• 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.

Just kick out of Layton Hills Mall for OC.....

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

utsp101 wrote:
I think it would be an effective strategy to have all the gun owners in the area of the mall to simply not patronize the mall.
Eaiser said than done, most mall traffic seems to be teens, but still a good idea!
 

vote_no

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
97
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:
althor wrote:
Cue-Ball... You don't really believe that do you??? I hope not.
Believe what? That my property rights are more important than your gun rights? You're damn right I do. Nobody has a "right" to be on any other person's private property. By coming onto that property you agree to abide by the property owner's wishes. If the owner says only hot women are allowed, then sorry...them's the rules. If the owner says that you can't come on the property without an offering of beer...them's the rules. If the owner says you can't bring your weapon onto the property....sorry, but them's the rules.

You don't like the rules, you go elsewhere.

You are essentially saying that you are within your rights to ban black people from entering your bar. You are insane.
 

drkarrow

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
76
Location
, Minnesota, USA
imported post

vote_no wrote:
Cue-Ball wrote:

You are essentially saying that you are within your rights to ban black people from entering your bar. You are insane.


Pretty weak when you have to pull out the race card when race was never mentioned by anyone.

Anyhow, why shouldn't he be able to? Did I miss the constitutional amendment that says I have the right to enter someone else’s private property whether they want me to or not? I'd say you are the insane one.

Right to life doesoveride property rights in that you have the choice to stay off my property and stay alive. No one can force you onto their property. Entering someone else's property is a choice. If you think a property is unsafe, stay out and stay alive. You always have that choice.

If you shoot yourself in the head it is not the gun makers fault for making an unsafe product, it's your fault for being dumb enough to shoot yourself in the head.

If you enter someone else's property that you think is unsafe and get hurt, it's not the property owner's fault you were hurt, it's your fault for being dumb enough to enter an unsafe property.
 

utsp101

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
16
Location
, ,
imported post

Who said anything about blacks or bars? This whole subject took a real strange detour with that. Obviously, someone is born whatever race they are but choose to be a gun owner.
 

vote_no

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
97
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:
Perhaps you could persuade us all, with your sound reasoning, why you should be able to go onto private property against the owner's wishes.

You really don't see a difference between private property and a private business? Between your own house and a house you are renting to someone?
 

UTOC-45-44

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
2,579
Location
Morgan, Utah, USA
imported post

vote_no wrote:
Cue-Ball wrote:
althor wrote:
Cue-Ball... You don't really believe that do you??? I hope not.
Believe what? That my property rights are more important than your gun rights? You're damn right I do. Nobody has a "right" to be on any other person's private property. By coming onto that property you agree to abide by the property owner's wishes. If the owner says only hot women are allowed, then sorry...them's the rules. If the owner says that you can't come on the property without an offering of beer...them's the rules. If the owner says you can't bring your weapon onto the property....sorry, but them's the rules.

You don't like the rules, you go elsewhere.

You are essentially saying that you are within your rights to ban black people from entering your bar. You are insane.


Guys...,I think that if we would rememeber the "Great Warrior" for Civil Rights Martin L King Jr. He Fought VERY hard for Civil Rights for the African American Community.

He and the African American Community FOUGHT very hard to have their Rights RECOGNIZED. which the Constitution ALREADY have recognized.

I think that's the Thinkin Pattern is the same with our Civil Rights that ALREADY exists and we are FIGHTING for them. I believe this is the Point Cue-Ball is trying to get across. I don't think he is trying the "Race Card". It's just the Principal Behind fighting and having the Constitutional Right to Carry wether on or of Private property.

Let's face it...The African American was "limited" ( this is a VERY weak word ) to be on Private Property and was given "special" locations where they could gather. They were very much frowned upon EVENTHOUGH the CONSTITUTION recognized that they are "born free and equal"

I can see the Piont of Constitutional Right that Cue-Ball is trying to get across.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The opening of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, states as follows:






We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.


The same sentiment appears in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which predates the U.S. Constitution by seven years, and was the first of its kind in the world. 1780 also marks the first time in America that such wording was used to successfully argue against slavery in a court of law: Brom and Bett vs. Ashley.






Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.






 

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
imported post

utsp101 wrote:
Who said anything about blacks or bars? This whole subject took a real strange detour with that. Obviously, someone is born whatever race they are but choose to be a gun owner.
Maybe wanting to be a gun owner is genetic and not a choice. Anyone aware of any studies in this area?:what:
 

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

vote_no wrote:
You really don't see a difference between private property and a private business? Between your own house and a house you are renting to someone?
First off, YOU mentioned a business, not me. Society has decided that "private" and "public accomodation" are two different things. Personally, I'm not so sure that they are, and as noble the idea of equal rights is (where we supposedly have no discrimination), I don't believe that anti-discrimination laws work, and I know for a fact that they encroach on property rights. So, perhaps we should rethink them altogether.

Let me give you some examples, if I open a bar and say that women are not allowed, that would violate anti-discrimination laws and I could be sued. However, if I open a bar that charges a membership fee, it becomes a private club and I can prevent anyone I want from coming inside. This is how we have places like Curves (a women-only fitness club) and men-only clubs. By the same token you can't get a job as a waitress at Hooters if you have a penis, and you can't get a job on a soap opera if you're ugly. The court has upheld that it is legal for the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate against gays. The US Army does the exact same thing. Jews and Athiests can't get jobs with the Catholic church, even if they have the skills required to do so. Are these not forms of discrimination based on things that are not a choice (sex, skin color, attractiveness)?

I think it's despicable that anyone would discriminate against another person based on their sex, skin color, religion, etc. but it DOES happen, regardless of how many laws there are against it. Anti-discrimination laws are ineffective and unenforcable, similar to some other laws that we're all very familiar with *cough*gun laws*cough*. In the same way that anti-gun laws limit freedom, anti-discrimination laws do the exact same thing.
 

vote_no

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
97
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:
vote_no wrote:
You really don't see a difference between private property and a private business? Between your own house and a house you are renting to someone?
First off, YOU mentioned a business, not me. Society has decided that "private" and "public accomodation" are two different things. Personally, I'm not so sure that they are, and as noble the idea of equal rights is (where we supposedly have no discrimination), I don't believe that anti-discrimination laws work, and I know for a fact that they encroach on property rights. So, perhaps we should rethink them altogether.

Let me give you some examples, if I open a bar and say that women are not allowed, that would violate anti-discrimination laws and I could be sued. However, if I open a bar that charges a membership fee, it becomes a private club and I can prevent anyone I want from coming inside. This is how we have places like Curves (a women-only fitness club) and men-only clubs. By the same token you can't get a job as a waitress at Hooters if you have a penis, and you can't get a job on a soap opera if you're ugly. The court has upheld that it is legal for the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate against gays. The US Army does the exact same thing. Jews and Athiests can't get jobs with the Catholic church, even if they have the skills required to do so. Are these not forms of discrimination based on things that are not a choice (sex, skin color, attractiveness)?

I think it's despicable that anyone would discriminate against another person based on their sex, skin color, religion, etc. but it DOES happen, regardless of how many laws there are against it. Anti-discrimination laws are ineffective and unenforcable, similar to some other laws that we're all very familiar with *cough*gun laws*cough*. In the same way that anti-gun laws limit freedom, anti-discrimination laws do the exact same thing.
We're talking about a mall in this thread, are we not? You were voicing your approval of the ability to ban guns in malls, were you not? You're the one who brought it up, and what you are saying is that discrimination is awful and terrible, but we should allow it because people will try to do it anyway. You have no problem with a mall that bans guns and faggots, legally. Yeah, those unenforceable anti-discrimination laws, they sure are a pain in the ass when I don't want any filthy immigrants in my apartment building.
 

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

We're talking about a mall in this thread, are we not? You were voicing your approval of the ability to ban guns in malls, were you not? You're the one who brought it up, and what you are saying is that discrimination is awful and terrible, but we should allow it because people will try to do it anyway. You have no problem with a mall that bans guns and faggots, legally. Yeah, those unenforceable anti-discrimination laws, they sure are a pain in the ass when I don't want any filthy immigrants in my apartment building.
I'm not saying that we allow discrimination because people will do it anyway. I'm saying that we allow it because it is not a proper function of government to prevent it. If someone decides to open a restaurant that is women-only, then so be it. I have no right to that businesses goods or services.

You believe in freedom of speech, correct? Do you think that I should be allowed to go to the local mall and start cursing at the top of my lungs? You believe in freedom of religion, I assume. Let's say that someone wants to open a shop at the mall that sells Satanic and occult items. Do you think the mall owner should be required by law to let that shop operate on his property, even if it's against his personal beliefs?

In this country (and all truly free societies) we have three basic rights: life, liberty, and property. Custom and common law have established that they are protected in the order of life, property, and liberty. Your right to liberty (free speech, free travel) is lower than my right of property. We know this because you are not allowed to walk into my house or stand on my lawn with protest signs without my permission. Your right to property is lower than my right to life. We know this because you cannot hurt me against my will simply because I'm on your property. The bottom line is that life trumps property, and property trumps other liberties. Anything else, no matter how well meaning, is a perversion of these rights.

I have no problem with anyone's race, color, ethnic background, religion, etc. In fact, of my two closest friends, one is black and the other is Jewish. However, if Joe's Diner down the street decides that he doesn't want to serve blacks and Jews, I would support that, the same way that I support the right of the KKK to spew hate speech. I don't like it. In fact, I think it's disgusting. But it is their right. My friends and I have no right to be on someone else's property. We only have that privilege at their discretion.
 

utahxd9

New member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
45
Location
, ,
imported post

Back on topic B,

Did you ever here anything back from mall management on this?

Just curious if anything was ever resolved.

Jay
 

Tacomatose

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
100
Location
Layton, Utah, USA
imported post

Nope, I never got another response from them. They confirmed that they would continue to enforce their "flawed" policy and that was the end of it. I believe Charles Hardy called the management as well, and they gave him the same story. As much as I hate it, it is just so easy to head over to the mall to buy certain things, so I just un-tuck the shirt and in I go. B
 

vote_no

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
97
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
imported post

Cue-Ball wrote:
We're talking about a mall in this thread, are we not? You were voicing your approval of the ability to ban guns in malls, were you not? You're the one who brought it up, and what you are saying is that discrimination is awful and terrible, but we should allow it because people will try to do it anyway. You have no problem with a mall that bans guns and faggots, legally. Yeah, those unenforceable anti-discrimination laws, they sure are a pain in the ass when I don't want any filthy immigrants in my apartment building.
I'm not saying that we allow discrimination because people will do it anyway. I'm saying that we allow it because it is not a proper function of government to prevent it. If someone decides to open a restaurant that is women-only, then so be it. I have no right to that businesses goods or services.

You believe in freedom of speech, correct? Do you think that I should be allowed to go to the local mall and start cursing at the top of my lungs? You believe in freedom of religion, I assume. Let's say that someone wants to open a shop at the mall that sells Satanic and occult items. Do you think the mall owner should be required by law to let that shop operate on his property, even if it's against his personal beliefs?

In this country (and all truly free societies) we have three basic rights: life, liberty, and property. Custom and common law have established that they are protected in the order of life, property, and liberty. Your right to liberty (free speech, free travel) is lower than my right of property. We know this because you are not allowed to walk into my house or stand on my lawn with protest signs without my permission. Your right to property is lower than my right to life. We know this because you cannot hurt me against my will simply because I'm on your property. The bottom line is that life trumps property, and property trumps other liberties. Anything else, no matter how well meaning, is a perversion of these rights.

I have no problem with anyone's race, color, ethnic background, religion, etc. In fact, of my two closest friends, one is black and the other is Jewish. However, if Joe's Diner down the street decides that he doesn't want to serve blacks and Jews, I would support that, the same way that I support the right of the KKK to spew hate speech. I don't like it. In fact, I think it's disgusting. But it is their right. My friends and I have no right to be on someone else's property. We only have that privilege at their discretion.

You are not only decrying every significant moral development since 1776, but you are reducing your ideal world to anarchy.
 

Cue-Ball

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
425
Location
Kirkland, Washington, USA
imported post

You are not only decrying every significant moral development since 1776, but you are reducing your ideal world to anarchy.
You truly believe that the only significant moral developments in the last two hundred and fifty years came from anti-discrimination laws? That is quite a sad statement, which basically says that people will never evolve or strive for equality without the government forcing them to do so. The plain truth of the matter is that every generation is more tolerant than the last, and that this tolerance has nothing to do with laws, most of which have only been in place since the 1960s.

You also might want to look up the word "anarchy" and make sure you understand its meaning. Allowing the use of private property without government interference is not, by any stretch of the imagination, anarchy. Government is required to protect liberties, to protect life, and to protect property rights. The only question is where you draw the line and in which order you place those rights.

By the way, you never answered my questions and you still have made no argument or given any reasoning to support the supposition that your position is somehow superior to mine. Simply saying "but discrimination is bad!" is not a rational argument.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

About 10 years ago, at a mall in Arizona, I was asked to take my dagger off my belt and leave it in my car. After a bit of arguing (I was much more hot-headed in my youth), I complied.

While doing my shopping, I came across a store selling... KNIVES! In fact, they were selling swords as well. I couldn't resist; I baught a dagger, which I promptly put on my belt, and a japenese katana replica for my collection. The same guards that confronted me earlier didn't say a word to me as I walked out with these weapons.

Anyhow, I say respect people on their property. Even if it is open to the public, it is still their choice. This is one reason I haven't been to the mall in about 6 years.
 
Top