• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Are anti-gun private businesses discriminating and violating our rights?

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Not that I agree with the judge, but the gay couple entered the business for the stated purpose of the business. To sell pastry.

A hospital is open to the public for the purpose of medical care. They can and probably do perform abortions in certain cases. A pro life person cannot come onto hospital property to protest, even though the hospital is open to the public.

Another way to put it is a gay couple cannot enter a gun store and demand a wedding cake, or demand a pastry store sell them a gun.
 
Last edited:

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA
This is the justification of force, based on personal preferences and beliefs, that I so strongly disagree with as a Libertarian. It's okay to refuse gays because it's freedom of religion? But not blacks cause that's "very very wrong"? There is a religious belief, I actually know a person who believes it, that black skin and the idea of black slaves came came about by the story in the Bible of Ham checking out Noah's junk when he was naked and hammered. Seems silly but "the point is it's a belief and that has to be respected"?

Anyway I don't believe it so I would not support a racist business. But IMO it's not justified for government to use force to make businesses trade with anyone black white or gay.
But if you are going to start forcing businesses to trade with anyone they should be forced to trade with EVERYONE. If you have to sell your cake to gays then you should have to served OCers and every single other person that wishes to use your services.

As much as I want to choke on the idea, he does have the right to believe that, despite the fact it's ignorant and stupid. And now that sounds contradictory to my previous post :banghead: I hate these discussions as it really makes me squirm when things like racial or religious discrimination is brought up. I believe in freedom but I also believe in equality. People are people and should be respected. There is a saying. 'your rights end where mine begin' but where they begin is a real stinker when it comes to these matters.
 
Last edited:

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
That's why I keep my beliefs simple. No one should be forced to do anything. Absolutely government must be restrained from discrimination. But the government forcing citizens to be non-discriminant isn't justified imo. Might there be businesses that would sacrifice profits in order to maintain their belief about this group or that group being bad? Sure. So what.

ETA: Also I've found that the saying "your rights end where mine begin" is often used to justify perceived privileges. Such as I have the "right" to walk down the street with having to see two gays kissing, or see someone carrying a gun, or smell someone's burning tobacco. As far as I am concerned people have the right to do or not do whatever they want as long as it does not directly hurt other people.
 
Last edited:

wittmeba

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
143
Location
New Castle, Va
If you invite the public into your business you should not be able to require them to leave their rights at the door. Unfortunately private property rights trump your rights and the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as living breathing individuals. That is one of the most abhorrent decisions that the boys and girls in black have ever come up with.

TBG
This makes good sense. They invite the public in - implied by being an open business. But it seems like they are discriminating against law abiding citizens. Discrimination is against the law in some selected instances. Just another tool our government/law chooses to apply when and how they want.

But it appears our best option remains to patronize their competitors.
 
Last edited:

28kfps

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
1,534
Location
Pointy end and slightly to the left
Here is my two cents. Davidmcgeth posted “you cannot trespass people for any reason.” Actually you can. I work part time for a large company hosting some of the largest attending events in Nevada and we maintain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason and can ask that person to leave, if they do not we can call Metro for a trespass. Been working for many years and the company makes every effort not to trespass however have been involved in a few trespassing. Mostly those that go pissed off nuts after a confrontation.
Also believe a person that has spent their hard work; money and time opening a business should have certain rights, as it is their business. However with that said most business is not a private home. For most they spend money advertising, some with just signs other spending millions flooding every source of media they can every year encouraging the public to come in and spend their money. Being encouraged and hounded with, deals, offers other gimmicks, the general public expects to be welcome as long as they are conducting themselves in a legal manner especially when that person is exercising a right that has its own constitutional amendment. How hard would it be to mandate business to follow our law of legal constitutional carried firearms allowed?
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Great discussion.

So can a business open to the public discriminate against someone for exercising a right granted to them by their State's Constitution?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
on the one hand i'll agree on the other certainly not. It's tough. Do I recognise private property rights? Sure. I think the owner can do what they like. On the other hand what if that owner decided to ban black people? Thats very very wrong. Now the owner of a property who refuses to serve gay people is a bit different. That comes under freedom of religion. Those people would believe gay is a choice and even some would say it's not even possible as God didnt create them to be so. Now whether they are right or wrong isnt the point, the point is it's a belief and that has to be respected. I'd also question why someone who considers themselves to be gay would even go there. Gun rights, I think we have private property spot on. Are they allowed to ban carry? Yes, they are but the result of that should be a boycott of the establishment and I think most of us are good about that. Public buildings on the other hand are another matter and there are no rights to ban carry regardless of state statutes in violation. Thats an infringement and therefore void.

It isn't a belief that is at issue. It is the behavior based upon their belief that is the issue.



A religious view that gays are 'wrong' is a belief.

Refusing service to others based upon that belief is what is at issue here. This is identical to the case presented above of not allowing blacks. What a person believes about other races is not the issue. Refusing service based upon that belief is the issue.


For your position on beliefs; the belief can be respected, but the act of not serving is not respected.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
probably help to define definitions

trespass happens when a person has no apparent business on the property. such as loitering. but if a person has legitimate business on property. then they can not be trespassed. such as in NC if you shoot a deer on one property and it runs to another property then you can pursue it. as in you can also go up to someones door and knock, but you must have legitimate reason to be there. but also the property owner must be the one to charge someone with trespass, or their agent.

private property is property that is privately owned, such as a resident. but when you open your doors to the public, such as a licensed business, you are subject to the laws of the land.

carrying a firearm is a civil right, but one someone can legally discriminate against, because it is the law of the land

Even persons with legitimate business can be trespassed if their behavior warrants trespass.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
That's why I keep my beliefs simple. No one should be forced to do anything. Absolutely government must be restrained from discrimination. But the government forcing citizens to be non-discriminant isn't justified imo. Might there be businesses that would sacrifice profits in order to maintain their belief about this group or that group being bad? Sure. So what.

ETA: Also I've found that the saying "your rights end where mine begin" is often used to justify perceived privileges. Such as I have the "right" to walk down the street with having to see two gays kissing, or see someone carrying a gun, or smell someone's burning tobacco. As far as I am concerned people have the right to do or not do whatever they want as long as it does not directly hurt other people.

For the kissing and gun, everyone has a 'right' to not look.

For the smoke, it isn't always possible to avoid the smoke.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
Great discussion.

So can a business open to the public discriminate against someone for exercising a right granted to them by their State's Constitution?

The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It is supposed to restrain the government from infringing upon our inherently possessed rights.

Take the government out of it. Let business owners run their business how they like. They will either thrive, or crash and burn horribly. Free market > regulation.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It is supposed to restrain the government from infringing upon our inherently possessed rights.

Take the government out of it. Let business owners run their business how they like. They will either thrive, or crash and burn horribly. Free market > regulation.

I award you one banana sticker for an excellent post.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The Constitution does not "grant" rights. It is supposed to restrain the government from infringing upon our inherently possessed rights.

Take the government out of it. Let business owners run their business how they like. They will either thrive, or crash and burn horribly. Free market > regulation.
On the face of this, I agree. Digging deeper, I see room for intrusion.


If it is allowed unfettered, it is very likely to drive it into a society rife with classes.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
So where is the fine line between civil rights and property rights/rights of a business owner? Which should be more important? In regards to carrying a pistol I feel like I more closely side with the citizen, but I believe in the right of the property owner to single out individuals that he may want to leave if he feels they could pose a threat. I don't approve of gun free zones.

Conundrum!
 

vegaspassat

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
626
Location
united states
Personally I think a business should be free to deny service to anyone they want... however in this current world of civil rights trumping private business rights (the example of the wedding cake shop being forced to make homosexual cakes even though it violated his religion comes to mind) it should be all or nothing. Either they can do what they want or they can't.

This. My property, my rules. Nobody should have the right to tell me what I can or can't do on my property, or who I can or can't allow on my property. If a business doesn't want me to open carry on their property, then I won't give them my business. If I found out a business refuses services to minorities, then I won't give them my business.
 

28kfps

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
1,534
Location
Pointy end and slightly to the left
This. My property, my rules. Nobody should have the right to tell me what I can or can't do on my property, or who I can or can't allow on my property. If a business doesn't want me to open carry on their property, then I won't give them my business. If I found out a business refuses services to minorities, then I won't give them my business.

As you well know that is not so as the owners of the cake shop said they did not support same sex marriages due to their religious convictions and had a judgment against them. Their property, their rule not allowed.
Have no idea what the answer would be. I surely agree with business rights. Wish I were smart enough to come up with a feasible solution. I believe a business open to the public, advertising to the masses, encouraging all to come in through their unlock doors often saying welcome, should have a different obligation to the public unlike a private home not open to the public which is their castle. Just hate to see a constitutional protected right being stopped by a rule.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Go to a Chevy dealer and demand to buy a BMW! You have a right to a BMW and they invited you onto their property. If they do not produce the BMW of your choice sue them for failure to accommodate. :rolleyes:
 

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
Even persons with legitimate business can be trespassed if their behavior warrants trespass.

what you are talking about is when you no longer have legitimate reason to be there. in other words, a sells man that knocks on your door, will not be trespassed. until he refuses to leave. that is where he crossed the line. from an uninvited guest, to a unwelcome trespasser. actually the same with a self defense carrier. well, within certain states anyway
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
what you are talking about is when you no longer have legitimate reason to be there. in other words, a sells man that knocks on your door, will not be trespassed. until he refuses to leave. that is where he crossed the line. from an uninvited guest, to a unwelcome trespasser. actually the same with a self defense carrier. well, within certain states anyway

Not correct. Being 'trespassed' for behavior does not cancel out 'legitimate reason to be there,' it simply overrides it with statute violation.
A salesman to a private residence, is invited, or is trespassing. (within limits). We are not speaking of door-to-door salesmen, we are speaking of business patrons. i.e., 'invited' customers who are otherwise not causing reason for trespass. A private residence does not assume an 'invitation' as does a business open to the public.

And, unless you know of ANY state with statute preventing discrimination against an open carrier, in (at my guess) every state.




Specifically, if an open carrier goes to Albertson's to purchase groceries, and a store manager informs him to leave, the reason for the shopping is still extant. The open carrier STILL has a legitimate reason to be there. The 'right' of the business owner has overridden that for the time being. The open carrier's invitation to do that shopping at that store has been revoked. The reason is still legitimate. The invitation to do shopping at that store has been revoked, and refusal to leave at that point is most likely a crime, depending upon how that state/municipality has crafted trespass statutes. (That holds true for just about any reason or no reason at all even, with exceptions for 'protected class' invitation revocations).


A private home is a separate matter, requiring an actual invitation for entry.
 
Last edited:

wittmeba

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
143
Location
New Castle, Va
Perhaps when asked to leave a business the best reply might be "Can I spend some money here first"? It could be interesting what the response might be.
 
Top