Gay Marriage + Loaded Open Carry = Compromise

[cato2]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I do believe you are correct that equal rights creates a legal requirement for ministers to provide services without discrimination. Note that's a 'legal' obligation, not a moral one.

I feel your rights are infringed upon if you are forced to provide certain services. I think every business owner has the right to refuse service for ANY reason.

+1

Yes, this is where the social engineering left has met their over due backlashwith sad resultsfor those who would only want equal rights under the law and not want to force their way into someone else's business/religion.


However,some of them do.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

Unfortunately this isn't the case. Discrimination, especially for housing and employment is illegal.

I too believe it is a right of a business not to serve and has the right to reasonably discriminate unless they are open to the public.

Lets say for example a hospital as suggested or a gas station. . . or even a mall. . . they are open for just about anyone to walk into and thus should provide equal service to all.

However, if you are in a business that is referral, membership, or appointment only and/or you can choose which clients you take and don't take you should have the right to refuse service.

Say, a private security guard, a minister performing weddings, etc.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

Theseus wrote:

I too believe it is a right of a business not to serve and has the right to reasonably discriminate unless they are open to the public.

Lets say for example a hospital as suggested or a gas station. . . or even a mall. . . they are open for just about anyone to walk into and thus should provide equal service to all.

I don't see why a public business should be subject to this any more than a private business.

Let's extend this analogy.

Let's say you're running a church with service hours posted on a sign outside (as most churches do). Some GLBT organization makes a surprise appearance en mass holding signs with slogans you don't like. What if I wander in and constantly utter those 4-letter words that I am so prone to uttering? Under your 'open to the public' rule, the church would be forced to tolerate this protected speech on their premises.

I think the church should have authority on their property, whether it's a private wedding ceremony or a public Sunday service. Let them protest on the publicly owned side walk!

The problem I have is that private property still privately owned and should not be subject to public controll, even if used for a business open to the public. And if the business wants to reduce its customer base by banning certain groups, then that's their loss. The competition would love to have a niche market segment.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I agree with CA_Libertarian on this one. I made a post about this exact topic in another thread, just the other day:

marshaul wrote:

'"private propety open to the public" should not be allowed to prohibit firearms.'

I used to share this view, but I have largely changed it. Where does one draw the line? When is property "open to the public"? A parking lot seems a likely candidate. What about inside the store? What about your house on halloween?

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that property rights are the foundation upon which every other right exists, and to lessen them in favor of gain elsewhere can only accomplish net loss.

We should work towards making firearms socially acceptable. Then we can have our cake, and eat it too.

I think the idea of establishing liability is more interesting. If you prohibit weapons, you assume responsibility for establishing security (or take the liability gamble that it isn't necessary). If not, you don't. Nice and easy, eh?

However, note that I make an exception for government agencies and any profession with a government-mandated monopoly, i.e. doctors. The government has no business discriminating in any way.

 

[Theseus]

imported post

Well, let us think about what "Open to the public" means.

I consider "open to the public" can be defined not as whether the business is accessable by the public, but by their business method. Does the industry and location promote the attention of the general public.

For example, a gas station with its large signs and advertiesements are to lure anyone who has the need or desire to get gas to buy gas. Generally they are not restrictive as to whom fills up. This is different for some stations like Costco.

Although a church might be open to the public, its services are generally restricted. A church can, and most that I know of, make an individual decision as to whether they will perform a ceremony on a case by case basis. This service is not available to the general public and therefore can be under my determination discriminatory.

Lets use a gun range in this analogy. Gun ranges open to the public do not allow holster draw unless you are an LEO. Members are exempt from that rule. They may be open to the public, but they still have other services and allowances that are private and not open to the public.

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Theseus wrote:

I too believe it is a right of a business not to serve and has the right to reasonably discriminate unless they are open to the public.

Lets say for example a hospital as suggested or a gas station. . . or even a mall. . . they are open for just about anyone to walk into and thus should provide equal service to all.

I don't see why a public business should be subject to this any more than a private business.

Let's extend this analogy.

Let's say you're running a church with service hours posted on a sign outside (as most churches do). Some GLBT organization makes a surprise appearance en mass holding signs with slogans you don't like. What if I wander in and constantly utter those 4-letter words that I am so prone to uttering? Under your 'open to the public' rule, the church would be forced to tolerate this protected speech on their premises.

I think the church should have authority on their property, whether it's a private wedding ceremony or a public Sunday service. Let them protest on the publicly owned side walk!

The problem I have is that private property still privately owned and should not be subject to public controll, even if used for a business open to the public. And if the business wants to reduce its customer base by banning certain groups, then that's their loss. The competition would love to have a niche market segment.

 

[Paladin_Havegun_Willtravel]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

........I think the church should have authority on their property, whether it's a private wedding ceremony or a public Sunday service. Let them protest on the publicly owned side walk!

The problem I have is that private property still privately owned and should not be subject to public controll, even if used for a business open to the public. And if the business wants to reduce its customer base by banning certain groups, then that's their loss. The competition would love to have a niche market segment.

I agree and in a perfect world, this would be the case.

I think some of the Churches in California, got on the Prop 8 band wagon , because they had seen, all to well, the way the government was going and they felt that if they didn't define marriage, the government would do it for them.

I just got through going over the statutes for California, as I am going there for the holidays, and I can't believe how they have mis-defined things, such as assault weapons.

We shouldn't have to pass such laws, but those idiots have gone so far, that those who want to retain some of their freedoms, feel that they must.