what if it was gays instead of guns

onus said:

This thread is about showing how its okay to discriminate against gun owners but its illegal to discriminate against gays.

There are thousands and thousands of public events where gays intentionally engage is public displays of affection to get their point across and make a statement.

This is on topic.

Click to expand...

When it becomes illegal to discriminate against gun owners as a protected class, then it will become a valid comparison.

As it is gun owners are of various sexual orientations, races, and religious affiliations and their gun ownersip has nothing to do any of these.

stealthyeliminator said:

--snipped-- It's completely on topic. I don't think you have a clue what "on topic" and "off topic" even mean - judging from your overall use of the terms here and in other threads. Whether or not it's specifically at Starbucks is entirely and completely irrelevant and for you to say that the example doesn't "qualify" somehow because it isn't at Starbucks is absolutely asinine. If that's what you think, then you do not yourself understand the "topic" of this thread. Fix your understanding, don't accuse the topic creator of not knowing what he made his own thread about.

Click to expand...

Strange how when some people don't see the response they want, they get insulting and derisive - doing so is very bad manners.

There have been so many threads about Starbucks recently, the OP included Starbuck's and responded to Skidmark's post which directly referenced Starbuck's, it was logical to conclude that was the OP was pointing at Starbuck's intentionally.

onus said:

This thread is about showing how its okay to discriminate against gun owners but its illegal to discriminate against gays.
--snipped--
This is on topic.

Click to expand...

There is no "discrimination" against gun owners - again they are not a protected class. The comparison is not valid.

DocWalker said:

I find it hard to believe sexual orientation was in the bill back in 1964.

Click to expand...

It's a constitutional issue. I don't know just exactly when the wemen got their rights.

Mr Birdman said:

Well since choosing to be a homosexual is also choosing to be the worst kind of bigot there is. Rejecting God in all of his glory and grace and choosing to be the worst kind of bigoted deviate, I would love to see Starbucks issue a release like that. I would visit and might learn how to drink that nasty swill people call coffee. I would also still open carry.

Click to expand...

Truth

onus said:

This thread is about showing how its okay to discriminate against gun owners but its illegal to discriminate against gays.

There are thousands and thousands of public events where gays intentionally engage is public displays of affection to get their point across and make a statement.

This is on topic.

Click to expand...

But nobody is discriminating against gun owners. And yes, since specific legislation was passed, it is illegal to discriminate against gays in certain specific areas of life. As has been said before, pass a law making it illegal to discriminate against gun owners and it will be illegal to discriminate against gun owners.

And can we please remember that we gun owners turned Starbucks from a place selling crappy coffee at exhorbitant prices into the stage for our desire to flaunt our guns i the collective faces of the hoplophobes. That we were generally more polite and less destructive of private property than those who opposed us is not relevant.

In hind sight, would it have been better to take our flaunting to the public parks? Well, unfortunately, in some places there are laws that kept our guns out of the parks. Why pick on Starbucks instead of, for example, 7-11? Or Walmart? Or the local laundramat?

Starbucks is not discriminating against gun owners. They are asking that gun owners stop making it more difficult to sell overpriced and crappy coffee without interference from folks pushing some agenda other than drinking crappy overpriced coffee.

So quitchebitchin.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

But nobody is discriminating against gun owners. And yes, since specific legislation was passed, it is illegal to discriminate against gays in certain specific areas of life. As has been said before, pass a law making it illegal to discriminate against gun owners and it will be illegal to discriminate against gun owners.

And can we please remember that we gun owners turned Starbucks from a place selling crappy coffee at exhorbitant prices into the stage for our desire to flaunt our guns i the collective faces of the hoplophobes. That we were generally more polite and less destructive of private property than those who opposed us is not relevant.

In hind sight, would it have been better to take our flaunting to the public parks? Well, unfortunately, in some places there are laws that kept our guns out of the parks. Why pick on Starbucks instead of, for example, 7-11? Or Walmart? Or the local laundramat?

Starbucks is not discriminating against gun owners. They are asking that gun owners stop making it more difficult to sell overpriced and crappy coffee without interference from folks pushing some agenda other than drinking crappy overpriced coffee.

So quitchebitchin.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Gotta agree with ya there bud.

skidmark said:

But nobody is discriminating against gun owners.

Click to expand...

Lots of business do in fact discriminate against gun owners. There are thousands of business across America that post signs saying no guns allowed. That is the same as a business posting a sign that says "no gays allowed" or "no blacks allowed".

Businesses, property owners, governments whether preempted or not, the list goes on and on. Add fudd gun owners to that list concerning open carry in many cases.

Picking Nits

onus said:

Lots of business do in fact discriminate against gun owners. There are thousands of business across America that post signs saying no guns allowed. That is the same as a business posting a sign that says "no gays allowed" or "no blacks allowed".

Click to expand...

Both of us know full well the meaning of "discrimination" and the difference between those things that are legal and those that are not. Your reply is totally devoid of accuracy as it applies here and you are simply playing with semantics for its own sake, arguing for the sake of arguing. Legal actions are decidedly not the same and those prohibited.


Discrimination = action or policies based on prejudice or partiality.

discrimination
n. unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex or sexual orientation. The rights to protest discrimination or enforce one's rights to equal treatment are provided in various federal and state laws, which allow for private lawsuits with the right to damages. There are also federal and state commissions to investigate and enforce equal rights.
See also: civil rights
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=532

A No Guns decision by a private property owner is no different than their deciding "No Shoes. No shirt, No service" = not illegal, completely within their rights.

color of law said:

I absolutely refuse to click on the link you provided.

I'm sure your posting of this link violates some rule on this forum.

Click to expand...

I check to make sure the direct link was 'clean' first. I didn't want to show anything that would require eye bleach.

Grapeshot said:

SNIP


There is no "discrimination" against gun owners - again they are not a protected class. The comparison is not valid.

Click to expand...

Why are those who believe in keeping the tools of self defense on hand not a protected class?

The comparison is VERY valid.

The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out as to be never infringed.

The government issues licenses to engage in (corporate) commercial business. If a business does discriminate against a 'protected class' it can lose the license to do business.

Since the licenses are government controlled it would be reasonable to believe that the RTKA extends into ANY establishment that exists only through the fact that there is a government issued license (permission) to exist. Since they cannot exist without government permission then they should not be able to discriminate in anyways shape or form that the government cannot.

Why does no-one look into the license aspect of this argument? What is wrong with it?

Grapeshot said:

SNIP


A No Guns decision by a private property owner is no different than their deciding "No Shoes. No shirt, No service" = not illegal, completely within their rights.

Click to expand...

I believe that the LAW requires them to not server those who are without shirts and shoes.

Maybe a health board rule or some dumb thing.

Not Valid

Freedom1Man said:

Why are those who believe in keeping the tools of self defense on hand not a protected class?

The comparison is VERY valid.

The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out as to be never infringed.

The government issues licenses to engage in (corporate) commercial business. If a business does discriminate against a 'protected class' it can lose the license to do business.

Since the licenses are government controlled it would be reasonable to believe that the RTKA extends into ANY establishment that exists only through the fact that there is a government issued license (permission) to exist. Since they cannot exist without government permission then they should not be able to discriminate in anyways shape or form that the government cannot.

Why does no-one look into the license aspect of this argument? What is wrong with it?

Click to expand...

Tell it to SCOTUS - The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated.

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Grapeshot said:

Tell it to SCOTUS - The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated.

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Click to expand...

It has according to Washington State courts.

This is were we get into much discussion, what ought to be and what is.

The "incorporation" doctrine is what is, but is it constitutional or even what ought to be?

sudden valley gunner said:

It has according to Washington State courts.

This is were we get into much discussion, what ought to be and what is.

The "incorporation" doctrine is what is, but is it constitutional or even what ought to be?

Click to expand...

Your points are well taken.

My belief and desire is not universally accepted. That being that a private business, inviting the public (quasi-public), should not be able to restrict any of the enumerated rights. Private property rights are the law of the land, but not w/o exceptions. We need one more exception, however it is made.

Originally Posted by Grapeshot

SNIP

A No Guns decision by a private property owner is no different than their deciding "No Shoes. No shirt, No service" = not illegal, completely within their rights.

Click to expand...

Freedom1Man said:

I believe that the LAW requires them to not server those who are without shirts and shoes.

Maybe a health board rule or some dumb thing.

Click to expand...

Think you are likely shooting from the hip - state and municipal laws vary too much to make such a generalization.

Imagine having to put shoes and shirt on at the beach before buying a hot dog from a vendor or walk-up window.

I once knew a man that had no arms (machinery accident) yet drove a huge RV camper with his feet. He ate and drank coffee from a cup the same way - yes at restaurants too. I would not be the one to deny him service.

Grapeshot said:

I would not be the one to deny him service.

Click to expand...

Yea he might kick your butt.....

Grapeshot said:

Your points are well taken.

My belief and desire is not universally accepted. That being that a private business, inviting the public (quasi-public), should not be able to restrict any of the enumerated rights. Private property rights are the law of the land, but not w/o exceptions. We need one more exception, however it is made.

Click to expand...

I understand it is a point as a anarchistic person I struggle with. If your store is the only store that had food for miles around, denying someone because of various discriminatory prejudices, would be a travesty.

To me though the greater travesty is the destruction of property rights, including freedom of association, excuse my fallacy argument, but where then do we draw the line of government intervention (slippery slope).

Grapeshot said:

Think you are likely shooting from the hip - state and municipal laws vary too much to make such a generalization.

Imagine having to put shoes and shirt on at the beach before buying a hot dog from a vendor or walk-up window.

I once knew a man that had no arms (machinery accident) yet drove a huge RV camper with his feet. He ate and drank coffee from a cup the same way - yes at restaurants too. I would not be the one to deny him service.

Click to expand...

I think most humans would feel the same as you, common sense ostricism and the lack of government intervention would appear to seem the more logical solution.

It isn't discrimination unless the government says so?

Wow. I'm not sure if I need to put the effort into a rebuttal, or just assume everyone here is smart enough to know how ludicrous that is.

Edit: Yes I had bad manners. Bad mood, no excuse.

Grapeshot said:

Tell it to SCOTUS - The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated.

http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Click to expand...

You might want to get up to date with SCOTUS rulings.

The 2nd Amendment was incorporated in McDonald vs Chicago.

onus said:

You might want to get up to date with SCOTUS rulings.

The 2nd Amendment was incorporated in McDonald vs Chicago.

Click to expand...

Then you can carry worry free in CA and Washington D.C. - that's good to know

Don't think we are quite all the way there yet.