From the mouth of a judge

I hope I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying that because a business exists as a public place that they have asked for the permission of the government to be a business?

I run my own business; I did not ask anyone for permission to operate my business nor will I ever. I have not signed any contracts with the government except as pertains to collecting and being exempt from some state(s) sales tax.

I don't understand where you are coming from....entering into a contract with the government or the peopleto be a public service provider????? What contract?

I wish all businesses allowed people to exercise all of their rights (thankfully here they do) but the fact remains that these businesses are on PRIVATE property and as such they can make the rules.

Click to expand...

If you want to throw another insult back, feel free. I don't respond more than once to someone who insults me like you did. So long.

Click to expand...

Now, as I said, I'm moving on. Now, go ahead and play your silly semantic games. I won't join in.

Click to expand...

I thought the concept of "public accommodation" was an end-around The Constitution when it was first used, even though I admired the result they were trying to achieve--ending discrimination.  The ends should have never been allowed to justify the means.

Now that it is being used to widen OC, I still think it is an attempt to limit the constitutional rights of businesses.  Again, the ends do not justify the means.  Just as we should want our right  to  KBH protected, we should want the rights of businesses to determine what happens on their premises to be protected.

We have the right to carry.  They have the right to say, "Not in my house." 
We have the right not to do business with them.  Let's advocate the protection of everyone's rights.

Click to expand...

Whether you or anyone else likes it, there is a social contract. Sometimes it pisses me off but there it is.

Click to expand...

Try it this way; each right implies a duty. Just what duty is arguable. The First Amendment duty may be to speak responsibly and be responsible for your words.

Click to expand...

This bothers me, and I'll explain why:

If you want to establish a business, you are required to obtain a business licence. That means store owners are mandated by law to surrender their rights. The fact that the judge's decision in this instance happens to benefit open carry does not abrogate the fact that the decision is trampling on the store owner's right to engage in commerce (or not) with whomever they choose.

Being from a country that treats firearms as a rare privlege and open carry as a punchline, I love the idea of striking down barriers to carrying. But I am also painfully aware that my other rights are just as important. If I don't want you in my store, it doesn't matter why. It's my store. The fact that I have to beg and cowtow to the government for permission to engage in my trade and abide by their arbitrary rules (and pay for the privlege!) isequally as repugnant as the idea that I am forbidden from defending said business in the manner I see fit.

Click to expand...

This bothers me, and I'll explain why:

If you want to establish a business, you are required to obtain a business licence. That means store owners are mandated by law to surrender their rights. The fact that the judge's decision in this instance happens to benefit open carry does not abrogate the fact that the decision is trampling on the store owner's right to engage in commerce (or not) with whomever they choose.

Being from a country that treats firearms as a rare privlege and open carry as a punchline, I love the idea of striking down barriers to carrying. But I am also painfully aware that my other rights are just as important. If I don't want you in my store, it doesn't matter why. It's my store. The fact that I have to beg and cowtow to the government for permission to engage in my trade and abide by their arbitrary rules (and pay for the privlege!) isequally as repugnant as the idea that I am forbidden from defending said business in the manner I see fit.

Click to expand...

This bothers me, and I'll explain why:

If you want to establish a business, you are required to obtain a business licence. That means store owners are mandated by law to surrender their rights. The fact that the judge's decision in this instance happens to benefit open carry does not abrogate the fact that the decision is trampling on the store owner's right to engage in commerce (or not) with whomever they choose.

Being from a country that treats firearms as a rare privlege and open carry as a punchline, I love the idea of striking down barriers to carrying. But I am also painfully aware that my other rights are just as important. If I don't want you in my store, it doesn't matter why. It's my store. The fact that I have to beg and cowtow to the government for permission to engage in my trade and abide by their arbitrary rules (and pay for the privlege!) is equally as repugnant as the idea that I am forbidden from defending said business in the manner I see fit.

Click to expand...

This bothers me, and I'll explain why:

If you want to establish a business, you are required to obtain a business licence. That means store owners are mandated by law to surrender their rights. The fact that the judge's decision in this instance happens to benefit open carry does not abrogate the fact that the decision is trampling on the store owner's right to engage in commerce (or not) with whomever they choose.

Being from a country that treats firearms as a rare privlege and open carry as a punchline, I love the idea of striking down barriers to carrying. But I am also painfully aware that my other rights are just as important. If I don't want you in my store, it doesn't matter why. It's my store. The fact that I have to beg and cowtow to the government for permission to engage in my trade and abide by their arbitrary rules (and pay for the privlege!) isequally as repugnant as the idea that I am forbidden from defending said business in the manner I see fit.

Click to expand...

canadian wrote:

This bothers me, and I'll explain why:

If you want to establish a business, you are required to obtain a business licence. That means store owners are mandated by law to surrender their rights. The fact that the judge's decision in this instance happens to benefit open carry does not abrogate the fact that the decision is trampling on the store owner's right to engage in commerce (or not) with whomever they choose.

Being from a country that treats firearms as a rare privlege and open carry as a punchline, I love the idea of striking down barriers to carrying. But I am also painfully aware that my other rights are just as important. If I don't want you in my store, it doesn't matter why. It's my store. The fact that I have to beg and cowtow to the government for permission to engage in my trade and abide by their arbitrary rules (and pay for the privlege!) isequally as repugnant as the idea that I am forbidden from defending said business in the manner I see fit.

Click to expand...

You are correct, you can tell anyone that they are not allowed to shop there. Tis your right as a store/business owner. Just as it is my right as a OCer or CCer to boycott your place of business and to tell other like minded individuals to boycott your business.

See I think what you are forgetting is that a Business is providing a service to its customers. If the customers feel mistreated, misaligned or unwanted due to their personal beliefs on religion, guns, marriage, and so forth, they have a right to not frequent that business.

No customers = no business. Remember that when you side on the side of the Business. Oh and a BG isnt gonna care that you have a sign on your door that says "no guns" to him/her, that is an open invitation to rob and possibly hurt you and your customers.

Editted to add: Example - In the segregated south,during the Civil Rights Movement, alot of businesses wouldnt serve blacks and their place of business was boycotted by blacks and by whites who disagreed with segration. Those businesses eventually either a) went out of business or b) caved due to loss of money and yes some of them started serving blacks before the govt made it illegal not to.

[you is used generally and refers to no particular person or group of persons]
[blacks - used to denote descendents of the ethnic background of African Descent, not used in any form of racist or degratory terminology.)

Click to expand...