BigDave
Opt-Out Members
The VFW is not a government entity, you do know that right? probably not!
You're just wanting a pil$$ing contest, stop trolling.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Bellingham VFW definitely unfriendly
- Thread starter heresolong
- Start date
The VFW is not a government entity, you do know that right? probably not!
You're just wanting a pil$$ing contest, stop trolling.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Yes I know that it is private. I stated my opinion that is shared by Thomas Jefferson that "governments exist to secure the rights of the people."
Who do they have to keep those rights secure from then? Private entities perhaps?
Our rights exist all the time, everywhere.
Not sure why anyone here thinks that our rights just disappear just because you may step over some imaginary line on the ground.
+1 but in addition to that, as it's been referred to, this is a VETERANS organization. Veterans were people who thought enough of duty to fight for our constitution, sad to see some of them ******* on it when all is said and done.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
This is supporting the rights of the people! How do you not understand that simple concept?
Example, you enter a place that prohibits firearms but you carry regardless and asked or told to leave and you refuse to leave, you're arrested and proceed the judicial system, supporting the people's rights!
tombrewster421
Regular Member
My question is why does anyone have a "right" to take away yours? I thought our rights end where someone else's begins. I have a right to protect my life don't I? Where does it say anywhere that a property owner has a "right" to say I can't protect myself. Either I am welcome with all of my rights or I am not welcome at all. I'm certainly not suggesting that a property owner can't keep his property private. I'm saying that if you're going to invite people in that they should be allowed to bring their rights with them.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
No one is taking anything away from you, you choose where you go out don't and that is just how it is.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Then why does the government force people to allow blacks in their businesses or provide special equipment to disabled people? What about my rights?
Couldn't a black man just "choose not to go somewhere?"
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
No doubt you are a troubled person.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Just throwing your "logic" back at you that's all.
Yes I'm troubled because I think that people have rights wherever they go, not just in their homes.
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
If that is what you think! Clearly you have issue with race and the disabled, troll.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
It's not what I think mr. name caller. It was an example of your logic that I can just choose not to go somewhere because someone doesn't like my rights. Like I said, I'm either welcome or I'm not. Why does the government protect some people's rights but not mine?
Last edited:
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attack
Last edited by a moderator:
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Is this what you do when you can't think of something useful to say? (rhetorical)
compmanio365
Regular Member
Tom, you raise a very good point, and one that has bugged my Libertarian sensibilities for some time. If we view private property rights as important, and I think we all do here, then we have to respect the right of that property owner to allow or disallow anybody they wish on their property, no matter the reason. That means for ANY reason. If civil rights means, however, that a private property owner cannot restrict certain "protected classes", then who gets to determine what is and is not a protected class? Is not one of our most basic rights to self defense protected from discrimination then, much as a minority is? If not, what makes it OK to discriminate against someone exercising their natural right of self defense but not someone of color or sexual orientation, as we have heard on the news ad nauseum about the florist or bakers denying gay couples service?
The fact is, "protected classes" laws are a joke, and takes away the right of the private property owner to determine whom they wish to serve, and who they don't wish to associate with. I am against the idea of forced association. So if a business owner wants to keep me off the property, for any reason, including my firearm, that's fine. But as a private property owner, if I don't want to serve, say, Asian customers, that should be my right, as heinous and racist as you would, rightly, see it. It's my property...my business....my choice. There are many other businesses to associate with, and why would you want to associate as a customer with a business owner that has such hatred for you? Do you think they will do the job well once they are forced to do so for you? You cannot stop people from believing in long held and established dogma, as wrong as it may be. And it's their right to be as biased as they want, as a private entity.
Now the idea of GOVERNMENT not being allowed to discriminate is really the key issue here, because you cannot take away equal opportunity, and as long as the government is allowed to determine who can start their own business and conduct it, you have to grant those licenses without bias. Government was always meant to be restricted from discriminating, yet they often do, and the law has been bastardized to restrict the people instead, as so many laws have over the years. The bottom line though, is anti-discrimination laws cater to the minority and the perpetual victim society we have today, so they will vote the right way for the people who promote these freedom infringing laws. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I guess what ultimately it comes down to is: is the VFW a government sponsored and subsidized operation, or is it entirely privately held?
The fact is, "protected classes" laws are a joke, and takes away the right of the private property owner to determine whom they wish to serve, and who they don't wish to associate with. I am against the idea of forced association. So if a business owner wants to keep me off the property, for any reason, including my firearm, that's fine. But as a private property owner, if I don't want to serve, say, Asian customers, that should be my right, as heinous and racist as you would, rightly, see it. It's my property...my business....my choice. There are many other businesses to associate with, and why would you want to associate as a customer with a business owner that has such hatred for you? Do you think they will do the job well once they are forced to do so for you? You cannot stop people from believing in long held and established dogma, as wrong as it may be. And it's their right to be as biased as they want, as a private entity.
Now the idea of GOVERNMENT not being allowed to discriminate is really the key issue here, because you cannot take away equal opportunity, and as long as the government is allowed to determine who can start their own business and conduct it, you have to grant those licenses without bias. Government was always meant to be restricted from discriminating, yet they often do, and the law has been bastardized to restrict the people instead, as so many laws have over the years. The bottom line though, is anti-discrimination laws cater to the minority and the perpetual victim society we have today, so they will vote the right way for the people who promote these freedom infringing laws. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I guess what ultimately it comes down to is: is the VFW a government sponsored and subsidized operation, or is it entirely privately held?
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Hey it worked. I got someone to think.
compmanio365
Regular Member
Ajetpilot
Regular Member
Well said, compmanio365.
papa bear
Regular Member
DAVE a troll is someone who uses name calling or illogical argument to antagonize others. so i must ask who is the troll here
butn when of the main points that i have found in everyones argument is we have no property rights in the US. they were to be put in the constitution but was rejected. you could argue that is what the 4th and 9th (?) amendments are for but that only is personal property
butn when of the main points that i have found in everyones argument is we have no property rights in the US. they were to be put in the constitution but was rejected. you could argue that is what the 4th and 9th (?) amendments are for but that only is personal property
Difdi
Regular Member
Nobody ever needed a heavily-protected right to say exactly what other people want to hear.
amlevin
Regular Member
Private property owners have the right to establish conditions of use on their property. What's so hard to understand about that? They can require shoes and shirts and also require that anyone entering leave their firearms outside. YOU have the right to go elsewhere if you don't agree.