• 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.

Gays, Lesbians and Transgender individuals and FIREARMS in CT.

Edward Peruta

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
1,247
Location
Connecticut USA
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy recently signed an executive order prohibiting the use of state funds for travel to the state of Indiana.

For the record:

I am as outraged as the governor over the INFRINGEMENT legislation enacted by the State of Indiana.

Gov. Dannel Malloy is obviously and correctly upset by the enacted legislation which clearly INFRINGES upon the lifestyle and choices of law abiding members of Indiana society who are gay, lesbian and/or transgender.

I find no difference in what the Indiana legislature has done regarding the sexual preferences of individuals who are gay, lesbian and/or transgender, and what he and the Connecticut legislature did and are attempting to do regarding the INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of law-abiding firearm owners in Connecticut.

How will Gov. Dannel Malloy react if pro-firearm states and their Governors, issue similar executive orders prohibiting their states from expanding public funds for travel to Connecticut?

Edward A. Peruta
edperuta@amcable.tv
 
Last edited:

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,364
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Well,,,

How will Gov. Dannel Malloy react if pro-firearm states and their Governors, issue similar executive orders prohibiting their states from expanding public funds for travel to Connecticut?

Edward A. Peruta
edperuta@amcable.tv






Guess what???

The Governor of Washington State,,, just now,,, did just that!!!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,364
Location
White Oak Plantation
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy recently signed an executive order prohibiting the use of state funds for travel to the state of Indiana.

For the record:

I am as outraged as the governor over the INFRINGEMENT legislation enacted by the State of Indiana.

Gov. Dannel Malloy is obviously and correctly upset by the enacted legislation which clearly INFRINGES upon the lifestyle and choices of law abiding members of Indiana society who are gay, lesbian and/or transgender.

I find no difference in what the Indiana legislature has done regarding the sexual preferences of individuals who are gay, lesbian and/or transgender, and what he and the Connecticut legislature did and are attempting to do regarding the INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of law-abiding firearm owners in Connecticut.

How will Gov. Dannel Malloy react if pro-firearm states and their Governors, issue similar executive orders prohibiting their states from expanding public funds for travel to Connecticut?

Edward A. Peruta
edperuta@amcable.tv
Sarcasim is a poor avenue to effect change. Using a false premise as the foundation of your righteous outrage only lends credence to a bunch of nitiwts who did not read the IN law.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Keep dragging CT into their own courts to effect change, that seems to have been working.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
For the record:

I am as outraged as the governor over the INFRINGEMENT legislation enacted by the State of Indiana.

Gov. Dannel Malloy is obviously and correctly upset by the enacted legislation which clearly INFRINGES upon the lifestyle and choices of law abiding members of Indiana society who are gay, lesbian and/or transgender.
What about the lifestyle and choices of law-abiding members of Indiana society who simply don't want to associate with events intended to promote homosexual conduct?

And make no mistake, one key purpose of a public marriage ceremony or reception is to promote and provide public approbation to the union and presumed physical intimacy that are part of it. Traditionally, a marriage makes legitimate that which would otherwise be "illegitimate."

Should a professional campaign manager or advertising firm be required to provide services to all comers? Or is it permissible for one to limit his business to Democrat campaigns, while another specializes in Republican efforts?

Is an actor required to accept all roles offered to him? Or may he decline parts that he finds personally objectionable?

Is a Baptist printer or caterer really required to help promote a Mormon missionary effort?

I personally believe it would be mean spirited and bigoted to deny anyone a seat at the proverbial lunch counter based on race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, (peaceful) mental illness, religious or political affiliation, etc.

But I think it is a gross violation of the freedom from unwanted associations to force someone to provide services to advance a message he finds objectionable. And besides, only a moron would entrust his most important pictures or flowers to someone who didn't want to provide that service; only a suicidal fool would force his enemy to bake him a cake.

Now, that all said, what exactly does this thread have to do with RKBA/OC?

Charles
 

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
659
Location
Renton, Wa
Now, that all said, what exactly does this thread have to do with RKBA/OC?

Charles
I think it has to do with blatant hypocrisy. You can be gay and not get married. Getting married is a choice, like carrying a gun OC is a choice. Some people think that certain choices are impractical, immoral, stup!d, or whatever. They force businesses to condone a practice that they do not agree with while at the same time reverse course and say "business rights to standards blah blah" for the things they (politicians) don't like.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
I think it has to do with blatant hypocrisy. You can be gay and not get married. Getting married is a choice, like carrying a gun OC is a choice. Some people think that certain choices are impractical, immoral, stup!d, or whatever. They force businesses to condone a practice that they do not agree with while at the same time reverse course and say "business rights to standards blah blah" for the things they (politicians) don't like.
With respect, your response needs mprovement.

A particular group is seeking state/federal constitutional protection as an especially-protected group based on their vulnerability and the past history of discrimination. This has direct relationship to firearms owners and more specifically those who carry handguns in public for self defense and defense of family/innocent others who are subjected to the same (or worse) levels and intensity of discrimination. AFAIK the only discriminatory act RKAers have not been subjected to is lynching.

stay safe.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I think it has to do with blatant hypocrisy. You can be gay and not get married. Getting married is a choice, like carrying a gun OC is a choice. Some people think that certain choices are impractical, immoral, stup!d, or whatever. They force businesses to condone a practice that they do not agree with while at the same time reverse course and say "business rights to standards blah blah" for the things they (politicians) don't like.
No hypocrisy at all.

First of all, I don't think any business owner should be required to render services in the promotion of OC/RKBA contrary to his desires. If a baker doesn't want to cater the GOA/NRA convention, if a printer or ad agency doesn't want VCDL as a client, if a private convention center doesn't want to rent space for a hunting or self-defense expo, I'll defend their right not to promote a message they find offensive.

OTOH, if the owner of a business wants to exclude me from his business simply because I happen to have a legally carried handgun, in a holster, I will consider that no less offensive than if he refuses service to blacks, homosexuals, Catholics, or Irish.

This is exactly the same standard I apply to homosexual "weddings" and receptions and homosexual individuals.

Which is not to say that I personally think anti-discrimination laws are proper in the first place. It is just that so long as they do exist, they should apply to all of us including gun owners rather than to a few, select, politically favored groups, while also recognizing the material difference between general goods and services--the proverbial lunch counter--and actually promoting a message or associating with an event one finds offensive.

Charles
 
Last edited:
Top