Chipotle: Guns not welcome here

[mrjarrell]

Do loud bigots hurt our First Amendment rights as well?

Yes, they do, as we have seen in numerous places throughout the country. Because of people like you mentioned we now have hate speech laws and sentence enhancers for hate crimes for using speech deemed inappropriate in the commission of a crime or just by itself. It does damage our First Amendment Rights, just as these tools are damaging our 2nd.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Yes, they do, as we have seen in numerous places throughout the country. Because of people like you mentioned we now have hate speech laws and sentence enhancers for hate crimes for using speech deemed inappropriate in the commission of a crime or just by itself. It does damage our First Amendment Rights, just as these tools are damaging our 2nd.

I am by no means a knowledgeable person on the subject, but I believe hate speech has been allowed under the 1st Amendment by the Supreme Court time and time again, unless the speech would likely cause imminent violence or lawlessness. However, I am sure one of you will correct me.

 

[iChokePeople]

But we already have several statutory limitations on free speech that were granted by the courts as a result of people doing stupid **** and claiming that it was protected by 1a... No?

 

[singlesix]

Do loud bigots hurt our First Amendment rights as well?

Try it out. Go into a private business and start speaking loudly about any subject and see how it works out.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Try it out. Go into a private business and start speaking loudly about any subject and see how it works out.

Do you understand your where your First Amendment protected right ends and a private property owner's rights begin in said owner's business?

The gist of what I am hearing from most of you is don't make the masters mad or they may tighten the chains. Stay in line, because deviation from that path is fatal.

 

[HoughMade]

Do you understand your where your First Amendment protected right ends and a private property owner's rights begin in said owner's business...

Do you understand your where your Second Amendment protected right ends and a private property owner's rights begin in said owner's business?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you understand your where your First Amendment protected right ends and a private property owner's rights begin in said owner's business?

The gist of what I am hearing from most of you is don't make the masters mad or they may tighten the chains. Stay in line, because deviation from that path is fatal.

Maybe we don't see the point you're trying to make. The analogy, especially in the previous example, is to follow the same pattern as the subject of this thread. In this thread, folks exercising their 2A rights, in a manner they see fit, regardless of how business owners may view it, is resulting in the tightening in policies against the rest of gun owners that may wish to patronize those establishments. By the same token, if you do as you suggest--go in and start throwing slurs around, the business owners will, just like with the long-gun-OCers, will exercise their rights to ask you to leave as you may be upsetting the rest of their customers.

What all this boils down to, the way in which you exercise your rights can have repercussions. Those gun-shunning shop owners and those hypothetical 1A infringing shop owners are not your masters, tightening your chains. They are free people setting limits on what they'll allow on their property. It's not so much bowing down so as to not anger them as it is being respectful, polite, and considerate of one another.

 

[Cameramonkey]

REPORTED.


Years ago, before there was a Chipotle in Ft. Wayne, I'd have them smuggled in from Ohio.

I hear ya. Personally, My texmex "fast" food wet dream is a Qdoba fajita burrito made with Chipotle's cilantro lime rice.

I like Chipotle EXCEPT their lack of reasonable salsa heat. You cant get a good "medium" red salsa. They go from pico to hot with nothing in between. Qdoba has a nice happy medium.

 

[singlesix]

Do you understand your where your First Amendment protected right ends and a private property owner's rights begin in said owner's business?

The gist of what I am hearing from most of you is don't make the masters mad or they may tighten the chains. Stay in line, because deviation from that path is fatal.

Can the civics lesson. Gist is that Rights can be limited by the voters. Noise ordinances, licensing for guns, etc, etc so to your point yes a loud mouth can cause 1st Amend Rights to be limited same as with 2nd Amend. They chose to open carrying in private business, so I guess in this case the private property rights of the own is not valid when it comes to the 2nd Amend?

This is working out great for Open Carry Texas:

Chili's, Sonic toughen stance on guns

 

[SteveM4A1]

Do you understand your where your Second Amendment protected right ends and a private property owner's rights begin in said owner's business?

Yes I do, and have no problem with it.

Maybe we don't see the point you're trying to make.

I think it is probably because I am combining different scenarios instead of sticking to the environment in the OP, and for that I apologize.

 

[Redhorse]

Just to throw this out there, different court cases have ruled you're responsible for your own self-defense. How is that affected by private business rights? Do they have an obligation to defend you or are you responsible for your own self-defense?

 

[HoughMade]

Just to throw this out there, different court cases have ruled you're responsible for your own self-defense. How is that affected by private business rights? Do they have an obligation to defend you or are you responsible for your own self-defense?

Here's a place to start:

Landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect their invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks... In addition, we have observed that the duty of a business to exercise reasonable care extends to keeping its parking lot safe and providing a safe and suitable means of ingress and egress.

Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048, 1052 (Ind. 2003).

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just to throw this out there, different court cases have ruled you're responsible for your own self-defense. How is that affected by private business rights? Do they have an obligation to defend you or are you responsible for your own self-defense?

Here's a place to start:

Landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect their invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks... In addition, we have observed that the duty of a business to exercise reasonable care extends to keeping its parking lot safe and providing a safe and suitable means of ingress and egress.

Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048, 1052 (Ind. 2003).

The key problem is the word "reasonable", and they used it twice just in the quote you cited. What is reasonable?

An armed escort to your vehicle?
An armed guard inside?
Cameras on the lot?
Extra lighting?
Someone inside, saying "Be careful! Have a nice, safe day!" as you leave?

I don't have much to base this on, but I have a feeling that many courts would find the armed escort excessive, the armed guard inside more than the law required, the cameras (which do a great job of providing footage so police can later see just what was done to you, if they're pointed the right direction and if the lighting is sufficient) appropriate, and the extra lighting within the standard. I think some would even find the good wishes at the door to be acceptable.

Your experience overshadows mine in this area, and I'll defer to you to give a reply (as you did above) with more basis than mine, but in the absence of it, my supposition is that you're still responsible to protect yourself... and have a greater incentive to do so.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[HoughMade]

You skipped a step. First: What is a "reasonably foreseeable criminal attack"? Second: "what are reasonable precautions"?

People want bright lines. That's understandable.

There are none.

In most cases, a jury decides. In some cases, if there is no evidence of forseeability, a court may decide, but usually it has to go all the way to a jury....or the case is settled.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry, I considered the parking lot outside to be a place where one could reasonably expect that criminal attacks could happen, and I doubt that the

would argue that point. It is certainly a place of greater such likelihood than inside most businesses, unless the criminal is wearing a badge that reads IRS.

Blessings,
Bill

You skipped a step. First: What is a "reasonably foreseeable criminal attack"? Second: "what are reasonable precautions"?

People want bright lines. That's understandable.

There are none.

In most cases, a jury decides. In some cases, if there is no evidence of forseeability, a court may decide, but usually it has to go all the way to a jury....or the case is settled.

 

[PRasko]

My communication with Chipotle's thus far.

Original Comment:
Concerning your recent publicity in not honoring my constitutionally protected rights (2A), I will no longer patronize your business, or any other business owned by your conglomerate or parent company.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm sorry to hear that. We recognize that this is a sensitive issue and we respect that people have very different points of view. The issue of gun ownership or gun rights has become one of the most contentious debates in the country. Chipotle has never taken a position on this issue, as we focus instead on our mission to change the way people think about and eat fast food. We have always complied with local laws. The recent "open carry" demonstration in Texas, caused us to now respectfully ask that customers not bring guns into our restaurants, unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request. We hope that our customers agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle.

I appreciate you expressing your sentiments. This issue is not central to the operation of our business, and we do not feel that our restaurants should be used as a platform for either side of the debate.

Sincerely,

I replied..

Hi,
Sadly, you let the ignorance of the few dictate the rights of the many, and in doing so, alienated 30 million potential customers that believe in the U.S Constitution.

Waiting to hear back.

 

[brotherbill3]

You skipped a step. First: What is a "reasonably foreseeable criminal attack"? Second: "what are reasonable precautions"?

People want bright lines. That's understandable.

There are none.

In most cases, a jury decides. In some cases, if there is no evidence of forseeability, a court may decide, but usually it has to go all the way to a jury....or the case is settled.

This is partly why I asked my question a week or so ago ... it opens a whole can of worms ... and varies widely ... state to state instance to instance ... etc
except for the .gov of course, from what it sounds like ...

 

[87iroc]

I sent Chipotle a letter last night as well and got this response..

Greg,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I'm sorry if our recent statements to the press have offended you or made you rethink our restaurants' place in your routine. We realize there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue, and we don't think it is our place to take a side. We do, however, feel it important to provide a comfortable environment for our customers. For this reason, we have decided respectfully to ask our customers not to bring guns into the restaurants. I hope you can respect our position here, and we hope you can continue to enjoy Chipotle despite your disagreement.

Sincerely,
James

Customer Service Consultant
Chipotle Mexican Grill

Looks like a 'form letter' they were given to send out.