My personal view is that a business should be allowed to deny service to anybody for any reason, protected "class" or not. It is not mine, nor anyone else's right to dictate to a business who they are to serve.
Why not?Turn Mrs. Pincraft's question around, "should a business be allowed to deny service based upon you not carrying a firearm?"
You seem to be confusing the issue of allowing entry of a protected class and completely following all beliefs of that same class.What about hoplophobia? Would a hoplophobe be able to sue a business because the owner has firearms on premise, or allows patrons to have them? People with disabilities are protected classes, aren't they?
But I want to go to that bar and I don't want to smell smoke.If you don't like the rules of a business, do not patronize it.
But I want to go to that bar and I don't want to smell smoke.
I'm a non- smoker, and I don't like that law either.
There were restaurants I didn't go to because of the smoke.
Surprised no one has mentioned this, unless I missed it.
The 2nd Amendment (and the others) are limitations on the government. Originally, limitations on the Feds only, then later expanded so that some cover all govt entities.
It wasn't recently that the right to plead the 5th applied to everyone, because it wasn't in all States Constitutions.
Therefore, how can a limitation on the govt apply to a business.
If you don't like the rules of a business, do not patronize it.
I'm a non- smoker, and I don't like that law either.
There were restaurants I didn't go to because of the smoke.
He's just joshin' you...
Yep, they can refuse service for any reason, it is their choice to lose customers permanently. The real issue is if they can press charges, and the answer should always be only for tress passing if the carrier will not leave. Unfortunately, in many states, just walking into a store with a no guns sign is a prosecutable crime, that usually results in revocation of the carry permit, and this is so far from honoring the 2A that it should not be allowed in any state, because shopping becomes like walking a legal minefield, therefore the burden on the carrier is too onerous.
Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
One can choose to carry a gun or choose not to carry one.
One cannot choose their race.
Thank you all for responding! I hope you will continue to respond. In thinking about what we refer to as "rights," JimmyR is correct, we have to define them. This, of course, is the deeper point to my query. I think its a question we all have a "knee-jerk" response to because of how we have been socialized to view the 2nd Amend.
The post by Netsecurity shapes up the point better than I framed the question. Many people who are simply exercising their right to carry are met with an intrusive inquiry from the government regarding those rights.
For those of you who feel a business can post such a policy, what is the difference then between posting a no guns sign and a whites only sign? Should a business owner be taken seriously by the police with such "trespass" complaints? Does the fact that (1) gun carry in 1791 was hardly limited; or (2) gun control laws began their ascent based upon discrimination against blacks?
The public doesn't have rights. And I will direct you to ATM's response for the rest of it. You voluntarily abdicate your claim to the exercise of certain behaviors upon acceptance of the invitation to step onto someone else's property. That said property is a business or private residence is absolutely 100% irrelevant.
Current bogus federal regulations mandating protection of whiners and crybabies to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.
Pretty much what it boils down to. When do you think they'll let us start burning the crosses on their front lawns because our free speech can't be trumped by their property rights.I'm entitled the use of your property on my terms. Hell, I even get to dictate how YOU use your own property. I can't have you using your property as a weapon against me.
Absolute straw man.Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
One can choose to carry a gun or choose not to carry one.
One cannot choose their race.
Basically because it is the law. Business property owners have a somewhat different set of rules they must abide by in order to be allowed to conduct business from their property compared to the owner of non-commercial property.
If you want to bar a certain race from your residence then other then for legally allowed exceptions you could. A business is not allowed to do that.
The public doesn't have rights. And I will direct you to ATM's response for the rest of it. You voluntarily abdicate your claim to the exercise of certain behaviors upon acceptance of the invitation to step onto someone else's property. That said property is a business or private residence is absolutely 100% irrelevant.
Current bogus federal regulations mandating protection of whiners and crybabies to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.
Lets not forget gender is one of those particular protected classes.What's wrong with me telling someone of a different race/skin color/country of origin that he can't patronize my business or that I won't serve him?
Pretty much never since your right to free speech does not trump another person's rights. But burn as many as you want on your own property (as long as there is not a burn ban or similar in your area)Pretty much what it boils down to. When do you think they'll let us start burning the crosses on their front lawns because our free speech can't be trumped by their property rights.
In some places crime goes down and in others it goes up? At least that is what the murder rates seem to show.So what happens when it's a law that firearms are prohibited?
Lets not forget gender is one of those particular protected classes.
Would you be fine with the gun store owners telling you "Sorry little lady but you need to bring your man down here if you are wanting a gun"?
Or how about we go back to the time when women couldn't own property but were rather the property of their father or husband.
...
:
He's just joshin' you...
Maybe you haven't read any of her posts before.
I think (and I could be wrong), that she would not like a business that would not serve her. BUT it would be their right.