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

28kfps said:

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.

Click to expand...

Is there not a difference between refusal of service based on a person rather than an event? In the case of the cake shop, were the owners of the cake shop refusing service to the individuals based on their homosexuality, or the event? Would those same cake shop owners have refused an order for a birthday cake for one of the homosexuals solely based on their sexual preference? I doubt it. I think in this regard the cake shop owners had every right to refuse service.

If I'm not mistaken, Somewhere in the bible it talks of "unequally yoked". If a Christian refused to conduct business with anyone who did not share the faith, would it not be a violation of their religious freedom to require them too? In this case it would be refusal of service not for something you are, but rather something you're not. Interesting thought to ponder.

TBG

The Big Guy said:

Is there not a difference between refusal of service based on a person rather than an event? ...

Click to expand...

Nope, not according to the court.

The Big Guy said:

Is there not a difference between refusal of service based on a person rather than an event? In the case of the cake shop, were the owners of the cake shop refusing service to the individuals based on their homosexuality, or the event? Would those same cake shop owners have refused an order for a birthday cake for one of the homosexuals solely based on their sexual preference? I doubt it. I think in this regard the cake shop owners had every right to refuse service.

If I'm not mistaken, Somewhere in the bible it talks of "unequally yoked". If a Christian refused to conduct business with anyone who did not share the faith, would it not be a violation of their religious freedom to require them too? In this case it would be refusal of service not for something you are, but rather something you're not. Interesting thought to ponder.

TBG

Click to expand...

I saw this on the news as it was happening. They were opposed to the lifestyle AND event, but it was the event itself that they were refusing to bake a cake for, as was the second example where people wanted to rent their farm for a gay wedding. Now, you're not talking about a protected class or event, but rather something altogether different. Again I ask about the Nazi Swastika cake...

In the second point, 'unequally yoked' refers to believers marrying non-believers, and transferring it to who you do business with can probably be legitimized, however if you tried to hire 'only Christians' or serve 'only Christians', even though it falls under Freedom of Religion you'd undoubtedly be sued; something I've never understood. But it IS the 'back of the bus' mentality so in our society it seems that any type of open discrimination of protected classes is illegal.

Which brings us back to the 'gay cake or wedding' vs. a protected RTBA. We don't have a Constitutional right to a wedding at all, let alone a certain TYPE of wedding, yet the courts have ruled that you have to cater to them. But we DO have a Constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms and here we are getting kicked out left and right. What if MOST businesses jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon and we were essentially not able to carry ANYWHERE?

If every gun owner in America marched in locked step would there be any change in public perception or the way the courts viewed the issue? And has anyone ever really CHALLENGED the trespass issue as one of a civil right, even though it may not have reached that legal status? I'm not sure where business rights pick up and individual rights leave off. I know that even though we have Freedom of the Press any business can kick out the media for no reason at all, so obviously denying some rights are legally acceptable.

And with that in mind, what if we as a group began picketing outside of the businesses that have no-gun policies? It's funny how quickly some businesses will bow to public pressure when they think their bottom line will be negatively impacted. It would be done to raise awareness, not with the plan of running them out of business.

OC for ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

Not sure of your example or how it refers to what I was trying to say. Talking about a person going into a Chevy dealer or any other business looking for items they sale based on information received after they spent tons on their advertising and encouraging with sales and gimmicks for all to come in and spend money then asked to leave while conducting themselves in a legal manner and exercising their 2 amendment right.

The Big Guy said:

Is there not a difference between refusal of service based on a person rather than an event? In the case of the cake shop, were the owners of the cake shop refusing service to the individuals based on their homosexuality, or the event? Would those same cake shop owners have refused an order for a birthday cake for one of the homosexuals solely based on their sexual preference? I doubt it. I think in this regard the cake shop owners had every right to refuse service.

If I'm not mistaken, Somewhere in the bible it talks of "unequally yoked". If a Christian refused to conduct business with anyone who did not share the faith, would it not be a violation of their religious freedom to require them too? In this case it would be refusal of service not for something you are, but rather something you're not. Interesting thought to ponder.

TBG

Click to expand...

I agree I believe the cake shop was shafted. However on the other had I believe the cake shop should not have the right to prevent a person from exercising a right protected by its own conational right. I realize more of a pipe dream. Here is the law I like to see business have private property rights except when it come to the 2nd amendment.

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree many business reserve the right to refuse service for any reason. If one is asked to leave a private business a reason is not required. A good example is some of the night clubs with the bouncer at the door deciding who can go in and who is not allowed.

28kfps said:

I agree I believe the cake shop was shafted. However on the other had I believe the cake shop should not have the right to prevent a person from exercising a right protected by its own conational right. I realize more of a pipe dream. Here is the law I like to see business have private property rights except when it come to the 2nd amendment.

Click to expand...

There are extremely grotesque violations of the 2A all over this country. That is because the constitutional amendments are there to prevent the government from stealing our freedom. (Though they do it anyway).
It certainly does not ensure anyone's right to force a business operating on private property to run their business how they wish.

wrightme said:

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.

Click to expand...

WRIGHT from it sounds like you agree with with what is being said, but wanting to argue

The only thing g I will say is that in your example, the store manager will not tell you that you have to leave. But that your gun needs to leave. They will be happy if you come back

papa bear said:

WRIGHT from it sounds like you agree with with what is being said, but wanting to argue

Click to expand...

Then you have not understood what I posted.

papa bear said:

The only thing g I will say is that in your example, the store manager will not tell you that you have to leave. But that your gun needs to leave. They will be happy if you come back

Click to expand...

Not sure I am following what your meaning is.

Here is what you said:

papa bear said:

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

Click to expand...

No, that is not what I was talking about, as I pointed out. I did not say 'I agree with was is being said,' but just want to argue. I was stating that I do NOT agree that you understood what I was talking about. What I was speaking of has/had nothing whatsoever to do with your example of a traveling salesman, nor was it about 'no longer have legitimate reason to be there.'

To reiterate:

wrightme said:

papa bear said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

trespass does not simply happen when a person has no apparent business on the property, it happens when someone who controls the property actually informs them that they must leave the property.


By the way, since you brought up 'definitions,' the definition of trespass for this thread subject would be that which is identified in NV statutes, not the one you created for this thread.

NRS 207.200

Great topic.

If you start a business an acquire a license from the state to operate, then guess what, the state makes the rules...

Open a business without the state license, and you make the rules.... Just think about it, if you can not make the rules then it is not your business...

My .02

CCJ

Sorry WRIGHTIME, I was assuming you had a basic understanding. I will type real slow so you can keep up:lol:

yo can be on someone's property, IF you have a legitimate business there. say if you are a bonds man collecting a runner. or say, as in the example if a wounded deer runs across a property.
a good example is this: if i was to go to do work in a cemetery, with a job giving to me by the family, then i can not be charged with Trespass. if I am not doing work for a family then i can be charged with trespass.

same thing when someone knocks on a door, they have ligetamate business there. once the person that owns the property says leave then the sales man can be charged with trespass. see where the line was crossed

the other thing. the store owner tell s you the gun must leave, but you can come back. i thought this was pretty clear. but then i think you still just want to argue

Hey WRIGHTIME I see another problem you are having. which i guess you chose to not read in my post.
I said it depends on what state you are in. different states have different laws.

Who'd thought

papa bear said:

Hey WRIGHTIME I see another problem you are having. which i guess you chose to not read in my post.
I said it depends on what state you are in. different states have different laws.

Who'd thought

Click to expand...

Correct. Why are you posting what your laws are, given the discussion is about NV? I clearly saw that you were in another state.

papa bear said:

Sorry WRIGHTIME, I was assuming you had a basic understanding. I will type real slow so you can keep up:lol:

yo can be on someone's property, IF you have a legitimate business there. say if you are a bonds man collecting a runner. or say, as in the example if a wounded deer runs across a property.
a good example is this: if i was to go to do work in a cemetery, with a job giving to me by the family, then i can not be charged with Trespass. if I am not doing work for a family then i can be charged with trespass.

same thing when someone knocks on a door, they have ligetamate business there. once the person that owns the property says leave then the sales man can be charged with trespass. see where the line was crossed

the other thing. the store owner tell s you the gun must leave, but you can come back. i thought this was pretty clear. but then i think you still just want to argue

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what you claim about private property, it is about public property. Your points are not relevant to the discussion. But, it is clear that you are simply here to argue with me.

Once again another thread that ends up as a bashing tool with the only ones who continue to read with any interest is the ones bashing each other. Have fun.

28kfps said:

Once again another thread that ends up as a bashing tool with the only ones who continue to read with any interest is the ones bashing each other. Have fun.

Click to expand...

I have no interest in bashing anyone. I do NOT like it one bit when someone does it to me.



I have tried to present the laws as they are in NV, as directly relevant to the discussion, so that the information he presented was not believed to be the 'rule of law' in NV. I sure did not expect the overt hostile response. I will unsubscribe and no longer reply.

Sorry to hear about your hurt feelings WRITGHTIME

not trying to argue with you at all. just making a comment on OP. i believe it was you who was having a problem understanding, what i wrote.

please don't be so thin skin, or so hurt in your feelings. i am sorry you were offended by anything i wrote.

what i wrote were a generalization of rules by court, and probably apply to NV also

BTW, just because someone doesn't bow to you does not mean they are bashing you.
i hope you have a better day

papa bear said:

Sorry to hear about your hurt feelings WRITGHTIME

not trying to argue with you at all. just making a comment on OP. i believe it was you who was having a problem understanding, what i wrote.

please don't be so thin skin, or so hurt in your feelings. i am sorry you were offended by anything i wrote.

what i wrote were a generalization of rules by court, and probably apply to NV also

BTW, just because someone doesn't bow to you does not mean they are bashing you.
i hope you have a better day

Click to expand...

I was not going to reply, but.


My feelings are not hurt.

Yes you are trying to argue with me.

I am not thin skinned.

If you feel what you posted is a 'generalization of rules by court,' please provide authoritative source for your views, under forum rule #5.

Then explain how that
a) applies to NV
b) applies to this thread.

How you feel about me does not alter what I responded to your posts about. What you posted had nothing to do with trespass as discussed in this thread, or about trespass under NV statutes. If you think differently, maybe you can share your reasoning. Maybe without making it personal?

wrightme said:

I was not going to reply, but.


My feelings are not hurt.

Yes you are trying to argue with me.

I am not thin skinned.

If you feel what you posted is a 'generalization of rules by court,' please provide authoritative source for your views, under forum rule #5.

Then explain how that
a) applies to NV
b) applies to this thread.

How you feel about me does not alter what I responded to your posts about. What you posted had nothing to do with trespass as discussed in this thread, or about trespass under NV statutes. If you think differently, maybe you can share your reasoning. Maybe without making it personal?

Click to expand...

I swore I would stop reading this thread, but this reply made it worth it.

This link is a relevant document on the rights of businesses to exclude. The SCOTUS cites as to the rights of businesses to exclude anyone from their premises sans specific protected classes and that right being fundamental.

http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1470&context=wujlp