Does this apply?

imported post

RCW 9.91.010Denial of civil rights — Terms defined.
Terms used in this section shall have the following definitions:

(1)(a) "Every person" shall be construed to include any owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, agent or employee whether one or more natural persons, partnerships, associations, organizations, corporations, cooperatives, legal representatives, trustees, receivers, of this state and its political subdivisions, boards and commissions, engaged in or exercising control over the operation of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage or amusement.

(b) "Deny" is hereby defined to include any act which directly or indirectly, or by subterfuge, by a person or his agent or employee, results or is intended or calculated to result in whole or in part in any discrimination, distinction, restriction, or unequal treatment, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons, regardless of race, creed or color.

(c) "Full enjoyment of" shall be construed to include the right to purchase any service, commodity or article of personal property offered or sold on, or by, any establishment to the public, and the admission of any person to accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage or amusement, without acts directly or indirectly causing persons of any particular race, creed or color, to be treated as not welcome, accepted, desired or solicited.

(d) "Any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage or amusement" is hereby defined to include, but not to be limited to, any public place, licensed or unlicensed, kept for gain, hire or reward, or where charges are made for admission, service, occupancy or use of any property or facilities, whether conducted for the entertainment, housing or lodging of transient guests, or for the benefit, use or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or for the sale of goods and merchandise, or for the rendering of personal services, or for public conveyance or transportation on land, water or in the air, including the stations and terminals thereof and the garaging of vehicles, or where food or beverages of any kind are sold for consumption on the premises, or where public amusement, entertainment, sports or recreation of any kind is offered with or without charge, or where medical service or care is made available, or where the public gathers, congregates, or assembles for amusement, recreation or public purposes, or public halls, public elevators and public washrooms of buildings and structures occupied by two or more tenants, or by the owner and one or more tenants, or any public library or any educational institution wholly or partially supported by public funds, or schools of special instruction, or nursery schools, or day care centers or children's camps; nothing herein contained shall be construed to include, or apply to, any institute, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is by its nature distinctly private provided that where public use is permitted that use shall be covered by this section; nor shall anything herein contained apply to any educational facility operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution; and the right of a natural parent in loco parentis to direct the education and upbringing of a child under his control is hereby affirmed.

(2) Every person who denies to any other person because of race, creed, or color, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.



I wonder if this can be used to fight buisnesses from banning people who carry guns or does this exclusively apply to Racial issues?

imported post

I don't think that a firearm ban is a civil rights violation myself. Typically those are civil suits that are the result of a denial based on race, creed, color, religion, gender, or nationality.

imported post

I would absolutely agree that it is a civil rights violation, a ban on firearms regardless of what kind is a violation of the U.S. Constitution specifically the 2nd Amendment. If when they were originally created they were called the Bill of Rights I don't see how they could be viewed as anything else. Furthermore, if the voting RIGHTS of minorities and women can be secured and cause the creation of amendments to the Constitution than there is absolutely no way that gun rights could be considered anything other than civil rights.

imported post

Shy_Panda wrote:

I would absolutely agree that it is a civil rights violation, a ban on firearms regardless of what kind is a violation of the U.S. Constitution specifically the 2nd Amendment. If when they were originally created they were called the Bill of Rights I don't see how they could be viewed as anything else. Furthermore, if the voting RIGHTS of minorities and women can be secured and cause the creation of amendments to the Constitution than there is absolutely no way that gun rights could be considered anything other than civil rights.

Click to expand...

The constitution guarantees and protects civil liberties. The 14th amendment was added for the guarantee of civil rights as well as the civil rights act of 1964. They are two completely different things. Firearms do not fall under civil rights. They fall under civil liberties.

imported post

I agree too; it's a violation of our civil rights. "They will have to pry my gun(s) from my cold, dead hands!"

imported post

So do we have the right or the liberty to carry a firearm?

imported post

BOTH!

imported post

It's our God given & American right to do so!

imported post

Carrying a firearm is a god given right and affirmed by the 2nd amendment, which is classified as a civil liberty. Civil rights are rights that are granted by the country. Thus the reason that a carrying a firearm is not a civil right. Do some research on it and you will find out.

BTW lilothedog, can you please turn your font down?

imported post

Sorry for the font size joeroket. Carrying a firearm is just what I believe in. Research, civil rights or any fancy way to say it...it's just what any red blooded American has the right to do! And in MY opinion, anyone that should try to take that away.....well, they'll see the end of a .45. Right, wrong or indifferent....that's what I believe.

imported post

The Constitution, whether that of the State of Washington or of the United States, is a description of and limitation upon government power.

Once you step onto another person's private property, their rules apply. Any other attitude fails to take into account that other people have the same rights that you do.

You have the right not to do business with them for any reason, just as they have the right not to do business with you, for any reason. This is known as "Freedom of Association". The so-called "Fair Housing" Act and other legislation notwithstanding, any requirement that you provide services or housing to anyone you don't wish to, is a form of involuntary servitude (slavery). This is marginally/arguably Constitutional because it was legislated and applies equally to everyone ("due process").

If you're dumb enough to refuse to deal with someone based upon their skin shade, the market will punish you. For example, the bussing issue in the south that catalyzed around Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott. The bus companies weren't the ones promulgating the rules- they were enforced by power of law. (I'm sure the bus companies weren't too worried about it either). It wasn't fairness which got the rules changed, it was economics: the bus companies literally could not operate without their black patrons' money. Likewise, we have the right to withhold our money from a business that bans guns- that's all.

For gun owners, the issue is much clearer. Regardless of our natural right to arm ourselves for self defense, we are engaging in a voluntary behaviour, and if another person finds that objectionable on their property, they clearly have the right to refuse to do business with us or tolerate our presence. They have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Obviously, there are some limits. They don't have the right to search me or my car unless I consent to such as a condition of employment (which may be as simple as a statement in their handbook which I must read and acknowledge). But a company could refuse to hire or fire me for pretty much anything they want- smoking on or off duty, engaging in political activism, drinking alcohol, doing drugs, or any other thing they find objectionable or liable to hurt their enterprise. Their association with me as an employer is just as free as my association with them as an employee. The business owner's association with me as a proprietor of services or goods, is just as voluntary as my association with him as a customer. Requiring either of us to do business with the other is involuntary servitude. It's a degree of slavery.

imported post

lilothedog wrote:

Sorry for the font size joeroket. Carrying a firearm is just what I believe in. Research, civil rights or any fancy way to say it...it's just what any red blooded American has the right to do! And in MY opinion, anyone that should try to take that away.....well, they'll see the end of a .45. Right, wrong or indifferent....that's what I believe.

Click to expand...

I do agree with you 100% but we are bound by governmental rules and regulation, in the case of firearms they are limited rules and regs unless, as thebastidge said, you are a private property owner. The case with the library is unfortunately a crappy situation and may very well be won but will take a ton of time and work.

imported post

But as this law states private property rights are not all powerful and are different when your private property is a business open to the public. It is titled "denial of civil rights" This implies all civil rights even though in the punishment section it only lists color, creed and race this seems to be a, includes but not limited to thing. The fact is private property ie. your home and private property open to the public are helled to different standards. If the only civil rights protected under this law are the three given as examples in subsection (2) than gays, for example, would be open to discrimination by store owners. So if this law protects everyone from being refused goods or services or the right to enter or stay at a store unless they are breaking some state or federal law ( as the law indicates in subsection (B) ) That would make sense otherwise I could get kicked out of Best Buy because the manager doesn't like my tattoo or my pants have a tear in the pocket or forany other reason he may make up. It seems to me that this law ensures that unless you are breaking the law you cannot be forced to leave a store or public facility that is at the time open to the public.

imported post

Ok but section one only does the defining of terms. Section 2 is the actually enforceable code. I don't see anything about firearms. Granted, like you said, there is nothing about sexual orientation listed in it which tells me this is an outdated RCW. I think you want this to fit your situation bad enough you are overlooking the title which pertains to civil rights. As I stated firearms are covered in the bill of rights and are completely seperate from civil rights. The only sure way to resolve this would e to talk to a civil rights attornyey and see what his take on the RCW is.

(2) Every person who denies to any other person because of race, creed, or color, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

imported post

First, IANAL.

Second, I think there is an interesting wording there. It's says any place of "public"...

I would say that this could be looked at from the perspective that if it's a location that the public can access(such as the lobby of a hotel, etc) then as the owner you can't legally deny someone based on certain reasons. But if it a private club, or your private house, etc then you can.

Just making the point of public vs private. I think the rules "could" be different for the two types of locations.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Ok but section one only does the defining of terms. Section 2 is the actually enforceable code. I don't see anything about firearms. Granted, like you said, there is nothing about sexual orientation listed in it which tells me this is an outdated RCW. I think you want this to fit your situation bad enough you are overlooking the title which pertains to civil rights. As I stated firearms are covered in the bill of rights and are completely seperate from civil rights. The only sure way to resolve this would e to talk to a civil rights attornyey and see what his take on the RCW is.

(2) Every person who denies to any other person because of race, creed, or color, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

I guess I have always thought of right to carry as a civil right.

imported post

Agent 47 wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Ok but section one only does the defining of terms. Section 2 is the actually enforceable code. I don't see anything about firearms. Granted, like you said, there is nothing about sexual orientation listed in it which tells me this is an outdated RCW. I think you want this to fit your situation bad enough you are overlooking the title which pertains to civil rights. As I stated firearms are covered in the bill of rights and are completely seperate from civil rights. The only sure way to resolve this would e to talk to a civil rights attornyey and see what his take on the RCW is.

(2) Every person who denies to any other person because of race, creed, or color, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

I guess I have always thought of right to carry as a civil right.

Click to expand...

Alot of people think that way and I wish it was that way but unfortunately the govt. did not incorporate it into the civil rights because the founding fathers had already done so in the bill of rights.

imported post

section 1 is only for defining terms, and does not apply as a law.

section 2 reads:

(2) Every person who denies to any other person because of race, creed, or color, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

The sentence does not apply to carrying a gun unless the sign says "No armed asians allowed" or something like that. If everyone is allowed to carry guns except for arabs (or jews, or black people, or whatever other race, creed or color you can thing of), then it is a violation of this law. BUT, if it has nothing to do with race, creed or color, this law does not apply.

imported post

Agent47: "It seems to me that this law ensures that unless you are breaking the law you cannot be forced to leave a store or public facility that is at the time open to the public."

Ding! Wrong answer. Again, posting it is just to cover one's (business) ass, but those little signs about refusing service to anyone are absolutely correct.

A business can ask you to leave at any time for any reason that is not specifically prohibited by law. Those specifically prohibited reasons are typically spelled out in anti-discrimination laws as race, creed, colour, national origin, sex, and lately, sexual orientationor gender "identity". Whatever the reason, they are all considered to be inherent conditions- being armed is not an inherent condition, but merely an inherent right. Therefore it is a behaviour, and you can be trespassed for behaviour from a private property, even one that is open to the public (and yes, the rules are somewhat different for a property that is open to the public vs truly private property such as a residence.)

Of course, as noted, private property rights are not treated as absolute under the law.

Agent47: "otherwise I could get kicked out of Best Buy because the manager doesn't like my tattoo or my pants have a tear in the pocket or forany other reason he may make up."

He absolutely CAN do that. "Sir, you are dressed inappropriately for our store. Please leave the premises immediately. If you fail to comply I will call the police." How hardis that? He is NOT required to give you any reason for trespassing you. He just has to ask you to leave. The reason for corporate standards on when and how to trespass somebody, is to ensure equal treatment so that no one can later CLAIM that they were discriminated against on the basis of a protected class. In aid of this goal, the manager or other authorized individual may provide you with a reason at his/her discretion, but is not required to. Your only recourse would be to bring a discrimination suit in civil court and prove through a preponderance of evidence that he discriminated against you based, again, on one of those protected classes.

Joeroket: "I think you want this to fit your situation bad enough you are overlooking {...}."

I think you are right on this point, sir.

However: "A lot of people think that way and I wish it was that way but unfortunately the govt. did not incorporate it into the civil rights because the founding fathers had already done so in the bill of rights."

Civil rights and civil liberties are the same thing. It's a distinction without a difference. You seem to be confused aboutthe 14th Amendment which (among several unrelated provisions) extends the civil liberties acknowledged in the so-called "Bill of Rights" (which is an unofficial term which merely refers tothe first ten amendments to the Constitution of the US) to guarantee that the States may not violate those liberties that formerly only the Federal government was prohibited from abridging. First it was "Congress shall make no law..." and the 14th extended that to the States' legislatures as well.

Now, in practice, the 2nd Amendment has not been treated as well as others like the 1st, the 4th, or even the 5th, under this concept: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/)

There has not so far been a Supreme Court willing to hear a case which would specifically bear on whether the 14th Amendment includes the 2nd in its scope, though the plain language would clearly say that it does. Sadly, Jim Crow laws in the South particularly should have laid any question to rest upon a Constitutional challenge, being specifically designed to disarm Blacks. For various and sundry unfortunate historical reasons, this did not happen.

None of which above bears on private individuals requesting and requiring that you not carry firearms on private property. The whole issue of protected classes being imposed upon business owners and other private citizens thoroughlyviolates the idea of equal protection of the LAWS, but that's what we've been stuck with since the pendulum swung in that direction decades ago.

imported post

thebastidge wrote:

However: "A lot of people think that way and I wish it was that way but unfortunately the govt. did not incorporate it into the civil rights because the founding fathers had already done so in the bill of rights."

Civil rights and civil liberties are the same thing. It's a distinction without a difference. You seem to be confused aboutthe 14th Amendment which (among several unrelated provisions) extends the civil liberties acknowledged in the so-called "Bill of Rights" (which is an unofficial term which merely refers tothe first ten amendments to the Constitution of the US) to guarantee that the States may not violate those liberties that formerly only the Federal government was prohibited from abridging. First it was "Congress shall make no law..." and the 14th extended that to the States' legislatures as well.

Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from and confused? Maybe a little. Civil rights and civil liberties the same thing? I don't agree with that. If that were the case the civil rights act of 1964 would not have been needed, which is what I have been looking at mostly. Also since SCOTUS refuses to hear a case that might ask to apply the 2nd via the 14th gives a huge indication as to how local prosecutors will look at it. Thank God we all get our own opinions, hell I hope mine is wrong someday.