever noticed that nearly all of the people who really HATE OJ are white?

 

Very few, if any.

Of course. Many people dislike OJ, and think he is guilty. I believe he is guilty and I don't like him. But the real venom towards him comes from indignant whites. I don't blame them, but it would be incorrect to try and pretend that it is not the case that this demographic is where the deep animosity towards OJ comes from.

Two wrongs don't make a right. OJ 'walking' doesn't make up for or 'even the scales' for all the white perpetrators who skated in the past while disbelieving blacks watched in horror. That said, the justice system has spoken on the matter, and no private citizen has the right to take matters into his or her own hands to 'mete out' justice to OJ. And they can't do it through a restaurant which they own that serves the general public. It doesn't matter how many 'supportive emails' the guy gets for kicking out OJ, what he did is legally dubious, at best.

 

I never thought of him as black, just as a football player and actor. Until his attorneys played the race card at the trial, I never paid attention to it.
asshole knows no color...

 

Thanks, Buck.

 

As usual, the only people to whom colour matters are the ones who want to use it to throw racism charges around like confetti.

 

Did you miss the requirement that the case be tried on national TV?

As for the picture, why don't you also post Ron and Nicole post-mortem? Or maybe a JFK autopsy pic? Geez....

 

This is irrelevant. So what, so the guy in Louisville knew about the case in Cali. What, that gives him immunity to kick out OJ because OJ's trial was on national TV? I guess that new caveat will have to be added to the legal code. '"Arbitrary discrimination" is illegal EXCEPT when the case was tried on national tv.' The whole country knows Ted Kennedy was involved in an incident which resulted in the death of a woman; is he barred from being served in Louisville steakhouses, too?

I'm not someone who just capriciously throws around the race card. I have taken many writers to task on SJ for what I saw as just that capriciousness in playing that card. But to deny the history of this country and its psychological effect on different groups and their attitudes is either naivety or ignorance. You think it's a coincidence that blacks and whites have different opinions on OJ? Or on Bonds? Or on Lance Armstrong?

The reason why a lot of blacks were willing to let OJ 'skate' is to get back at those - and their morally bankrupt brethern - whom Buck showed in his pulled picture. That is, they wanted to 'mete out' justice, just like the restaurant owner wanted to do. Both parties' response is understandable. The difference is that blacks' general reactions to OJ isn't illegal (celebrating, etc.); the restaurateur's action possibly is.

 

Sure, many whites have gotten off scot-free for killing blacks. So have many black people. And whites and blacks have both gotten away with killing whites before.

And it's true that the O.J. situation may very well be about race to a lot of people. That doesn't mean it's right, or that everybody sees it that way. It doesn't necessarily mean that, if you think he should have been found guilty, it's because you're white and racist. Or that only real black people (as opposed to the so-called "oreos") agreed he should have been acquitted.

Too much generalization.

 

The national TV reference was a flippant remark about the picture buckweaver posted and was based on Junkie's question to you. Nowhere did I say it didn't matter if it didn't happen on national TV. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though.

As I said above, too much generalization. A bi-i-i-g part of society's problem in getting over old hurdles.

Don't care. I'm tired of being held hostage by people/groups/guilt-trippers who want me to apologize for things I had nothing to do with. I'm tired of being encouraged to feel shame and remorse because I'm a white, English-speaking male from a Protestant background and because my forebears ran roughshod over blacks, Indians, women, Catholics, you name it.

Things happened. They cannot be changed. All we can do is learn from the past, try to be better people than our ancestors were and set good examples for our descendants.