-
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.
-
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.
ABC News CH-7 Tonight 5pm: UOC Story from Antioch
- Thread starter Livermoron
- Start date
N6ATF
Banned
imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
bigtoe416 wrote:
Why limit it to guns? There are other weapons out there.
Nopal
Regular Member
imported post
N6ATF wrote:
N6ATF wrote:
Um, this is California? Traditional notions regarding anything gender-specific do not apply.
Gundude
Regular Member
imported post
Nopal wrote:
Nopal wrote:
Tell me about it, look at the socks Chewy got for me.
Sons of Liberty
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
ConditionThree wrote:
So, according to the report, CPK banned open carry because "they claim some customers simply aren't comfortable."
If this is true (and I have yet to see the policy),does CPK ban Asians because "some customers simply aren't comfortable"sharing a restaurant witha group of people not their own race?
DoesCPK ban guys with tattoos because "some customers simply aren't comfortable" with guys with tattoos?
DoesCPK ban people with turbans and burqa because "some customers simply aren't comfortable" with it?
ConditionThree wrote:
Has anyone seen this CPK policy? If so, please share it.
So, according to the report, CPK banned open carry because "they claim some customers simply aren't comfortable."
If this is true (and I have yet to see the policy),does CPK ban Asians because "some customers simply aren't comfortable"sharing a restaurant witha group of people not their own race?
DoesCPK ban guys with tattoos because "some customers simply aren't comfortable" with guys with tattoos?
DoesCPK ban people with turbans and burqa because "some customers simply aren't comfortable" with it?
Cameron
Regular Member
imported post
Sons of Liberty wrote:
Hey, that's an idea... we can resort to the Brady tactics to see if we can get tattoos banned. It would be hilarious just to see the response from that.
Sons of Liberty wrote:
Hey, that's an idea... we can resort to the Brady tactics to see if we can get tattoos banned. It would be hilarious just to see the response from that.
RaycerX96
Regular Member
imported post
While I'm not in agreement with this policy, California businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone. But they cannot discriminate. So could this fall into a discrimination category? As they are discriminating against us for excersizing our rights. Im not saying to go out and sue them, but maybe we can start some kind of news feed and shouting out about this discrimination.
While I'm not in agreement with this policy, California businesses do have the right to refuse service to anyone. But they cannot discriminate. So could this fall into a discrimination category? As they are discriminating against us for excersizing our rights. Im not saying to go out and sue them, but maybe we can start some kind of news feed and shouting out about this discrimination.
Sons of Liberty
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
RaycerX96 wrote:
What's interesting isthis: What Peet's and CPK are doing is, in my opinion (IANAL), unlawful discrimination under the California Supreme Court's consistent broad application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to protect from arbitrary discrimination by business owners.
The Act applies to all business serving the general public. Not only were the classes scribed in the Act protected from discrimination, but so are hippies, police officers,and Republicans who are not found written in the Act. (See, for example,Long v. Valentino (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1287)
Now, if hippies, LEO, and Republicans are protected, I think a case can be made for citizens exercising their lawful right of bearing arms; especially, in light of other places of public accommodation being willing serve our groups open carrying.
So, maybe what yousuggest we not do is the thing we ought to do: get the ACLU to file a civil case against Peet's and CPK (if there really is such a policy; I have yet to see CPK's policy).
And I'm going to say it, because businesses understand finance...maybe there's some money to be made here!:what:
RaycerX96 wrote:
What's interesting isthis: What Peet's and CPK are doing is, in my opinion (IANAL), unlawful discrimination under the California Supreme Court's consistent broad application of the Unruh Civil Rights Act to protect from arbitrary discrimination by business owners.
The Act applies to all business serving the general public. Not only were the classes scribed in the Act protected from discrimination, but so are hippies, police officers,and Republicans who are not found written in the Act. (See, for example,Long v. Valentino (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 1287)
Now, if hippies, LEO, and Republicans are protected, I think a case can be made for citizens exercising their lawful right of bearing arms; especially, in light of other places of public accommodation being willing serve our groups open carrying.
So, maybe what yousuggest we not do is the thing we ought to do: get the ACLU to file a civil case against Peet's and CPK (if there really is such a policy; I have yet to see CPK's policy).
And I'm going to say it, because businesses understand finance...maybe there's some money to be made here!:what:
OPS MARINE
Regular Member
imported post
What the mother effing eff? I can't believe this. I actually thought I was going to enjoy watching that video. That is garbage. SUPERHERO? Who the hell is she kidding? I guess if someone without a uniform saved her bacon, she would be one unappreciative hooer to say the least. This kind of shate really lights my fire, as someone who's concerned for my own safety.
I understand that there are going to be those who are uncomfortable with a gun in the room, but to go so far as to say that we have an agenda you ice hole? I bet this guy's kids run over him every chance they get, and he probably has erectile dysfunction. Moreover, his wife will probably not allow him to even purchase a weapon, wherein lies his snotty effing angst against those of us who can. He's had a life rife with instances of being made inferior, and now wishes to impose his internal feelings onto us.
Brady supporters can go straight to the place that is least desirable across the river Styx if you ask me. Why don't they just make themselves known in public so they can't hide behind me when the shooting starts?
As long as I am able, I will carry my weapon in public places. Anyone that chooses to impose a ban will lose my business, and as always be reported here. The basic human right of self defense will go on trial and I want all of us to be in the jury.
Please excuse my language. I'm angry.
What the mother effing eff? I can't believe this. I actually thought I was going to enjoy watching that video. That is garbage. SUPERHERO? Who the hell is she kidding? I guess if someone without a uniform saved her bacon, she would be one unappreciative hooer to say the least. This kind of shate really lights my fire, as someone who's concerned for my own safety.
I understand that there are going to be those who are uncomfortable with a gun in the room, but to go so far as to say that we have an agenda you ice hole? I bet this guy's kids run over him every chance they get, and he probably has erectile dysfunction. Moreover, his wife will probably not allow him to even purchase a weapon, wherein lies his snotty effing angst against those of us who can. He's had a life rife with instances of being made inferior, and now wishes to impose his internal feelings onto us.
Brady supporters can go straight to the place that is least desirable across the river Styx if you ask me. Why don't they just make themselves known in public so they can't hide behind me when the shooting starts?
As long as I am able, I will carry my weapon in public places. Anyone that chooses to impose a ban will lose my business, and as always be reported here. The basic human right of self defense will go on trial and I want all of us to be in the jury.
Please excuse my language. I'm angry.