• 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.

Medford Mall breaking civil rights act?

T

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


race, color, religion, or national origin are the protected status'.

where does the carry of firearms fall into?

as much as we have the right to keep and bear arms, private property owners have the right to exclude us if they wish. are our 2A rights greater than theirs?
 
NavyMike

NavyMike

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
195
Location
Eastside, Washington, USA
Cra 1964

Satyr said:
So, after reading about Costco's gun ban not violating the Civil Right Act of 1964 Title II: Public Accomodation, I do belive that the Rogue Valley Mall in Medford is violating the Civil Rights Act. According to (http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm) A place of public accomdation from my reading they are in violation. What are your views/ thoughts/ or ideas?
Click to expand...

The CRA ensures that you cannot be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin. It has nothing to do with bearing arms.

OOOSEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
 
S

Satyr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
17
Location
Grants Pass Oregon
That is why I asked, I am not very educated on understanding the legal language yet but I guess I'll have to self educate. Thanks for clearing it up guys.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Teddybearfrmhell said:
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.


race, color, religion, or national origin are the protected status'.

where does the carry of firearms fall into?

as much as we have the right to keep and bear arms, private property owners have the right to exclude us if they wish. are our 2A rights greater than theirs?
Click to expand...

Why does this argument always reek of contradiction?

Private property rights blah blah blah... The government can ban cigarettes in businesses, and force businesses to serve certain people, which BTW are not mentioned in the Constitution explicitly, but they remain silent on enforcing the 2A.

SO either the government removes the protected people or add firearm rights. Can't have it both ways.
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Teddybearfrmhell said:
contradiction or not, my answer was in reference to the civil rights act ONLY and only as questioned by the OP. my response was directed at the question posed ONLY. i am not a government apologist, your debate is not with me.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, I was just bouncing off of your post to make a point. Sorry if you felt engaged.
 
T

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
Venator said:
Oh I know, I was just bouncing off of your post to make a point. Sorry if you felt engaged.
Click to expand...

i dont mind feeling engaged, i just didnt think the post was the correct venue to address the federal governments intrusion into business practices. yes its ridiculous that one cant smoke in a cigar store or a private club but neither are 2A issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top