Jeremy Markle wrote:I think my favorite is the police report from the Milwaukee location.
Milwaukee, Wisc.: Aug. 11, 2006
Upon officers' arrival at a south side Chuck E. Cheese's, they spoke with a male who stated that during a verbal argument, an elderly female threw a shoe at him, according to police reports. He stated the fight started over someone calling his child "ugly." He stated he was not injured, his pride was just hurt.
Jeremy Markle wrote:"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley."
-Robert Burns
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122878081364889613.html?mod=article-outset-box
Paul Mick wrote:"In Milwaukee, the store posted a sign outlining a dress code that prohibits what it calls "gang-style apparel.""
Sounds disturbingly like Fourth Street Live's policy downtown. I frequently find it hard to believe that people can be dense enough to think that banning a certain style of clothing is going to fix their problems.
I also couldn't help but notice that all of the altercations described save the one in Topeka took place in the rust belt up north.
John Greenup wrote:Paul....I frequently find it hard to believe that some people think "gang-style apparel" looks good
Paul Mick wrote:John Greenup wrote:Paul....I frequently find it hard to believe that some people think "gang-style apparel" looks good
While I personally agree with you on that count, I still don't think people should be discriminated against based upon the way they dressed. By "gang-style apparel," they most likely were misguidedly referring to some trends in urban fashion involving oversized clothing, among other things. Many people use the argument that they can easily be used to conceal weapons, but it quickly falls apart when you realize that any article of clothing save a leotard could be similarly utilized. One of my friends has his concealed carry permit, and he is always carrying a full-sized glock, regardless of the clothing that he is wearing. Unless you were previously aware of it, its so well hidden (yet easily accessible) that you would have no idea that he's armed. I suppose I did digress a bit with that last anecdote, but my argument still stands that people should be allowed to dress however they want to (provided they aren't indecently exposing themselves) and not be denied access to a restaurant.
Users browsing this forum: AmazonBot 2, Claudebot and 1 guest