I didn't realise how badly until I read your reply and though, "Yeah, WTF was I thinking. Allow me to clarify:
Yes, it leads to tyranny of the majority.

...

But what's the alternative? When I asked what gives you the right to set rules in my store, you said:
A store (or a mall) doesn't exist in a moral vacuum -- it sits in the middle of a community, of *society*.
How exactly is that different?
Uh, the thing is, it's NOT SUPPOSED to be "different" -- it's exactly the SAME reason that keeps you from committing murder
I didn't mean how is that different from murder. I meant how is that not another form of tyranny of the majority? In your reply you repsonded to that separately, but that's what I was drawing the parallel to.

To make it more clear, in 1964 in Birmingham, Alabama, "the community" had agreed that they could hang black men and rape black women. Sometimes the community is wrong. This country is founded[1] on the premise that the individual has rights that can't be taken away by a king, prime minister or president.[2] We deify the individual here.

I think there are some people who take this to an unhealthy extreme. But I agree with the general premise that as long as my choices don't hurt anyone -- and refusing to do business with them doesn't count -- then no one should have any right to tell me I can't make those choices. The logical extension of that is that I don't get to tell other people to stop doing things that offend me.

So in the case with the t-shirt, I don't think the mall (or rather the guard) should have kicked him out for it. But if I want to defend his right to wear what he wants, then I have to defend their right to say, "Not in our place."


[1] Or at least that's the mythology we choose to believe.

[2] Yes, Ashcroft is trying desperately to change this.