Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Being facetious here!

  1. #1
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238

    Being facetious here!

    But not really:

    A place of bussiness can refuse you entrance if you are armed, (and that's legal). Now, could (can) a bussiness on the other hand refuse you entrance if you are not armed? I would like to see someone go that route and see where it goes.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    A private business could refuse you entrance because they don't like the shirt you are wearing. They could refuse you entrance because of your age. They could refuse you entrance if you're fat. If it's private property, they can refuse entrance to whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever they want or no reason at all. I work in retail and we refuse entrance (or ask them to leave) for all kinds of situations. (OC not being one of them.)
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    A private business could refuse you entrance because they don't like the shirt you are wearing. They could refuse you entrance because of your age. They could refuse you entrance if you're fat. If it's private property, they can refuse entrance to whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever they want or no reason at all. I work in retail and we refuse entrance (or ask them to leave) for all kinds of situations. (OC not being one of them.)
    With the exception of protected classes. You cannot ask someone to leave because they are African American, female, 90 years old, etc.

  4. #4
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    A private business could refuse you entrance because they don't like the shirt you are wearing. They could refuse you entrance because of your age. They could refuse you entrance if you're fat. If it's private property, they can refuse entrance to whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever they want or no reason at all. I work in retail and we refuse entrance (or ask them to leave) for all kinds of situations. (OC not being one of them.)
    Maybe not the fat thing. Some people draw disability checks based on that. That would fall under the ADA.

    http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service

  5. #5
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Maybe you could have a members only business. Where they have to have a firearm to be a member.

    But I do think that these "anti discrimination laws" are very much discrimination.

    I should be able to refuse ANYONE access to my business/wherever I own or control for ANY reason. I should be allowed to deny entrance based on race, sexuality, age, hair color, planet of origin, zodiac sign, disabilities, etc.

  6. #6
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Maybe you could have a members only business. Where they have to have a firearm to be a member.

    But I do think that these "anti discrimination laws" are very much discrimination.

    I should be able to refuse ANYONE access to my business/wherever I own or control for ANY reason. I should be allowed to deny entrance based on race, sexuality, age, hair color, planet of origin, zodiac sign, disabilities, etc.
    Well, not that I necessarily agree with that or not but, you could always just say "I hate your shirt, get out of my store."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by William Fisher View Post
    Maybe not the fat thing. Some people draw disability checks based on that. That would fall under the ADA.

    http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equa...refuse-service
    Don't remind me that we're paying fat people with disability checks...
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Don't remind me that we're paying fat people with disability checks...
    If we stopped paying them... wouldn't they get skinny??

    Sorry... It's late...

  9. #9
    Regular Member William Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oxford, Ohio
    Posts
    238
    Ya'll remember that BABY HUEY GUY, that wore diapers and said that if they took his social security disability check away that he'd kill himself? I think I'd have to find some legal reason to refuse him service if I ran an all you can eat buffet.
    Last edited by William Fisher; 02-06-2012 at 12:56 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    Well, not that I necessarily agree with that or not but, you could always just say "I hate your shirt, get out of my store."
    Then we should be able to extend that to ALL private property. Would that be fair either? If you allow anyone in your house then the government should be allowed to force you to allow anyone who wants to to enter into your house? Thats fine right?

    I think I should have the right to refuse to do business (both sides of the transaction) with anyone I want. Everyone would be outraged if someone was forced to do business with a company that they don't like/disagrees with for any reason, but it isn't fine the other way around?

    It is fine for me to not deal with smith and wesson because some of their guns are lemons (most aren't), but I can't say that blacks can't enter my store because some of them are criminals (most aren't). I don't see too much of a difference there. It isn't any of the governments business who I do business with.

  11. #11
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    Then we should be able to extend that to ALL private property. Would that be fair either? If you allow anyone in your house then the government should be allowed to force you to allow anyone who wants to to enter into your house? Thats fine right?

    I think I should have the right to refuse to do business (both sides of the transaction) with anyone I want. Everyone would be outraged if someone was forced to do business with a company that they don't like/disagrees with for any reason, but it isn't fine the other way around?

    It is fine for me to not deal with smith and wesson because some of their guns are lemons (most aren't), but I can't say that blacks can't enter my store because some of them are criminals (most aren't). I don't see too much of a difference there. It isn't any of the governments business who I do business with.

    In order to refuse business to certain people, you would have to be a membership-based business, EG: Costco. As a membership-based business, you have the right to tell me that I'm not allowed because I have green eyes and you won't accept my application for membership until I get that changed. I, as a consumer, can say "That's fine, I'll shop at a place that accepts people with green eyes." and you, as a business, have to decide if the loss of money is worth the exclusivity.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  12. #12
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOneChick View Post
    In order to refuse business to certain people, you would have to be a membership-based business, EG: Costco. As a membership-based business, you have the right to tell me that I'm not allowed because I have green eyes and you won't accept my application for membership until I get that changed. I, as a consumer, can say "That's fine, I'll shop at a place that accepts people with green eyes." and you, as a business, have to decide if the loss of money is worth the exclusivity.
    ^ That point was already brought up. I then continued to say that I thought all (privately owned) businesses should have the right to refuse anyone's business for any reason, you said that you did not agree/disagree with my point, I took this as meaning you didn't fully agree with me, so I made an analogy relating being on the consumer end to being on the business end.

    As I said I think ALL businesses should have this "right" not just "membership-based" businesses. I shouldn't have to act like it is "members" only just to enforce my opinion on my personal property. I should be able to post a huge sign above my business saying "No Women/Men/Blacks/Whites/Gays/Straights/Christians/Muslims" without any legal repercussions.

  13. #13
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    ^ That point was already brought up. I then continued to say that I thought all (privately owned) businesses should have the right to refuse anyone's business for any reason, you said that you did not agree/disagree with my point, I took this as meaning you didn't fully agree with me, so I made an analogy relating being on the consumer end to being on the business end.

    As I said I think ALL businesses should have this "right" not just "membership-based" businesses. I shouldn't have to act like it is "members" only just to enforce my opinion on my personal property. I should be able to post a huge sign above my business saying "No Women/Men/Blacks/Whites/Gays/Straights/Christians/Muslims" without any legal repercussions.
    I didn't say I agreed or disagreed so, you took that as I disagreed? Please don't assume you know what I'm thinking or how I feel about things.

    While you may believe that all businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone all willy-nilly, that's just not the case and is against the law.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  14. #14
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    I didn't use the word "disagree" you did, I said you didn't fully agree.

    Then you imply that just because it is "against the law" means that it is rightfully there. I thought you the type to be able to carry on a debate, not the type to say "its within the rules so it must be right." Everything that is within, or against the law should be there for a reason and, in my opinion, a sound reason. Not just because someone gets butt-hurt because the world doesn't cater to them.

    There is plenty of flaws in our current government/country and I count laws like this one of them. I think of this as another way the government is over reaching what its rights are.

  15. #15
    Regular Member ThatOneChick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by 09jisaac View Post
    I didn't use the word "disagree" you did, I said you didn't fully agree.

    Then you imply that just because it is "against the law" means that it is rightfully there. I thought you the type to be able to carry on a debate, not the type to say "its within the rules so it must be right." Everything that is within, or against the law should be there for a reason and, in my opinion, a sound reason. Not just because someone gets butt-hurt because the world doesn't cater to them.

    There is plenty of flaws in our current government/country and I count laws like this one of them. I think of this as another way the government is over reaching what its rights are.
    Again, you assume you know what I'm thinking and how I feel about things. I've not said either way whether I agree with you, whether I disagree with you, whether I think it's right or wrong how things are. You take my neutrality in the discussion between you and I as I "didn't fully agree". How? I never said either way.
    It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. --Douglas Adams

    Unless cited, any comments are my personal opinion and may not hold any weight or be correct.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Neutral? Humans cannot be completely neutral in any manner, we are always bias to one side. If we are completely (or mostly) honest then we'll admit that. Again I assume? I assumed the post before and just repeated what I said that time, if that is what you're talking about. When I said you "implied" that does not mean that I assumed what you implied.

    My apologies.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I am a strong proponent of property rights and business owners should be able to refuse service to anyone. ADA has caused more damage than harm in my opinion. I also would prefer to know who are bigots in my town so that me and my family and friends wont shop there.

    But....I would hate to see people denied needs because of discrimination. If you are traveling and need a place to sleep, or a place to eat for example...

    So although intrusion on property rights bothers me I can understand why it may be necessary for regulation on public accommodations.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •