PDA

View Full Version : OJ Refused Service at Ruby's Steakhouse, Discrimination Lawsuit Coming


harloo
May 14th, 2007, 06:33 PM
Steakhouse Owner Refuses to Serve O.J. Simpson

Wednesday, May 09, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif

E-MAIL STORY (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270879,00.html#)
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,270879,00.html)
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The owner of an upscale steakhouse in Louisville (javascript:siteSearch('Louisville');) said he asked O.J. Simpson (javascript:siteSearch('O.J. Simpson');) to leave his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby (javascript:siteSearch('Kentucky Derby');) because he is sickened by the attention Simpson still attracts.

"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Jeff Ruby said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "The way he continues to torture the lives of those families ... with his behavior, attitude and conduct."

Simpson, an NFL Hall of Famer and Heisman Trophy winner, was found innocent in 1995 of killing his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman but was found liable in a civil trial that followed.

Ruby — who owns restaurants in Cincinnati, Louisville and Belterra, Ind. — said Simpson, who was in town for the Derby on Saturday, came in with a group of about 12 Friday night and was seated at a table in the back. A customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing Simpson, Ruby said.
"I didn't want that experience in my restaurant," Ruby said, later adding that seeing Simpson get so much attention "makes me sick to my stomach."
He said he went to Simpson's table and said, "I'm not serving you." Ruby said when Simpson didn't respond, he repeated himself and left the room.
(Story continues below)
(http://foxnews.adsonar.com/)
/**/

Ruby said Simpson soon came up to him and said he understood and would gather the rest of his party to leave.
Simpson's attorney, Yale Galanter, said the incident was about race, and he intended to pursue the matter and possibly go after the restaurant's liquor license.

"He screwed with the wrong guy, he really did," Galanter said by telephone Tuesday night.
Ruby said the incident had to do with Simpson's past.
"It was the first time since 1994 he has ever shown any class," Ruby said. "He showed it that night in the restaurant" by leaving quietly.

Ruby said after Simpson left, people in the restaurant started applauding him. He said he has received about 100 positive e-mails since the incident.
The walls of Ruby's restaurants are decorated with celebrity photos. A photo of Simpson and Ruby used to be on display, but Ruby said he took it down after the killings.

*JR*
May 14th, 2007, 10:15 PM
The guy was probably afraid of OJ having access to his steak knives. :scared:

wta_zuperfann
May 15th, 2007, 03:23 AM
The guy was probably afraid of OJ having access to his steak knives. :scared:


LOL!

LoveFifteen
May 15th, 2007, 03:26 AM
Private restaurants are allowed to refuse service to anyone they want. It's not illegal. :shrug:

ico4498
May 15th, 2007, 04:41 AM
not that it'll change the OJ fascination but ...

Attorney: O.J. Won't Sue Kentucky Eatery

May 13, 2007

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- O.J. Simpson won't take legal action against a Louisville restaurateur who booted from a steakhouse on the eve of the Kentucky Derby after all, Simpson's attorney said Saturday.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/n...0,6548405.story (http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/wire/sns-ap-people-simpson,0,6548405.story)

ico4498
May 15th, 2007, 04:44 AM
Private restaurants are allowed to refuse service to anyone they want. It's not illegal. :shrug:

dang, all them folks sitting in at lunch counters all over the USA during the civil rights era ...

btw, depends on what yah call "private" restaurant.

Scotso
May 15th, 2007, 04:56 AM
Private restaurants are allowed to refuse service to anyone they want. It's not illegal. :shrug:

It probably is illegal to discriminate in that way. In any case, the guy was wrong. He's not judge, jury, and executioner in this country. His job is to feed people, he should stick to it.

mykarma
May 15th, 2007, 12:31 PM
dang, all them folks sitting in at lunch counters all over the USA during the civil rights era ...

btw, depends on what yah call "private" restaurant.
:worship: I was thinking the same thing.

Infiniti2001
May 15th, 2007, 01:14 PM
It probably is illegal to discriminate in that way. In any case, the guy was wrong. He's not judge, jury, and executioner in this country. His job is to feed people, he should stick to it.

I agree, although I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for O.J.:tape:

Wigglytuff
May 15th, 2007, 02:30 PM
dang, all them folks sitting in at lunch counters all over the USA during the civil rights era ...

btw, depends on what yah call "private" restaurant.

dont be silly, this is not about race.

any store can ask any customer to leave if they are causing a disturbance, or if you just dont like the guy. we had a lady in the shop with a loud rude and nasty dog. do you really believe that just because she was black we cant ask her to leave? :lol: :lol: :lol: well you can believe that if you want. but you would be wrong. we did ask her and her animal to leave and would do it again.

ico4498
May 15th, 2007, 03:13 PM
dont be silly, this is not about race.

any store can ask any customer to leave if they are causing a disturbance, or if you just dont like the guy. we had a lady in the shop with a loud rude and nasty dog. do you really believe that just because she was black we cant ask her to leave? :lol: :lol: :lol: well you can believe that if you want. but you would be wrong. we did ask her and her animal to leave and would do it again.

where did i say it was about race?

its a response to the specific comment, about private restaurants refusing servive to anyone ...

LoveFifteen
May 15th, 2007, 03:39 PM
Why did someone have to bring up the Civil Rights Movement as if I had criticized it? :rolleyes:

If you own a private establishment, you are allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time. :shrug:

I'm not saying that makes it morally right to refuse to serve certain races or religions, but it's not illegal.

ico4498
May 15th, 2007, 03:48 PM
Why did someone have to bring up the Civil Rights Movement as if I had criticized it? :rolleyes:

If you own a private establishment, you are allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time. :shrug:

I'm not saying that makes it morally right to refuse to serve certain races or religions, but it's not illegal.

the bolded part isn't true if by "private establishment" yah mean privately owned but open to the general public. lemme make this clear, i don't think Ruby refusing OJ service is racial discrimination!

but, the Civil Rights Act does provide guidelines for refusing service;

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:


(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;


(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the

premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;


(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and


(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.


(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.


(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.


(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

lizchris
May 15th, 2007, 05:57 PM
Private restaurants are allowed to refuse service to anyone they want. It's not illegal. :shrug:

It isn't a private resturaunt if the establishment serves the public.

But OJ will have a hard time prooving this one because after he left, his table was given to Michael Jordan and his party.

LoveFifteen
May 15th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Any restaurant is allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time. It is not illegal.

What is illegal is refusing to serve someone based solely on race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. If you own a restaurant, you can refuse to serve anyone as long as you can demonstrate that you didn't refuse to serve them based on their race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.

What the man did to OJ Simpson was perfectly legal and well within his rights as a restaurant owner.

ico4498
May 15th, 2007, 06:43 PM
What is illegal is refusing to serve someone based solely on race, sex, color, religion, or national origin. If you own a restaurant, you can refuse to serve anyone as long as you can demonstrate that you didn't refuse to serve them based on their race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.

i think yah got it ...

'course this wasn't what you said earlier ... " If you own a private establishment, you are allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time. :shrug:

I'm not saying that makes it morally right to refuse to serve certain races or religions, but it's not illegal."

peace!

LoveFifteen
May 15th, 2007, 06:54 PM
It isn't a private resturaunt if the establishment serves the public.

Yes, it is a private restaurant. It's not owned by the government or the public. It's owned by one man, a private individual.

I guess I should have been more clear and stated "privately-owned restaurant".

Helen Lawson
May 15th, 2007, 06:56 PM
I just wish someone could find out if the nutty blonde with him was Christie Prody, my own personal hero. I'm curious if they're back together.

meyerpl
May 15th, 2007, 07:39 PM
I think they refused to serve O.J. 'cause he's always leaving his DNA all over the place wherever he goes.

Apoleb
May 15th, 2007, 09:26 PM
Yes, the owner isn't under any obligation to serve customers he doesn't like. Ofcourse as long as the reason for rejection isn't related to the customer's race, sex.. bla bla bla. I'm thinking OJ is going to have a hard time proving that the owner sent him out because of his race.

Apoleb
May 15th, 2007, 09:31 PM
It probably is illegal to discriminate in that way. In any case, the guy was wrong. He's not judge, jury, and executioner in this country. His job is to feed people, he should stick to it.

hmm, no. The guy is free to accept the people he wants in his restaurant. If he thinks OJ is a disgusting person, then it's his full right to refuse to serve him. That's a bit communist I have to say, to think that he has a duty to feed people. It's a free-initated service and he's free to conduct it the way he wants, as long as he doesn't dicriminate on sex, ethnic origin, race...etc (unfortunately, the white house wants to veto the sexuality part)

mykarma
May 15th, 2007, 09:32 PM
Why did someone have to bring up the Civil Rights Movement as if I had criticized it? :rolleyes:

If you own a private establishment, you are allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time. :shrug:

I'm not saying that makes it morally right to refuse to serve certain races or religions, but it's not illegal.
If your statement reminded me of the Civil Rights Movement why shouldn't I be able to bring it up. Plus, I don't recall anyone saying that you were criticizing it.

ico4498
May 15th, 2007, 11:21 PM
If your statement reminded me of the Civil Rights Movement why shouldn't I be able to bring it up. Plus, I don't recall anyone saying that you were criticizing it.

that statement should remind yah of the Civil Rights Movement; the part about refusing to serve 'certain races and religions' in your private establishment is illegal because of the Civil Rights Act.

Wigglytuff
May 16th, 2007, 03:57 AM
Why did someone have to bring up the Civil Rights Movement as if I had criticized it? :rolleyes:

If you own a private establishment, you are allowed to refuse service to anyone at any time. :shrug:

I'm not saying that makes it morally right to refuse to serve certain races or religions, but it's not illegal.

no you are wrong here as well.

if it is based on race, religion or gender it IS ILLEGAL to deny services if that is your basic. no restarnat may deny food based on RACE, they can have dress codes, codes of conduct, or deny someone for another reason. but if you are saying its legal to deny someone service based only on race you are 100% wrong and could not be more wrong if you tried.

Wigglytuff
May 16th, 2007, 04:04 AM
Yes, the owner isn't under any obligation to serve customers he doesn't like. Ofcourse as long as the reason for rejection isn't related to the customer's race, sex.. bla bla bla. I'm thinking OJ is going to have a hard time proving that the owner sent him out because of his race.

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

ico4498
May 16th, 2007, 04:16 AM
well then the comment about the civil rights movement is even more retarded. you know good and well what was meant and if you didnt, you cant have be thinking today.

you're crazy. i sincerely dunno how to respond to the madness ...

peace.

Volcana
May 16th, 2007, 04:16 AM
What's fascinating about this is the owner. He did NOT object to serving Simpson. At least at first. What he objected to was a completely differnt customer becoming 'giddy' at seeing Simpson. Then he took it out on Simpson.

The hero worship of celebrities inthe USA is kind of sickening, but to me, this is functionally the same as refesuing to serve Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith, because of other customers becoming 'giddy' around them. Simpson was found 'not guilty' by a jury of his peers. I don't now the restaurant owner's actual motivations, but I do know that virtually every other month the Innocence Project (http://www.innocenceproject.org/)frees people who were wrongly convicted. Sometimes after decades.

In other words, just because you' personally convinced that somebody's guilty does NOT make it so.

I'd simply have served Simpson's party and called it a day. He's not my idea of a role model, but he's not Dick Cheney or something. I've always believed that BOTH juries got it right. The preponderance of the evidence says Simpson was guilty, but NOT 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. Thesimple-minded don't care for that kind of nuance in life, but there you have it.

ico4498
May 16th, 2007, 05:10 AM
Ruby, by his account, refused service 'cause he believed Simpson was a murderer. yes, i get Volcana's point about celebrity worship but he's booting OJ because in his mind, and a significant portion of America, Simpson is guilty. OJ had a picture on the wall previously, i don't imagine his previous visits made other customers less 'giddy'.

there is no case on the books but had OJ pursued legal action, racial bias would have been a hard sell. denial of civil liberty, perhaps, in a trial w/o jury.

the unresolved question for me remains, you're found 'not guilty' criminally ... can folks still legally refuse yah service based on their personal, yet unproven, convictions about your guilt?

cursory reading of the CRA would suggest Ruby's within his rights ... but the CRA does leave a lot up to interpretation.

Wigglytuff
May 16th, 2007, 05:23 AM
you're crazy. i sincerely dunno how to respond to the madness ...

peace.

yeah you are a total fake and intellectually lazy and decided that you were beneath me, thats why i deleted that post.

so yeah no need to respond.

ico4498
May 16th, 2007, 05:28 AM
yeah you are a total fake and intellectually lazy and decided that you were beneath me, thats why i deleted that post.

so yeah no need to respond.

you're crazy.

hwanmig
May 16th, 2007, 07:05 AM
Things could have been worse for him, if he had been convicted he would be tossing salads in the slammer.