It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Being gay or carrying a gun...why are they treated differently legally in businesses?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: Metallicus
The difference is that one is part of the progressive agenda and the other two are not.

Progressives find the Constitution outdated and inconvenient


Does anybody who talks about the Constitution even understand what is says anymore? The Constitution does not have anything to with if you want serve people with weapons in your place or if your a bigot and do not want serve certain people types of people. A variety of Federal, State and Local laws deal with serving people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc. I swear the people who complain the most about others not liking the Constitution are the same ones who are completely clueless about what it says.


You are quite right. The Constitution does not grant the federal government the duty or ability to regulate who private business owners who they may or may not serve in their establishments so that duty and ability is reserved by that document to the states or people.




posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Because that is an insane parallel.

Someone's sexual orientation is an internal attribute that most likely is not chosen. Someone cannot simply leave their sexuality at the door. Second, if a company or location bans people from showing their sexual orientation or partnerships, then it really does segregate or relegate such people to second class citizenship, really no different than banning Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. In fact, banning gay people is no better than banning certain races, just like in the Jim Crow era, because people don't generally choose either their race or sexual orientation.

Guns, on the other hand, are not an internal or inherent attribute of persons. Guns are lethal weaponry. Organizations more than have the right to prohibit weapons on their premises. That is completely different than sexuality or race or some other harmless identity issue.


originally posted by: matafuchs
So I had a thought since there is a lot of conversation about open carry as well as CWP holders not being able to bring their weapons into a restaurant. Starbucks was one of the first large ones and now another major chain, Chipolte, has recently come to light by saying...

Link



...in a statement Monday, the company said that "the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."

The announcement came after a petition by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which has called on other companies to ban firearms in their stores as well. The group said its petition was in reaction to open-carry gun activists appearing at a Dallas-area Chipotle restaurant over the weekend.

Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for the group, said she thought the move by Chipotle was a "bold statement," especially considering its previous stance of complying with local laws.

Many states allow people to carry licensed guns in some way, but some businesses exercise their right to ban firearms.


Open carry to me could scare some people but why no CWP's? Gun ownership is a constitutional right so where is a legal basis to not allow weapons in stores? This leads me to another question...

How is this enforced by store owners but a store owner has to serve someone who is gay when it conflicts with his religion?

The baker in Colorado is the most famous case but being gay is not protected under the constitution so explain the difference?

Link

Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution as well as gun ownership but it seems to be pushed aside in both cases here...

Some people do not like to see guns...Some people do not like to see gay affection.
Personally, I think gay people should be able to marry/divorce/have kids just as I think a person has the right to carry a weapons.

What is the difference and How do you feel about? Is the 'right to refuse service to anyone' truly correct?




edit on 30-5-2014 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I would imagine it's because a gun owner chooses to carry a firearm, whilst a gay person does not choose to be gay.

Of course, there's be incidences where someone is required to carry a gun, and indeed someone chooses to be gay - but you get my point.

Humans have rights - guns don't.

Edit: Isn't this a reaction to a couple of idiots taking their biggest guns to Chipotle to pose for pictures for Reddit or something? I suppose you never know when you might need to unleash a volley of automatic gunfire in a family restaurant...

edit on 30-5-2014 by KingIcarus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

This is about businesses and who they can/cannot serve,if they should have the choice and who/what is protected by law.

Soon, this will spiral into the race argument. That is not what this is about.

Easy question. If I can sue a cake maker who will not make a cake can I not sue Starbucks for not letting me carry?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution as well as gun ownership but it seems to be pushed aside in both cases here...


It's really pretty simple.

Religion: The first amendment protects one's freedom to exercise their religion. That doesn't mean you can use your religion to discriminate in your business. It means you can go to church, believe what you want to believe, pray, raise your children in church, etc. The state makes business laws. If the state says you cannot discriminate in business, then you can get your business license removed for discrimination, regardless the reason, even religion, because your right to EXERCISE your religion is intact. Discrimination is not a religious tenet.

Gun ownership: The second amendment protects one's freedom to OWN firearms. Not to carry them wherever you like. Business are well within their legal rights to prohibit firearms on their property. They are not infringing your right to OWN a firearm. Even if you have a CCP, where you can carry is limited.

Being gay: Each state makes their own discrimination laws. Colorado, for example, protects people's rights to public accommodation, stating that a business cannot discriminate on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sexual preference, etc. Texas law does not have such protection for gay people, so it's perfectly legal in Texas to refuse service to gay people.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

You would have to, in order to make the "no discrimination" laws consistent. IMHO, I'd suggest that the concept of freedom of association tells us that the business owner has every right to refuse service to whomever he wants. I may not agree with it, but if he wants not to bake a cake for a gay man due to religious reasons or bake one for a gun owner or NRA banquet for political/philosophical reasons, he should have that right. Sometimes in a free society, you have to accept behavior that we may find unpleasant but that is the cost of a free society. Westboro Baptist Church say some very horrid and abominal things, but we tolerate it because the freedom of speech is too valuable to harm just because we don't like what they say.

OTOH, freedom to refuse service does not mean freedom from consequences. I'm against the state forcing people to do business with people they do not want to but I am for the community adjusting the business owner's behavior by not giving him business until he changes his ways. Just as the business owner has freedom of association, so does the customer and a foolish business owner alienates his customers just to make a stupid point.
edit on 30-5-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: matafuchs

If you, or your friends, can't see the difference between and inanimate object and part of someone's being...then that is at the root of the problem.




Exactly

something is screwed up here.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs


Easy question. If I can sue a cake maker who will not make a cake can I not sue Starbucks for not letting me carry?


You just not getting it into your gun happy skull.

You can quite easily leave a gun at home. Its a tool, a object a THING.

You cant leave apart of who you are at home.

A line has to be drawn. And that line is at a object. If there are no lines things fall apart as I would be able to turn up naked to a restaurant and due if they try and chuck me out.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   
This is not about the Open Carry guys who have been walking into stores.IMO they are idiots. Lucky none of them have been shot. If I was in a restaurant and saw them come in, I would more than likely leave. Accidents can happen with idiots...

This OP is really about seeing what the perception is of people and the posters in this thread have given me the following.

From what I am reading, if you support gay rights, it seems as if you make it personal and are telling me that it is a simple thing. Inanimate vs animate objects. Saying humans have rights and guns don't is inadequate as an argument.

From those who seem to be gun owners, you want equal laws against discrimination.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

A line has to be drawn? Why? So, what if a woman is raped and she carries to protect herself? It is ok to tell her to keep her gun at home?

Also, please leave the insults at the door. Gun Happy skull? My, how prejudice we are since I mention a gun and the right to carry. It immediately turns me into a gun nut?

Walking into a restaurant naked is crazy. Wanting to carry a gun to protect yourself is not?



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
From what I am reading, if you support gay rights, it seems as if you make it personal and are telling me that it is a simple thing. Inanimate vs animate objects. Saying humans have rights and guns don't is inadequate as an argument.

Uhhh... no, it's quite an adequate argument.

People have rights, and guns are not people.

If you are a business, you are providing goods or services. Pretty frequently, you don't get to legally discriminate on who you can provide those goods or services to. You can tell people to leave if they are causing a disturbance and call the police to remove them, but you can't legally hold them for the police.

If you don't like it, quit and shutdown your business and start a club. (edit: and even those can be required to not discriminate.)
edit on 10Fri, 30 May 2014 10:17:12 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago5 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
Good question.
I really do like the gay folk who also carry!
No more gay bashing, these cats have claws.
(Edit)
I also do not support backward businesses that do not care for the people's rights.
Besides, I make a burrito far superior to chipotle, and I don't have to pay 2 bucks for a dab of guacamole.


edit on 30-5-2014 by g146541 because: fingers faster than the brain.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: g146541

Correct.

I do not support a business owner who based on religious beliefs does not make a cake. It is his right. Let him deal with the consequence.
I do not support a business who will not allow guns in their store. It is their right and let them deal with the consequence.

it is when they are treated differently that I have an issue. There is no difference between a gun owner and someone who is gay. If you think there is, there is a problem with you. You are not seeing people from who they are but what they represent.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs

A line has to be drawn? Why? So, what if a woman is raped and she carries to protect herself? It is ok to tell her to keep her gun at home?

Nice play on emotion.

Wont work. If you streets are that much of a blood soaked war zone you got some REAL problems.
Most civilized country's you can walk to the shops or restaurant without being raped a few dozen times on the way.

Fact is if she worried about such things she should pick a restaurant/shop that's in a more safe area or one that allows gun carriers. No one forces her to use that particular establishment.

originally posted by: matafuchs
My, how prejudice we are since I mention a gun and the right to carry. It immediately turns me into a gun nut?

You can own a gun without being a gun nut. I own one.

It the attitude behind it. IE you should carry it whenever you like on someone else private property and shove it ones faces. That makes a gun nut.

THEY ARE A TOOL, A OBJECT, A THING. They are not a physical part of who you are anymore a hammer or a car is.


originally posted by: matafuchs
Walking into a restaurant naked is crazy. Wanting to carry a gun to protect yourself is not?

Then go to a shop restrant that allows guns then.

Dont force them on people that don't want to be around them.

Its simple.

I dont wave my shotgun or Hunting rifle around in peoples faces. Its called manners.

If you live in such a dangerous place that its mandatory to have a gun everywhere you go I would think about moving.
Or just don't visit places that have gun restrictions.

My point of that analogy what guns are object you can choice to leave behind, like ruining into a restaurant naked is a choice.

Other things like gender, race and sexual orientation can not be left at home.
edit on 30-5-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
. Saying humans have rights and guns don't is inadequate as an argument.





That the most stupid thing Iv read on ATS this month!



A gun is a OBJECT! Rights do not extent to OBJECTS.

Does my hammer have rights? Does my chair have rights? What about my toilet? O I hope not as the human rights abuses I have don't to it will bankrupt me in law suites!



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: matafuchs
From what I am reading, if you support gay rights, it seems as if you make it personal and are telling me that it is a simple thing. Inanimate vs animate objects. Saying humans have rights and guns don't is inadequate as an argument.

Uhhh... no, it's quite an adequate argument.

People have rights, and guns are not people.

If you are a business, you are providing goods or services. Pretty frequently, you don't get to legally discriminate on who you can provide those goods or services to. You can tell people to leave if they are causing a disturbance and call the police to remove them, but you can't legally hold them for the police.

If you don't like it, quit and shutdown your business and start a club. (edit: and even those can be required to not discriminate.)


The 1964 civil rights act does not include sexual preference into it's description, (race, color, religion, or national origin) right now it is done at a state level, not all states have made this provision to protect gays. So in some instances they could be refused service. But it's pretty much on it's way out.

I say if you don't like it, leave go to another business, or start your own, that would be freedom. If someone is that bad as to refuse service to gays or anyone of color etc. they are their own worst enemy and will put themselves out of business sooner or later anyway.

I also don't think because a person doesn't like a particular race or sexual orientation that's his opinion and problem, fining them millions, taking away their business, chastising them in public for weeks isn't an example of freedom either. This is one of the things that makes this country great, just don't do business with them. When it hits their wallet they will change or sell, but it's something the public can change anytime they want. Just like better wages at wal-mart, apparently the public could care less about the wages, they have never slowed down. The power of the purse works everytime.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

This is your opinion. We all have them they are like, uh, well, you know the saying I think.

Maybe I should rephrase what I stated.

Saying a gay person has the right to enter an restaurant but a straight person with a gun cannot because being gay is genetic and I can leave a gun at home is an inadequate argument. Sorry, I guess I 'assumed' you would understand my point but I needed to lay it out a bit clearer.

Using someone who has been in a traumatic event is not a play on emotions. It is reality. It is a valid point you want to brush aside.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs




How is this enforced by store owners but a store owner has to serve someone who is gay when it conflicts with his religion? -


In all my studies of religions I have never seen any religion that says serving a "sinner" at your place of business is wrong. This is completely ridiculous, no religion calls for its people to screen humans they do business with , so they are using their religion as an excuse for a personal feeling.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
I do not support a business owner who based on religious beliefs does not make a cake. It is his right. Let him deal with the consequence.


Real question... What do you mean "it is his right"? In Colorado, it's blatantly against the law.



I do not support a business who will not allow guns in their store. It is their right and let them deal with the consequence.


Here, you are correct. The law allows for a business owner to prohibit guns in his place of business.


There is no difference between a gun owner and someone who is gay.


True, but:
A gay person cannot leave his "gay" at home.
Prohibiting guns in a place of business does not infringe on the OWNERSHIP of the gun OR the owner. Prohibiting guns does not prohibit the gun OWNER from entering.
The second amendment does not protect the right to carry wherever one wishes.



posted on May, 30 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

All people have their right to beliefs, opinions and actions. Freedom of what to voice of themselves. I do not believe in the silencing.

Whether or not they conform to the law or not is another story. What I am stating that is that he has the right to refuse but if it is against a law or if there is community ban on using his services that is the consequence of his belief, opinion and action.

As someone else stated, the Westboro baptists are protected and they are royal holes. You do not have to like it but you cannot suppress it in my mind either. People like that will hang themselves in society...

edit on 05am31amf0000002014-05-30T11:35:47-05:001147 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join