Pass a law please.....

[WessonOil]

Is your grasp of logic really that flawed, or are you just trolling?

Nope, not trolling, feel free to read Posts 56 and 57 by SMS and Ted Kennedy.

 

[CASEYCOURTNEY]

Im with you Dukester. It pains me to admit it, but he has a valid point.

 

[SoonerP226]

Nope, not trolling, feel free to read Posts 56 and 57 by SMS and Ted Kennedy.

I've read them, and I still can't figure out how you got from "an entity should be able to do something stupid" to "'negroes' aren't citizens" and "you won't be allowing Colion Noir in your place of business."

This discussion is not about whether or not a business should be discriminating against any particular group, it's about who should be making the decision--should it be made by the business and its customers or by the gov't? I think SMS, TedKennedy, and I have all been clear that hanging a sign saying "No <insert group here> allowed" is a stupid decision (for the reasons you keep bringing up), but we think the decision should be made by the business owner, not by the gov't. Quite frankly, market pressure would be much more efficient at resolving the issue than the gov't could ever be--and it wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime, to boot.

Let's look at this another way. A business is a private entity operating on private property, and the gov't tells them "you can't prohibit <insert group here> from entering your property." When you're at home, you are a private entity on private property--should the gov't be able to tell you that you can't prohibit <insert group here> from coming onto your property or entering your home?

 

[farmerbyron]

Ok, hypothetical question. Is it legal/ok to deny service or employment due to political affiliation? Seems that there would be a huge uproar and leave one open to file a lawsuit if a business were to put up a sign denying service or employment to persons of a political persuasion.

Is there or is there not constitutional protection for political views?

 

[farmerbyron]

Let's look at this another way. A business is a private entity operating on private property, and the gov't tells them "you can't prohibit <insert group here> from entering your property." When you're at home, you are a private entity on private property--should the gov't be able to tell you that you can't prohibit <insert group here> from coming onto your property or entering your home?

A residence is totally different than a place of business that is open to the public. Plus, the govt already forces you to let certain groups into your business so why is it cool to discriminate against the CC citizen?

 

[SoonerP226]

A residence is totally different than a place of business that is open to the public.

Private property isn't private property? What about a farm? Most working farms are run as businesses; should the gov't be able to tell you that you can't prohibit people from coming onto your farm?

 

[SoonerP226]

Is there or is there not constitutional protection for political views?

Ask the Dixie Chicks. Just because you have the right to espouse your views, that doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for it...which is pretty much the point SMS keeps making.

 

[farmerbyron]

Private property isn't private property? What about a farm? Most working farms are run as businesses; should the gov't be able to tell you that you can't prohibit people from coming onto your farm?

Again, the difference is being open to the public. Think of the farm as being the same as the production floor in a plant. If I were to have a store selling produce, it would be open to the public at large. Apples and oranges.

 

[farmerbyron]

Ask the Dixie Chicks. Just because you have the right to espouse your views, that doesn't mean that there are no repercussions for it...which is pretty much the point SMS keeps making.

But how many stores refused to sell Dixie Chicks albums due to their views? That is the point I keep making.

 

[farmerbyron]

I guess this argument is really pointless in light of recent changes to the law.

Title 21 S 1290.22 - Business Owner's Rights

Business Owner's Rights were expanded to include "place of worship".
Business Owners seeking to prohibit entry to an individual carrying a firearm may do so, and should post signs stating such prohibition if open to the public.
Carrying a firearm onto property with a posted sign prohibiting the carrying of firearms is not a criminal act, but can result in a citation up to $250 if a peace officer is called and the person refuses to leave.
Business owners who allow carrying of firearms to anyone except convicted felons are immune from liability except for gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.

My interpretation is to conceal carry anywhere I damn well please (except those areas expressly prohibited by SDA) and leave if asked. There is no reason to not protect yourself regardless of store policies IMO.