Jeff Ruby thanks Louisville.

Correct me if I am wrong Ron, but I don't think murderers or found-not-guilty murderers are a "protected class"! The person representing Mr. Simpson will have to file discrimination charges based on race, gender, religion or national origin.

I keep seeing that but it keeps bringing me back to the obesity cases with the airlines. I don't know the precedence or outcomes of those proceedings I just want them out there so that someone with knowledge that I lack can inform me more about the subject of big people discrimination because it doesnt fit into those listed.

Okay, this is going way to far. Now it's a cover story on cnn.com.

Story on CNN. Click on the Video

I hate when they say "You messed with the wrong person" It's so stupid.

Jeff Ruby is a F@#%king genius. Planned or not, you couldn't buy this kind of PR.

I may not agree with all that OJ has done, but those of you that are echoing Mr. Ruby's sentiment are not following the rules of this land - innocent until proven guilty - which was not done.

I respect the owners ability to exersize his rights as a private business owner and serve anyone he chooses. However, asking someone to leave should be in the best interest of the restarant, not because of your likes or dislikes of a person. It's not about being perceived innocent or guilty, it's about showing the same treatment to everyone.

As a business owner I simply would have hesitated to cast the first stone, or inject my own personal feelings concerning a situation that none of us really knows about. There is so much that we will never know, and frankly i dont care to know.
He was acquitted by a criminal court in the state of California. Which means he was found "Not Guilty", the court trial ended many years ago, so why are people still judging him. No one has any right to blackball him. Maybe we should just forget the criminal justice system, be a lynch mob and just follow like sheep.
The media plays a big part on how people are viewed. We may not like the outcome of what happened, but that choice was not ours to make. So let it be what it is. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that does not give anyone the right to impose his opinion on the lives of other people. Especially in this case( and in my personal experience), where it seems Mr. Simpson was simply trying to patronize Mr. Rubys establishment. He wasnt asking for special treatment or exceptions, he was a paying customer like any other. Ruby was completly within his rights to ask Mr Simpson to leave, i think we all agree on that. But when owners start selectivly serving people based on disputed public opinion, the consequences are unending.
The man was trying to have a meal and didn't disrespect anyone while he was there. As a paying customer he should have been treated with the respect & dignity that any other patron would be shown; regardless of what the personal opinion of Mr. Ruby is.

..And for those of you that think he recieved special treatment or favoritism at "a certain latin restarant", i can assure you that he most certainly did not. Mr. Simpson got service no better and no worse than any other customer.

...if you dont believe me, park your car illigally. HOPEFULLY ill notice before it gets towed

Madi:
I agree with many of your sentiments. However, Mr. Simpson was found to be liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman and his former wife by a jury of his peers. He has used the laws of Florida to shield his assests that rightfully belong to the Brown and Goldman families. One can argue that the burden of proof is not as stringent in a wrongful death suit as in a criminal trial, but you cannot argue that he was found liable for the death of two human beings. Even if the murder rap is ambiguous, he's a proven spouse abuser and for that alone I'd throw him out of a restaurant if I owned one. Back to food. I had a terrific green tea something or other at Jackson's Organic Coffee today.

I may not agree with all that OJ has done, but those of you that are echoing Mr. Ruby's sentiment are not following the rules of this land - innocent until proven guilty - which was not done.

The issue seems to be whether this was proper of Mr. Ruby in light of the fact that O.J. was acquitted of the crime of murder. Why is that fact alone sufficient to preclude Mr. Ruby from having an opinion about the character of O.J.?
O.J. admitted that he battered his wife before her death. What if Mr. Ruby was adamantly opposed to domestic violence and he refused to serve O.J. because he admitted hitting his wife. Would that be an o.k. reason? At what point does Mr. Ruby have the right to run his own business the way he sees fit?

Just as Chef Lamas had every right to serve O.J. without being criticized for it, Mr. Ruby had every right to refuse to serve him.

Ron says: Just as Chef Lamas had every right to serve O.J. without being criticized for it, Mr. Ruby had every right to refuse to serve him.

I say: Absolutely!

I think we can all agree with ron, I just think it's an interesting debate....

I'm sorry, you can think what you want about OJ, but when he attempted to profit from the brutal murder of his wife, he stopped being a normal, contributing member of society and now deserves whatever treatment comes his way.

Maybe you think he did it, maybe you don't, but the whole "If I Did It" book and tour that was planned and then canceled crossed any decent and moral lines you want to draw.

Good for Mr. Ruby. IMO, OJ is a shinig example of everything wrong with the celebrity culture of our country.

Ron says: Just as Chef Lamas had every right to serve O.J. without being criticized for it, Mr. Ruby had every right to refuse to serve him.

There is no question that all parties involved are within their rights. the dillema is one of business ethics.

Let's also keep in mind that he has failed to pay the judgment that was entered against him in the civil case because he claimed to be broke, but he is flying in town for Derby and trying to eat at Jeff Ruby's.

Let's also keep in mind that he has failed to pay the judgment that was entered against him in the civil case because he claimed to be broke, but he is flying in town for Derby and trying to eat at Jeff Ruby's.

No, lets not keep that in mind, because the point is that a person's reputation should not disqualify them from a dining experience unless it poses an immediate threat to customers and staff. Not even mentioning how many people rack up the credit card debt by eating at nice restarants and taking expensive trips that they do not have the money for.
Are you, Ron, implying that along with my background check i should bring along copies of my bank statement and credit report to be allowed to patronize restarants with this "moral standard"???

The point I think is that Mr. Ruby has the right to refuse to seat anyone he doesn't want to seat as long as his refusal is not based on race, creed, or national origin (or other definitions that Ron is more familiar with). Character (of which Mr. Simpson is devoid IMO) is not on that list. In turn, anyone is allowed to withhold their trade from Jeff Ruby's restaurants if they find his actions objectionable. Some of us will give Ruby's more business and some will stop going based on this event. I'm OK with both responses. What a great country.

Let's also keep in mind that he has failed to pay the judgment that was entered against him in the civil case because he claimed to be broke, but he is flying in town for Derby and trying to eat at Jeff Ruby's.

No, lets not keep that in mind, because the point is that a person's reputation should not disqualify them from a dining experience unless it poses an immediate threat to customers and staff. Not even mentioning how many people rack up the credit card debt by eating at nice restarants and taking expensive trips that they do not have the money for.
Are you, Ron, implying that along with my background check i should bring along copies of my bank statement and credit report to be allowed to patronize restarants with this "moral standard"???

Yes, let's keep that in mind, along with the fact that the owner of a business still has the right to refuse to serve anyone as long as it is not on the grounds of race, religion, gender or disability. A person does not have to pose an immediate "threat" to customers or staff to be refused service.

As for the question about whether I am implying that you need to bring copies of your bank statements with you when you go out to eat, my answer is no since I have no idea who you are or what you mean by that. What would your bank statement have to do with the fact that Jeff Ruby doesn't want O.J. Simpson in his restaurant?

also, what in God's name does the fact that people have credit card debt fro eating out have to do with any of this? seriously.

... because the point is that a person's reputation should not disqualify them from a dining experience unless it poses an immediate threat to customers and staff.

How about if the reputation is one of not paying the tab and sneaking out? How about if it is disrupting the dining experience for other customers? Where is the bright white line? Come one, come all, regardless of ....?

I subscribe to the theory that the owner of a business chooses its customers as it wishes within legal bounds, and the owner accepts the risk of whatever decision he or she makes (and as a small business owner I don't want anyone telling me who I have to put on my books).