Quaker Steak & Lube just went Anti!

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

The thing is, you aren't making business owners liable for things that could be considered accidents caused by their negligence, like a fire starting or slipping on an icy sidewalk. You want to make them liable for the conscious actions of another human being, which just isn't fair at all. It's like, if I leave all my doors and windows open it is my fault that my house gets full of bugs, birds, and whatever else, but it isn't my fault if someone decides to come steal everything from me. A person committing a crime isn't an act of nature, it is the action of a conscious mind, and only the mind that made the decision to commit a crime is responsible.

 

[johnfenter]

Wrong viewpoint...

The thing is, you aren't making business owners liable for things that could be considered accidents caused by their negligence, like a fire starting or slipping on an icy sidewalk. You want to make them liable for the conscious actions of another human being, which just isn't fair at all. It's like, if I leave all my doors and windows open it is my fault that my house gets full of bugs, birds, and whatever else, but it isn't my fault if someone decides to come steal everything from me. A person committing a crime isn't an act of nature, it is the action of a conscious mind, and only the mind that made the decision to commit a crime is responsible.

It's not about asking to make them liable for the actions of the criminals; it's about asking to make them liable for their own decision to disarm their patrons without providing adequate security to replace that which the patrons may have provided for themselves. Instituting a no-guns policy is an affirmative action on the part of the business, while knowing that the risk of armed robbers in their establishment is not zero, and the risk of crime in their parking lots is not zero either. While your point that the person committing the crime is responsible is correct, the idea is to hold the business responsible for making the criminals job easier; and that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[papa bear]

While I too wish all businesses were carry-friendly, that is not the answer. Making business owners liable for the actions of criminals is totally wrong. Yes, convincing businesses to go carry-friendly is a lot of work and we'll never convince all of them, but we need to resist that temptation of going to the government to force other people to do what we want. It is their property, it's up to them to determine what is and isn't allowed.

this can be for all the posters here. but , can i ask you why? why do you feel that a business with open access would be allowed to discriminate a constitutional right?

where would you draw the line? do you feel that we should go back to "no blacks " or "Irish need not apply"?

what about public property. should we be discriminated against on state owned property?

 

[papa bear]

I don't like making them liable either. Too damn many laws already.

The best way I've ever found is to boycott them.
The restaurant business is one of the hardest to succeed in. A place can be on top of the world this year and bankrupt the next.

Convince enough people to go somewhere else and you win.

one of the problems with a passive boycott is that you are just one out of a hundred, or maybe even a thousand. you must have an active boycott against a business or they will not even notice

 

[peter nap]

one of the problems with a passive boycott is that you are just one out of a hundred, or maybe even a thousand. you must have an active boycott against a business or they will not even notice

Yep, that's true but if gun owners don't care enough to join the boycott, why should I care about one restaurant that serves nothing diabetics can eat, is a long way for me to travel and has a spokesman that is only goes through the drive through.

I'm not going to push for another law that will eventually be abused, just because no one cares enough to get involved.

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

this can be for all the posters here. but , can i ask you why? why do you feel that a business with open access would be allowed to discriminate a constitutional right?

where would you draw the line? do you feel that we should go back to "no blacks " or "Irish need not apply"?

what about public property. should we be discriminated against on state owned property?

The Constitution does not have anything to do with private actors!!!!! State owned property is governed by the Constitution and therefore Constitutional rights apply there, but they don't (at least shouldn't) apply to private property, whether or not it is "open access". If I own a piece of property, I can decided who I let on it and under what circumstances. If I want to say no blue shirts, no firearms, no groups of teenagers, no preaching communism, that is fine. Nobody has any right to do any of these things on somebody else's private property. See, the thing is, when government says "no preaching communism", if you disobey you will have force used against you (thrown in jail, fined, or whatnot). If you break my private property rule, all I can do is bar you from my property, I can't initiate force against you. If you persist to the point where you've initiated force against me, I can have the government charge you with trespassing, which is then force in response.

Trying to claim that businesses with "open access" have to respect the Bill of Rights is a terribly dangerous idea. If a newspaper that prints reader's comments refuses to print a communist rant, can the commie file suit claiming a 1st amendment violation? If a radio station only puts conservatives on the air, can a liberal sue claiming his free speech was censored? What about a club or bar with a dress code, is that a 1st amendment violation? Saying the Bill of Rights applies to any kind of private property is an egregious violation of property rights; the right to property is necessary for the right to life and is the core of all other rights. Destroying property rights destroys all rights, even the right to life. That's why protecting property rights is of utmost importance and why liberty and socialism cannot coexist.

Also, "where would you draw the line? do you feel that we should go back to 'no blacks' or 'Irish need not apply'?" has such a biased phrasing that I'm not going to give it a proper answer, but you ought to be able to figure out my response.

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

It's not about asking to make them liable for the actions of the criminals; it's about asking to make them liable for their own decision to disarm their patrons without providing adequate security to replace that which the patrons may have provided for themselves. Instituting a no-guns policy is an affirmative action on the part of the business, while knowing that the risk of armed robbers in their establishment is not zero, and the risk of crime in their parking lots is not zero either. While your point that the person committing the crime is responsible is correct, the idea is to hold the business responsible for making the criminals job easier; and that is exactly what they are doing.

Instituting a no-guns policy isn't dangerous in-and-of-itself. It doesn't make any kind of accident any more likely or any naturally-occurring event more dangerous. It does leave people unprotected against a crazed shooter, but that is not a natural event and is apparently a risk people are willing to take. If you consent to the policy and go in without your weapon, I don't see why you couldn't be held just as liable as the business owner. You have agreed to the rules the property owner has setup, you have decided to proceed without your weapon in exchange for admittance onto somebody else's property. The property rules aren't an initiation of force against you, you both are voluntarily trading, you could have decided to keep your weapon and go somewhere else. And it's not right to hold people responsible for making crime easier, unless they initiate force; just like it's not my fault if I leave my front door open and people steal my stuff, or if I left my keys in my truck and it was stolen. Now if we were talking about government disarming people, then holding the government responsible is appropriate. Because government laws are a use of force, unlike private property rules.

 

[TFred]

Instituting a no-guns policy isn't dangerous in-and-of-itself. It doesn't make any kind of accident any more likely or any naturally-occurring event more dangerous. It does leave people unprotected against a crazed shooter, but that is not a natural event and is apparently a risk people are willing to take. If you consent to the policy and go in without your weapon, I don't see why you couldn't be held just as liable as the business owner. You have agreed to the rules the property owner has setup, you have decided to proceed without your weapon in exchange for admittance onto somebody else's property. The property rules aren't an initiation of force against you, you both are voluntarily trading, you could have decided to keep your weapon and go somewhere else. And it's not right to hold people responsible for making crime easier, unless they initiate force; just like it's not my fault if I leave my front door open and people steal my stuff, or if I left my keys in my truck and it was stolen. Now if we were talking about government disarming people, then holding the government responsible is appropriate. Because government laws are a use of force, unlike private property rules.

What about a business or property that is deemed to be an essential public service, like a hospital? The Government wants us to believe that health care, and by extension, access to hospitals when needed, is a fundamental human right. How can you justify the property owner denying one Government-guaranteed human right in order to enjoy another? Similar situation, the recent incident at the polling places for the primary election, where voters were turned away from voting because they were properly and lawfully carrying a self-defensive weapon.

Do our list of rights come with a priority value? I don't recall ever seeing a rank listed with each of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution...

TFred

 

[paul@paul-fisher.com]

I OC at the one in New Berlin WI all the time so it's not a corporate policy.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

What about a business or property that is deemed to be an essential public service, like a hospital? The Government wants us to believe that health care, and by extension, access to hospitals when needed, is a fundamental human right. How can you justify the property owner denying one Government-guaranteed human right in order to enjoy another? Similar situation, the recent incident at the polling places for the primary election, where voters were turned away from voting because they were properly and lawfully carrying a self-defensive weapon.

Do our list of rights come with a priority value? I don't recall ever seeing a rank listed with each of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution...

TFred

Well, rights don't need a priority value because rights are never in conflict with each other. Anytime somebody says that we need to balance the right to this with the right to that they are creating a false conflict that's intended to provide a justification for an infringement.

Health care is not and cannot be a human right, because one person can never have the right to the labor of another person! A right is a right to do something free from interference, not a right to have something handed to you!

"What about a business or property that is deemed to be an essential public service, like a hospital?" Deemed by who? What constitutes "essential public service"? Just hospitals? What about supermarkets? Restaurants? Clothing stores? Gun shops? Food, clothes, and the means to self-defense could all be considered essential. One person can never have the right to be on another's private property, stop trying to think of excuses.

When a private property owner says that firearms are prohibited on his property, he is not denying anybody any of their rights! You never had the right to carry a gun on somebody else's property. You don't have any right to be there at all, if the property owner is nice enough to allow you on his property, he can set any rules he wants.

 

[TFred]

Well, rights don't need a priority value because rights are never in conflict with each other. Anytime somebody says that we need to balance the right to this with the right to that they are creating a false conflict that's intended to provide a justification for an infringement.

Health care is not and cannot be a human right, because one person can never have the right to the labor of another person! A right is a right to do something free from interference, not a right to have something handed to you!

"What about a business or property that is deemed to be an essential public service, like a hospital?" Deemed by who? What constitutes "essential public service"? Just hospitals? What about supermarkets? Restaurants? Clothing stores? Gun shops? Food, clothes, and the means to self-defense could all be considered essential. One person can never have the right to be on another's private property, stop trying to think of excuses.

When a private property owner says that firearms are prohibited on his property, he is not denying anybody any of their rights! You never had the right to carry a gun on somebody else's property. You don't have any right to be there at all, if the property owner is nice enough to allow you on his property, he can set any rules he wants.

You absolutely did not understand the point of my post. Trying to frame the idea in terms of where our government is pushing things for both now and in the future. You see the problem with that, as do I, but they (those who are the government) clearly do not.

I like that point, nobody has the right to another person's labor... is there an attribution for that?

TFred

 

[papa bear]

The Constitution does not have anything to do with private actors!!!!! State owned property is governed by the Constitution and therefore Constitutional rights apply there, but they don't (at least shouldn't) apply to private property, whether or not it is "open access". If I own a piece of property, I can decided who I let on it and under what circumstances. If I want to say no blue shirts, no firearms, no groups of teenagers, no preaching communism, that is fine. Nobody has any right to do any of these things on somebody else's private property. See, the thing is, when government says "no preaching communism", if you disobey you will have force used against you (thrown in jail, fined, or whatnot). If you break my private property rule, all I can do is bar you from my property, I can't initiate force against you. If you persist to the point where you've initiated force against me, I can have the government charge you with trespassing, which is then force in response.

Trying to claim that businesses with "open access" have to respect the Bill of Rights is a terribly dangerous idea. If a newspaper that prints reader's comments refuses to print a communist rant, can the commie file suit claiming a 1st amendment violation? If a radio station only puts conservatives on the air, can a liberal sue claiming his free speech was censored? What about a club or bar with a dress code, is that a 1st amendment violation? Saying the Bill of Rights applies to any kind of private property is an egregious violation of property rights; the right to property is necessary for the right to life and is the core of all other rights. Destroying property rights destroys all rights, even the right to life. That's why protecting property rights is of utmost importance and why liberty and socialism cannot coexist.

Also, "where would you draw the line? do you feel that we should go back to 'no blacks' or 'Irish need not apply'?" has such a biased phrasing that I'm not going to give it a proper answer, but you ought to be able to figure out my response.

from your comments all i can confer is you would like to go back to "no blacks" restaurants and "no Irish need to apply"

but you still ignored my main question. Why shouldn't we expect a business that is a public access, not to discriminate a constitutional right? let me help you. there is no constitutional guarantees to private property


BTW, there has been cases of news papers not printing christian rants. also, news papers today would print a "commie" rant

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

You absolutely did not understand the point of my post. Trying to frame the idea in terms of where our government is pushing things for both now and in the future. You see the problem with that, as do I, but they (those who are the government) clearly do not.

I like that point, nobody has the right to another person's labor... is there an attribution for that?

TFred

I actually did understand your post, but I chose to answer the questions in that manner anyway. Lots of people think like that and I wanted to go ahead and provide my rebuttal argument to it.

I don't know, I think Andrew Ryan might have said it.

 

[45acpForMe]

from your comments all i can confer is you would like to go back to "no blacks" restaurants and "no Irish need to apply"

but you still ignored my main question. Why shouldn't we expect a business that is a public access, not to discriminate a constitutional right? let me help you. there is no constitutional guarantees to private property


BTW, there has been cases of news papers not printing christian rants. also, news papers today would print a "commie" rant

There is a right to private property being that the Declaration of Independence states Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The founders had thought of saying pursuit of property but left it at happiness. Also your life is your property. Remember that these are God given rights and not constitutional rights. The constitution recognizes that they are God given rights and attempts to protect those rights from tyrants who would deny them.

You say that a public accessible business should not be able to discriminate against a right. Well the right of free speech could have some communist stand up inside Walmart and start preaching/blairing the communist manifesto to all the patrons. I would say that the private property owner has the right to allow or disallow such actions and it would not violate anyones right to free speech. They have free speech on "public" property and their own property not someone elses.

I still say that people have the right to ban anything they want on their private property but have some accountability when they create a dangerous environment. Suppose a business bans salt on its property after an ice storm hits (for some stupid reason). When people slip on their sidewalks trying to get to their store they should be liable to some degree. If they were closed because of the ice storm than someone slipping on their sidewalk shouldn't be able to sue them. When business ban weapons they are increasing the liklihood that any criminal activity (which they aren't responsible for) can and will have an increased damaging affect (which they should be responsible for). So VA Tech should be liable for the large number of people murdered because their policy allowed the killings to continue way beyond what they would have if weapons were allowed.

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

from your comments all i can confer is you would like to go back to "no blacks" restaurants and "no Irish need to apply"

but you still ignored my main question. Why shouldn't we expect a business that is a public access, not to discriminate a constitutional right? let me help you. there is no constitutional guarantees to private property


BTW, there has been cases of news papers not printing christian rants. also, news papers today would print a "commie" rant

"Why shouldn't we expect a business that is a public access, not to discriminate a constitutional right?"

1. Who's "we"?
2. Define "public access".

Society (if that's the "we") has no business dictating the rules of individual's private property. This question is framed from a collectivist point of view.
When you phrase questions in such a manner, you can make any idiotic proposal sound smart. "Why shouldn't we give everyone healthcare?" "Wouldn't it be nice if we gave everyone a job?"

I would argue there is no such thing as a business that is "public access". Also, I would argue that right to private property is definitely protected by the Constitution, certainly more so than many "rights" people find in there.

You're also not going to trick me into saying it would be good if businesses discriminated against Blacks or Irishmen. What I will say is that it is not a proper function of government to force businesses not to discriminate based on any criteria. Would some businesses choose to discriminate? Unfortunately, yes. The proper response isn't to point the gun of government at them, but to convince them with reason that not only is there policy morally wrong, but will cost them a lot of money. Actually, at this point in time I'd wager any openly racist business couldn't survive very long.

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

There is a right to private property being that the Declaration of Independence states Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The founders had thought of saying pursuit of property but left it at happiness. Also your life is your property. Remember that these are God given rights and not constitutional rights. The constitution recognizes that they are God given rights and attempts to protect those rights from tyrants who would deny them.

You say that a public accessible business should not be able to discriminate against a right. Well the right of free speech could have some communist stand up inside Walmart and start preaching/blairing the communist manifesto to all the patrons. I would say that the private property owner has the right to allow or disallow such actions and it would not violate anyones right to free speech. They have free speech on "public" property and their own property not someone elses.

I still say that people have the right to ban anything they want on their private property but have some accountability when they create a dangerous environment. Suppose a business bans salt on its property after an ice storm hits (for some stupid reason). When people slip on their sidewalks trying to get to their store they should be liable to some degree. If they were closed because of the ice storm than someone slipping on their sidewalk shouldn't be able to sue them. When business ban weapons they are increasing the liklihood that any criminal activity (which they aren't responsible for) can and will have an increased damaging affect (which they should be responsible for). So VA Tech should be liable for the large number of people murdered because their policy allowed the killings to continue way beyond what they would have if weapons were allowed.

You bring up some great points. "Also your life is your property." Anyone who denies the right to private property denies the right to life! Not only is your life your most basic piece of property, but your life is dependent upon things like food and water. These have to be produced by man's labor, they don't fall out of the sky into your mouth. When you labor to produce food, it is your property. Denying the right to private property denies man the right to the products of his labor, including his food and water.

I still disagree with you though, on your final point. Having icy sidewalks isn't dangerous in the same way that a room full of disarmed people is. Icy sidewalks are dangerous all by themselves, while private property gun bans aren't. Criminal activity isn't some type of random or accidental natural occurrence, like ice storms or people slipping. Icy sidewalks don't require human malevolence to be dangerous, guns bans do. The unarmed room only becomes dangerous once a criminal enters the room. The criminal entering isn't a natural consequence, because human actions are controlled. Therefore, only the criminal should be liable.

 

[45acpForMe]

You bring up some great points. "Also your life is your property." Anyone who denies the right to private property denies the right to life! Not only is your life your most basic piece of property, but your life is dependent upon things like food and water. These have to be produced by man's labor, they don't fall out of the sky into your mouth. When you labor to produce food, it is your property. Denying the right to private property denies man the right to the products of his labor, including his food and water.

I still disagree with you though, on your final point. Having icy sidewalks isn't dangerous in the same way that a room full of disarmed people is. Icy sidewalks are dangerous all by themselves, while private property gun bans aren't. Criminal activity isn't some type of random or accidental natural occurrence, like ice storms or people slipping. Icy sidewalks don't require human malevolence to be dangerous, guns bans do. The unarmed room only becomes dangerous once a criminal enters the room. The criminal entering isn't a natural consequence, because human actions are controlled. Therefore, only the criminal should be liable.

Where have we seen the worst massacres? In gun free zones. The criminals choice to enter "that" establishment for robbery etc can be influenced by gun bans. At the same time when guns are allowed or retrieved from cars (legally stored or not like at a school) the mayhem is stopped with less to no loss of life. I will agree that the measure of liability would be difficult to measure without an honest interview of the criminal as to why he chose that place to rob etc. While I understand your arguments and the courts seem to lean in your direction, I will still humbly agree to disagree.

 

[WhatTimeIsIt?]

I'll absolutely agree that gun free zones are an invitation for a massacre. I completely don't understand why so many places choose to become "gun free zones"; it just makes no sense.

 

[zoom6zoom]

But... but.... it makes people FEEL safe, dontchaknow?

 

[peter nap]

This argument comes up 3 or 4 times a year.
It never gets settled.:lol: