Quote Originally Posted by Reenster
,

The reason him being a patient was mentioned is because the police told him he was advocating something illegal. He mention, for him it was legal, since he had his card. The officer just made a snide remark.
Okay, so YOU are the one bringing it up in the completely irrelavent manner? It shouldn't matter that he's a card holder, it doesn't matter that he's a card holder. There's plenty of battles mmj patients already face, no sense turning non-mmj issues into mmj issues.

Him being a card holder does not give him the right to wear the tee shirt, the First Amendment does and the Colorado supreme court upheld that in 1991. Also Miguel Lopez, marijuana activist, had similar experience at a Denver Mall. He was harassed because of his view.
"The Colorado court noted a highly visible governmental presence in the mall, including a police substation, military recruiting offices and county voter-registration drives"

Aurora mall is missing two out of the three. And that was the entire basis for considering Westminster mall "public".

I am sure they would not be happy with anyone handing out pro marijuana pamphlets in the mall prior to the November vote in Aurora to decide if they will allow dispensaries.
Whoa now. They could stop people from handing out literature all they wanted and that's not a freedom of speech issue. Neither is this t-shirt thing. The security guards at Aurora Mall do not represent the government, on any level. You really can't compare this to the 1991 case when the defining characteristics of the 1991 case are missing in this case.

We have the right, a mall is not private property.
The Aurora Mall is owned by Simon Property group. It is 100% private property minus the (mini) police station.

I am sorry that your were offended but how would you feel if you were taken to a polcie substation just because you refused to turn your shirt inside out.
I'd feel like I'd just acted like I was 15 all over again.

I am a patient as well, and this man's mother. He did not bring up his medical standing till the police questioned it's legality. He feels he is an activist not only standing up for his own rights but everyone elses.
The moment he/you/whomever brings up patients rights, this is no longer for everyone's rights, but patients. The situation is best described as a freedom of speech issue (even tho, as mentioned, it in no way violates the 1st Amendment)...it is not an MMJ issue.