Clearwater chili restaurant tells Casey Anthony jurors they are not welcome

cassanova · #1 07-07-2011, 04:27 PM

Clearwater chili restaurant tells Casey Anthony jurors they are not welcome

LEARWATER, Fla. - At the Skyline Chili in Clearwater, a simple hand-written note on the door is evidence of the controversy surrounding the Casey Anthony verdict.

It reads "Pinellas County jurors NOT welcome!!!"

"I put that sign on there to voice my opinion. They may come in here, but I might not know who they are," said John McClure, the owner of Skyline Chili.

McClure wants his customers to know where the restaurant stands regarding the not-guilty verdict.

"All of my employees felt the same way. When we heard the verdict, we were shocked," said McClure.

Customers during the lunch hour had their thoughts on the jurors too.

Customer Harold Isaac liked what he saw as he entered. "The sign says the jury's not welcome, that's perfectly okay with me," said Isaac.

But others, like Rick Justice -- yes, that's his name -- believe that the jurors are being unfairly targeted.

" I mean they're given a hard task. They're there to weigh the evidence of what they can and cannot hear. They do the best job that they can; they're people too," said Justice while he ate at the counter watching coverage of the verdict.

The twelve jurors from Pinellas County were faced with the civic duty of determining the fate of Casey Anthony.

"It's about life and it's about death. It's about assigning responsibility and sorting out who's to blame," said Stetson Law Professor Charles Rose.

Rose believes the jurors properly followed the evidence presented.

"You don't have anyone who is familiar with the way the legal system actually works, as opposed to the way it looks on television, saying that they got it wrong.

The moment justice becomes more involved with the story ending the way the audience wants it to end, that's the moment where we don't have any justice anymore," said Rose.

Copyright 2011 Scripps Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Von Felgenhauer · #2 07-07-2011, 04:32 PM

That place was never good anyways. Horrible customer service from old people.

RS · #3 07-07-2011, 04:34 PM

Trying to pass of the items they sell as "food" should be a crime.

MatticusMania · #4 07-07-2011, 04:36 PM

Quote:

"You don't have anyone who is familiar with the way the legal system actually works, as opposed to the way it looks on television, saying that they got it wrong. The moment justice becomes more involved with the story ending the way the audience wants it to end, that's the moment where we don't have any justice anymore," said Rose.

Someone should file a class action lawsuit or something.

Chef FourString · #5 07-07-2011, 04:47 PM

It is completely fair for the owner to not allow those 12 people in his establishment. If you agree or you don't, every establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. I don't agree with the case decision but I would still let those people into my restaurant.

MatticusMania · #6 07-07-2011, 04:52 PM

Actually, I dont believe an establishment has the right to refuse service for any reason, as surely some reasons could violate anti-discrimination laws. This case seems pretty discriminatory to me.

BurningSkies · #7 07-07-2011, 04:56 PM

Real punishment would be free meals there for life. Enforced.

But seriously, and I did my best not to follow the case or the drama, it seems that the jury acted in good faith and that 'reasonable doubt' befouled the situation. It sounds like the case of either a REALLY good defense, a REALLY bad prosecution or both.

fourstringdrums · #8 07-07-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Actually, I dont believe an establishment has the right to refuse service for any reason, as surely some reasons could violate anti-discrimination laws. This case seems pretty discriminatory to me.

A business can refuse service to those who are disruptive to the business, but for nothing else.

I sincerely hope someone sues this place.

Bloodhammer · #9 07-07-2011, 05:09 PM

The dumber and less informed people are, the louder and more public they state their opinions.

EDIT: Except in public forums of course!

capnsandwich · #10 07-07-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatticusMania

Actually, I dont believe an establishment has the right to refuse service for any reason, as surely some reasons could violate anti-discrimination laws. This case seems pretty discriminatory to me.

Agreed. IMO, whether she did it or not, she was found not-guilty by the jury. No one else saw what they saw or heard what they heard. We only know what was shown on TV. They had a hard task and they did what they did based on the facts that were given to them. To deny them service because of someone's "opinion" of what happened is wrong.

EricF · #11 07-07-2011, 05:16 PM

According to the sign, it excludes ALL Pinellas Country jurors. That would encompass a lot of people who had nothing to do with the case.

capnsandwich · #12 07-07-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricF

According to the sign, it excludes ALL Pinellas Country jurors. That would encompass a lot of people who had nothing to do with the case.

The irony of this story is him getting called to jury duty. That would mean he just kicked himself out of his own restaurant.

Floyd Eye · #13 07-07-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fourstringdrums

A business can refuse service to those who are disruptive to the business, but for nothing else.

I sincerely hope someone sues this place.

You are incorrect. As a business owner, I promise you that you are incorrect. A business may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, blah, blah, blah, but they most certainly can refuse service for anything else they wish. They are not even required to inform you why they are refusing to serve you. We are living in America, this is a free-ish country.

capnsandwich · #14 07-07-2011, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

You are incorrect. As a business owner, I promise you that you are incorrect. A business may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, blah, blah, blah, but they most certainly can refuse service for anything else they wish. They are not even required to inform you why they are refusing to serve you. We are living in America, this is a free-ish country.

Wouldn't the law be different from state to state?

Floyd Eye · #15 07-07-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnsandwich

Wouldn't the law be different from state to state?

I wouldn't think so. Anti-discrimination laws are federal. I suppose municipalities may have their own stupid little laws, but anything like that would never stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

Bloodhammer · #16 07-07-2011, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

They are not even required to inform you why they are refusing to serve you.

...or to have any class either...

Floyd Eye · #17 07-07-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloodhammer

...or to have any class either...

You certainly have the right not to patronize their establishment.

Munjibunga · #18 07-07-2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef FourString

If you agree or you don't, every establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Well, no they don't. For instance, they can't refuse to serve people of a particular race because of their race. There are other classes protected by discrimination laws. Ask Denny's.

Bloodhammer · #19 07-07-2011, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

You certainly have the right not to patronize their establishment.

Oh I know.

I think this is just funny as hell. It never ceases to amaze me how righteous people get over what they see on television or read in tabloids.

cassanova · #20 07-07-2011, 06:22 PM

You can put me in the group that hopes someone sues them.

I don't care if this class of people isn't written into the federal laws or not. It is still a group of people being discriminated against due to some ignorant jackasses bias. Discrimination is discrimination no matter how you slice it, and no form of it should be allowed.

I also wouldn't be a bit surprised if the establishment wasn't sued. Many people around these parts are very pissed off with the jury, and when you have that many people upset at one particular group/person/thing, etc, some pretty rotten things are allowed to slide for a while.