Whoa!! One must really be careful with something like this. I think that with the issue of the Crossgates Mall, the question is, "is this space public or private?" From the article, it looks like the ACLU might be about to go into the legal and constitutional aspects of that.

The immediate reaction that most people have is that this is an abridgment of the T-shirt wearers' freedom of speech. Indeed, that was my first reaction when I read the story. But—if the Crossgates Mall is private property, and if they in no way receive government funding (government grants or subsidies, Small Business Administration loans, etc.), then it's my understanding that, like it or not, they are within their constitutional rights to ban the wearing of such T-shirts in the mall. Local ordinance may say otherwise, but it isn't really a constitutional issue. The government is forbidden to abridge your freedom of speech, but private citizens are not.

In your own house, or in your own place of business, you are not required to put up with speech or behavior that you—for whatever reason—find disagreeable or unacceptable. To ask someone to refrain or take it elsewhere is within your constitutional rights. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a policy of many places of business, and I can't see where it runs afoul of the Constitution. Matters of dress are included in this: for example, many upscale restaurants won't let a man in without a jacket and tie. Even if he feels he's making a social statement.

Don Firth