• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Being facetious here!

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
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.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
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.)
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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.
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
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/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
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.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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."
 

William Fisher

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2011
Messages
238
Location
Oxford, Ohio
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:

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
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.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
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.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
^ 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.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
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.
 

ThatOneChick

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
113
Location
North Side *Represents*, Utah, USA
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.
 

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 
Top