• 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.

Muslim Free Zone Florida Gun Supply wins


Active member
Nov 21, 2018

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Oct 7, 2007
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Really, dismissed on First Amendment grounds? Let's look at footnote 2 of the decision.
2 Thus, the Motion does not deny the allegations set forth in the Complaint. Defendant is cautioned that Title II of the Civil Rights Act was designed to redress the very type of circumstances presented by the instant allegations, to the extent that they are accurate. The legislative history reveals that the primary purpose of the Act was to remove “the humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment that a person must surely feel when he is told that he is unacceptable as a member of the public because of” a protected characteristic, like race or religion. S. Rep. No. 88-872 (1964), reprinted in 1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2355, 2370; see H.R. Rep. No. 88-914 (1964), reprinted in 1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2391, 2393 (Title II will “make it possible to remove the daily affront and humiliation involved in discriminatory denials of access to facilities ostensibly open to the general public.”).
I don't think so.