Bavarian Inn

imported post

conservative85 wrote:

Funny I did not see the "right to smoke" in the Constitution, or the state constitution.

I wanna know is this policy posted/ If not I think I shall try to dine! NOT!

Click to expand...

Just as I'd expect people to honor the "no smoking" signs, I'd expect people to honor the "no guns" signs, if there are any. Now that we know the policy, I'll respect it.

I also won't be visiting their property as a result. One of those benefits of a free country is that they can choose which customers they'd like to market themselves to, and we can choose to vote with our dollars by shopping elsewhere.

imported post

I respect the response, even though I don't agree with it. I have been going to Zhenders ever since I was a little kid. Not to mention all of the little shops including the penny candy store with the indian out front. I'm bothered by this, but the fact is that I may go back and eat there at some point. I dunno guess I'm torn in a way.

imported post

dougwg wrote:

How bout a special area for Open Carry?

Click to expand...

Now that is down right FUNNY.

Smoking and non smoking areas

Now a Gun open carry area and a concealed area.



What would the the sign look like

imported post

LaVere wrote:

Click to expand...

But that guy is brandishing! Not cool man.

imported post

I liked the analogy the owner used to explain his position. He makes a really good point.

imported post

Sailorwatson wrote:

I liked the analogy the owner used to explain his position. He makes a really good point.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that he makes a good point. Just not a convincing one. He is not comparing apples to apples. Open Carrying a firearm is a Constitutionally protected activity. Smoking is not.

Free speech is another protected activity. Maybe they should ban conversations that make other customers uncomfortable.

So to make his point.. he should have said... "If our customers were to talk to others at their table about their religious beliefs or political views, it might make customers at other tables uncomfortable and we'd ask them to leave"

You think they should do that too?

imported post

atlantis wrote:

Sailorwatson wrote:

I liked the analogy the owner used to explain his position. He makes a really good point.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that he makes a good point. Just not a convincing one. He is not comparing apples to apples. Open Carrying a firearm is a Constitutionally protected activity. Smoking is not.

Free speech is another protected activity. Maybe they should ban conversations that make other customers uncomfortable.

So to make his point.. he should have said... "If our customers were to talk to others at their table about their religious beliefs or political views, it might make customers at other tables uncomfortable and we'd ask them to leave"

You think they should do that too?

Click to expand...

Should vs. the ability.

He has the ability to restrict anything from happening on his property. Why? It's a condition of entry. You don't want to have to wear a suit and tie? Don't eat at a 5-star restaurant. Same thing.

Should he restrict smoking? That's up to him, really. If he's willing to lose the potential customers that will not patronize him because of his choice, then sure, he can go right on ahead and restrict smoking. Same with carrying a firearm.

There are only a few protected classes, among them, discriminating based on religion, sex, disability, race, or color. If he were to do this, then he's in violation of the law. But if he wants to discriminate based on clothing, height, smell, or activities, among others, he can go right on ahead.

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

atlantis wrote:

Sailorwatson wrote:

I liked the analogy the owner used to explain his position. He makes a really good point.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that he makes a good point. Just not a convincing one. He is not comparing apples to apples. Open Carrying a firearm is a Constitutionally protected activity. Smoking is not.

Free speech is another protected activity. Maybe they should ban conversations that make other customers uncomfortable.

So to make his point.. he should have said... "If our customers were to talk to others at their table about their religious beliefs or political views, it might make customers at other tables uncomfortable and we'd ask them to leave"

You think they should do that too?

Click to expand...

Should vs. the ability.

He has the ability to restrict anything from happening on his property. Why? It's a condition of entry. You don't want to have to wear a suit and tie? Don't eat at a 5-star restaurant. Same thing.

Should he restrict smoking? That's up to him, really. If he's willing to lose the potential customers that will not patronize him because of his choice, then sure, he can go right on ahead and restrict smoking. Same with carrying a firearm.

There are only a few protected classes, among them, discriminating based on religion, sex, disability, race, or color. If he were to do this, then he's in violation of the law. But if he wants to discriminate based on clothing, height, smell, or activities, among others, he can go right on ahead.

Click to expand...

Yes yes, I agree. I'm not saying that what he's doing is illegal or anything. And I do think he very clearly explained his thought process as to why he decided to do that. I'm just explaining why I think is thought process is flawed and why I disagree with his decision to not allow open carry in his business.

I'm also pointing out that many people would be up in arms (no pun intended) should he restrict someones rights to free speech in his establishment like in my example...yet even this group seems to be more accepting of his restricting our 2nd ammendment rights in his business.

So maybe my thinking is off base.

But since we're saying that's it's ok...er.. at least legal for him to tell us we can't have guns in his business...are we saying that it's legal for him to determine what we may talk about in his business? You know...for the comfort of all of his guests.

Another thought that crossed my mind was a discussion elsewhere on this forum about our rights to be safe from unwarranted searches as they apply to Walmart wanting to search our bags as we leave the store. Most people here seem to think that since we have that 4th amendment right, they can't do that.

But according to what we've stated above... since it's their private property...they can decide to violate those rights... and the only thing we can do is not go there.

Not trying to be sarcastic or anything. I'm just confused and hoping to be educated about these things by you fine folks I admire so much.

Thanks in advance.

Thoughts?

imported post

atlantis wrote:

zigziggityzoo wrote:

atlantis wrote:

Sailorwatson wrote:

I liked the analogy the owner used to explain his position. He makes a really good point.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that he makes a good point. Just not a convincing one. He is not comparing apples to apples. Open Carrying a firearm is a Constitutionally protected activity. Smoking is not.

Free speech is another protected activity. Maybe they should ban conversations that make other customers uncomfortable.

So to make his point.. he should have said... "If our customers were to talk to others at their table about their religious beliefs or political views, it might make customers at other tables uncomfortable and we'd ask them to leave"

You think they should do that too?

Click to expand...

Should vs. the ability.

He has the ability to restrict anything from happening on his property. Why? It's a condition of entry. You don't want to have to wear a suit and tie? Don't eat at a 5-star restaurant. Same thing.

Should he restrict smoking? That's up to him, really. If he's willing to lose the potential customers that will not patronize him because of his choice, then sure, he can go right on ahead and restrict smoking. Same with carrying a firearm.

There are only a few protected classes, among them, discriminating based on religion, sex, disability, race, or color. If he were to do this, then he's in violation of the law. But if he wants to discriminate based on clothing, height, smell, or activities, among others, he can go right on ahead.

Click to expand...

Yes yes, I agree. I'm not saying that what he's doing is illegal or anything. And I do think he very clearly explained his thought process as to why he decided to do that. I'm just explaining why I think is thought process is flawed and why I disagree with his decision to not allow open carry in his business.

I'm also pointing out that many people would be up in arms (no pun intended) should he restrict someones rights to free speech in his establishment like in my example...yet even this group seems to be more accepting of his restricting our 2nd ammendment rights in his business.

So maybe my thinking is off base.

But since we're saying that's it's ok...er.. at least legal for him to tell us we can't have guns in his business...are we saying that it's legal for him to determine what we may talk about in his business? You know...for the comfort of all of his guests.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If he feels like he can survive as a company and restrict topics of conversation to an approved list, then he can feel free to do that.

It's his business, his property after all.

I seriously doubt he'd do it, if he wants to retain customers, but he could, and I wouldn't complain - I would, however, vote with my wallet by shopping elsewhere, just as I will for his policy on OC.

imported post

Thanks zig... that's what I thought you'd say...and I can't say I disagree.

Also, I edited my comment that you answered...before I saw you answer it.

Would you also agree then that Walmart can search our bags as we leave their store without our permission and without reasonable suspicion that the contents of those bags weren't paid for? (4th amendment be damned)... Since it's their private property. In that case is our only defense against that...not to shop there?

imported post

atlantis wrote:

Thanks zig... that's what I thought you'd say...and I can't say I disagree.

Also, I edited my comment that you answered...before I saw you answer it.

Would you also agree then that Walmart can search our bags as we leave their store without our permission and without reasonable suspicion that the contents of those bags weren't paid for? (4th amendment be damned)... Since it's their private property. In that case is our only defense against that...not to shop there?

Click to expand...

No, they can't. Just because you enter someone else's private property, doesn't mean you waive all of your rights to privacy.

Now, if they make it a condition of entry, making sure everyone who enters is aware that they are subject to search, that's another thing, but that's not what they're doing. They just randomly ask patrons to see their receipts.

To be sure:

Sam's Club/Costco make the receipt check part of their membership agreement. If you don't want to have your receipt checked, then you shouldn't have waived your right to privacy when you became a member.

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

atlantis wrote:

Thanks zig... that's what I thought you'd say...and I can't say I disagree.

Also, I edited my comment that you answered...before I saw you answer it.

Would you also agree then that Walmart can search our bags as we leave their store without our permission and without reasonable suspicion that the contents of those bags weren't paid for? (4th amendment be damned)... Since it's their private property. In that case is our only defense against that...not to shop there?

Click to expand...

No, they can't. Just because you enter someone else's private property, doesn't mean you waive all of your rights to privacy.

Now, if they make it a condition of entry, making sure everyone who enters is aware that they are subject to search, that's another thing, but that's not what they're doing. They just randomly ask patrons to see their receipts.

To be sure:

Sam's Club/Costco make the receipt check part of their membership agreement. If you don't want to have your receipt checked, then you shouldn't have waived your right to privacy when you became a member.

Click to expand...

On the surface it seems like you're saying I have a right to privacy and the business owner can't deny me that right.... but they can deny me my right to bear arms or speak my mind.

That's where I'm getting confused.... I no more have a right to be free from unwarranted searches (Privacy as you put it) than I have a right to bear arms or a right to speak my mind.. or put another way... I equally do have each of those rights.

I think I'm understanding though... They aren't depriving me of my right to bear arms or speak my mind...they're just saying I have to leave if I exercise those rights. In the warrant less search example I'm guessing they aren't enforcing that anyway. Meaning they won't tackle anyone who refuses. But just like the above example.. If I choose to exersize my right to privacy... I may not be welcome back.

I get it now. Thanks for the help.

oh.. and btw, I won't be patronizing any place that chooses not to allow me entry simply for exercising any one of my rights.

imported post

I emailed them yesterday and this is what I got in return!!!

Dear Mr. Cannon:

Thank you for your email dated yesterday regarding members of your organization that have been asked to conceal their guns while visiting Bavarian Inn Lodge. To my knowledge, as the Manager of the Bavarian Inn Lodge, this is not the case. I have been here since we opened the Lodge in 1986. In those 23 years there have been only two occasions that I am aware of where we approached an individual with a un-concealed weapon. The first (probably 12 years ago) ended up being an off-duty police officer playing putt-putt golf in our fun center. The second was an off-duty police officer also, carrying cuffs and a pistol in a pool area. Both were quick to appreciate the concern of other families with small children who approached management because of their fear of a civilian carrying a weapon.

Neither of these officers took an opportunity to make us aware of miopencarry.org and your purpose. I believe you may be writing the wrong company. I am aware that a member of your organization did visit our sister company across the river (Bavarian Inn Restaurant) several months ago. It is through that interaction that our company learned of your organization. One incident on one day. I believe other guests were in fear or concern over your member carrying a weapon in open and expressed that to management. When approached, it appears he took offense and the message you attempt to share, was communicated in a negative fashion. Your member made it clear he would never dine at the restaurant again and several negative communications have occurred since.

I will paste in the response that was sent to your member on or around June 23rd by Bill Zehnder, President of Bavarian Inn Restaurant. As the parent corporation of all Bavarian Inn properties, he has elected to give this response based on the circumstances at hand and the immense “family” based culture that exists in our properties.

Dear ________,
Thank you for your email on our policy on legal firearms. I have been associated with firearms all of my life, from a young boy with hunting, target practice and for varmint control on the farm. I have continued hunting through the past 60 years to this day. While serving in the Army during the Vietnam war era, I had hours of weapon training. I have a good understanding of your and my 2nd amendment rights.

As a private business owner, we also have our rights and responsibilities. Most important is our guests’ safety and satisfaction. The visitor perception of a welcoming and protected environment is crucial. All of our team strives to continually provide a comfortable atmosphere for our guests.

People have the right to smoke; it offends other customers and, therefore, we have limited the smoking that occurs within our building. A mother has the natural right to breastfeed her infant which may embarrass other guests; thus we ask them to be discreet as well as provide a private area for this natural process of feeding their child. If there is a screaming child in our dining room, we do our best to discreetly approach and assist the parent. Some businesses also post the policy of "no shirt, no shoes, no service" so as to not offend any customers.

Michigan has enacted a concealed weapon permit process which allows all law-abiding citizens with a clean record to discreetly carry your weapon. We have no policy against concealed carry with the proper permit as provided by Michigan legislation. Here at the Bavarian Inn we have established a No Open Carrying of Firearms policy for the peace of mind of our guests. The Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn is a family dining, lodging, and shopping environment.

We look forward to serving you in the future in a hospitable and enjoyable manner.
Sincerely,
William A. Zehnder, President
FRANKENMUTH BAVARIAN INN


Mr. Cannon: Clearly we respect your efforts to bring awareness to the definition of the law and perhaps exhibiting at festivals in public places is a great way of getting the news out about the law and our 2nd amendment rights. I greatly appreciate the 2nd amendment just like you. It appears though that using highly “child and family” focused destinations, unannounced, can create an uncomfortable or confrontational environment where adults of young children who are uninformed, don’t have an interest in anything other than their own personal safety (regardless of their lack of knowledge of the law).

While writing this letter, I went to your site to learn more about your organization. I read the thread of narrative from your members regarding Bill Zehnder’s response. So obviously you know about the above data. You perhaps are intentionally getting clarification for the thread on the Lodge position versus the Restaurant position. So I expand with a series answers and a few questions:

1) Bavarian Inn Restaurant, Bavarian Inn Lodge & Frankenmuth River Place are separate organizations. Ownership in those companies do overlap however. The Open Carry Policy would apply to all locations from now on.
2) We didn’t have a written policy on this issue until you now have asked for one. It wasn’t necessary because no one was forcing the issue. Now through a negative series of situations with one member of your organization a policy is set and your folks unfortunately don’t like the policy. I’m sorry for that. Couldn’t there have been a positive approach to convince Bavarian Inn to your way of thinking instead of forcing a negative response???
3) This policy isn’t about the constitution, it is about trying to thrive in a horrible economy and the other guests (the majority) aren’t comfortable with your display of firearms. Almost ALL we do on ALL policy is to try to get more business… not to lose customers. Please ask your organization how to engage the public positively where families with small children come to visit and they only want to care about FUN, not law, rights and policies. We aren’t built to help you get support for your cause. Use public places to get a positive response – not negative.
4) So reading your thread I have a question. We have multiple liquor licenses at our 1,200 seat restaurant at Bavarian Inn (outdoor, indoor, SDM) and multiple licenses at the Lodge (inside and out which covers Fun Center, Pool areas, etc. and within River Place (Indoor / Outdoor and SDM also) which is a large shopping complex. Do these three organizations NEED to have a policy. I just spoke with a manager who is licensed for Concealed Weapons and without getting out her literature, she thought Malls, places with liquor licenses and restaurants over a certain size are exempt from allowing weapons?
5) Can you please clarify for me if any of these locations really NEED a policy or is the law already defining policy by the nature of our business type?

If you need further clarification regarding these questions, contact me personally. Thank you in advance for considering my questions.

Sincerely,

Jim Engel, GM & C.O.O.
Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn Lodge
989-652-7200

imported post

Small children talk aside(a red herring Mr. Engle, it's the parents, not the children), a very well thought out and reasonable response I think. They seem like good people trying to run a business the best way they know how.

Mr. Engle and Mr. Zehnder have both taken the time to answer the emails sent their way, and in Mr. Engles case, he's even been gracious enough to visit the site and read up, and it seems more than what was necessary, maybe we'll sucker em' in

Either way, here on this site or in your return email, he will get the truth on the liquor license issue amongst his other questions. I love OC and prefer it to CC, but this just might be one of those examples where it might be more prudent to CC than to OC, that's just my 2 pence.

imported post

Just make sure to answer his questions, it might help to keep the communication lines open. I'm sorry if he or anyone else finds negative responses that is not our intention of course. We may not like or agree with their policiesbut that's their right and we can respect that, and people may not always like the responses that come from those policies and that's our right too. I do think that staying positive and keeping the communications open and active will go along way, and I hope that can happen here. Having said that there are 475+ members here and growing daily, that's a LOT of people. I'm not sure how many of those dine or do business with bavarian inn etc. but losing all that business equals a LOT of money. Personally while I respect the companies decision I have decided to spend my money elsewhere, that's not to be confrontational or negative that is just my right as a consumer. I do look forward to the day when I will be able to support those businesses again since It has been a long tradition for my family and me. I appreciate Mr. Engels' time to respond to the emails and hope we can continue communicate.

imported post

Generaldet wrote:

Just make sure to answer his questions, it might help to keep the communication lines open. I'm sorry if he or anyone else finds negative responses that is not our intention of course.  We may not like or agree with their policies but that's their right and we can respect that, and people may not always like the responses that come from those policies and that's our right too. I do think that staying positive and keeping the communications open and active will go along way, and I hope that can happen here. Having said that there are 475+ members here and growing daily, that's a LOT of people. I'm not sure how many of those dine or do business with bavarian inn etc. but losing all that business equals a LOT of money. Personally while I respect the companies decision I have decided to spend my money elsewhere, that's not to be confrontational or negative that is just my right as a consumer. I do look forward to the day when I will be able to support those businesses again since It has been a long tradition for my family and me. I appreciate Mr. Engels' time to respond to the emails and hope we can continue communicate.

Click to expand...

I thanked him for his time and quick response.I also answered his questions as to open carry and invited him to join our forum and ask as many questions as he wants to.I also asked him about an oc section kinda like a smoking section and made him aware that most ocers wont spend money in a place we cant oc in and that there were alot of ocers so it would equal alot of lost profit!!!But i did it in a polite way!!:celebrate:celebrate

imported post

cabman1 wrote:

Generaldet wrote:

Just make sure to answer his questions, it might help to keep the communication lines open. I'm sorry if he or anyone else finds negative responses that is not our intention of course. We may not like or agree with their policiesbut that's their right and we can respect that, and people may not always like the responses that come from those policies and that's our right too. I do think that staying positive and keeping the communications open and active will go along way, and I hope that can happen here. Having said that there are 475+ members here and growing daily, that's a LOT of people. I'm not sure how many of those dine or do business with bavarian inn etc. but losing all that business equals a LOT of money. Personally while I respect the companies decision I have decided to spend my money elsewhere, that's not to be confrontational or negative that is just my right as a consumer. I do look forward to the day when I will be able to support those businesses again since It has been a long tradition for my family and me. I appreciate Mr. Engels' time to respond to the emails and hope we can continue communicate.

Click to expand...

I thanked him for his time and quick response.I also answered his questions as to open carry and invited him to join our forum and ask as many questions as he wants to.I also asked him about an oc section kinda like a smoking section and made him aware that most ocers wont spend money in a place we cant oc in and that there were alot of ocers so it would equal alot of lost profit!!!But i did it in a polite way!!:celebrate:celebrate

Click to expand...

Awesome! I hope he joins and asks tons of questions. That's a great idea cabman1. Good job.

imported post

I guess Mr. Engel doesn't realize that the member in question (me) wasn't trying to gain attention by trying to have a peaceful, and SAFE, dinner with my girlfriend in a nice restaurant. And I'm not sure how I forced a negative response. I sent them an email originally and I NEVER received a response to that email. I DID however start receiving all of there SPAM promotional emails. Which is ironic since I stated that I would never spend another penny there.

It's OK, I haven't had a problem while spending my hard earned money at Zehnders.

imported post

zigziggityzoo wrote:

atlantis wrote:

zigziggityzoo wrote:

atlantis wrote:

Sailorwatson wrote:

I liked the analogy the owner used to explain his position. He makes a really good point.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that he makes a good point. Just not a convincing one. He is not comparing apples to apples. Open Carrying a firearm is a Constitutionally protected activity. Smoking is not.

Free speech is another protected activity. Maybe they should ban conversations that make other customers uncomfortable.

So to make his point.. he should have said... "If our customers were to talk to others at their table about their religious beliefs or political views, it might make customers at other tables uncomfortable and we'd ask them to leave"

You think they should do that too?

Click to expand...

Should vs. the ability.

He has the ability to restrict anything from happening on his property. Why? It's a condition of entry. You don't want to have to wear a suit and tie? Don't eat at a 5-star restaurant. Same thing.

Should he restrict smoking? That's up to him, really. If he's willing to lose the potential customers that will not patronize him because of his choice, then sure, he can go right on ahead and restrict smoking. Same with carrying a firearm.

There are only a few protected classes, among them, discriminating based on religion, sex, disability, race, or color. If he were to do this, then he's in violation of the law. But if he wants to discriminate based on clothing, height, smell, or activities, among others, he can go right on ahead.

Click to expand...

Yes yes, I agree. I'm not saying that what he's doing is illegal or anything. And I do think he very clearly explained his thought process as to why he decided to do that. I'm just explaining why I think is thought process is flawed and why I disagree with his decision to not allow open carry in his business.

I'm also pointing out that many people would be up in arms (no pun intended) should he restrict someones rights to free speech in his establishment like in my example...yet even this group seems to be more accepting of his restricting our 2nd ammendment rights in his business.

So maybe my thinking is off base.

But since we're saying that's it's ok...er.. at least legal for him to tell us we can't have guns in his business...are we saying that it's legal for him to determine what we may talk about in his business? You know...for the comfort of all of his guests.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If he feels like he can survive as a company and restrict topics of conversation to an approved list, then he can feel free to do that.

It's his business, his property after all.

I seriously doubt he'd do it, if he wants to retain customers, but he could, and I wouldn't complain - I would, however, vote with my wallet by shopping elsewhere, just as I will for his policy on OC.

Click to expand...

Wow.

imported post

atlantis wrote:

Sailorwatson wrote:

I liked the analogy the owner used to explain his position. He makes a really good point.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that he makes a good point. Just not a convincing one. He is not comparing apples to apples. Open Carrying a firearm is a Constitutionally protected activity. Smoking is not.

Free speech is another protected activity. Maybe they should ban conversations that make other customers uncomfortable.

So to make his point.. he should have said... "If our customers were to talk to others at their table about their religious beliefs or political views, it might make customers at other tables uncomfortable and we'd ask them to leave"

You think they should do that too?

Click to expand...

If that is how you see it.