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.
originally posted by: MarlinGrace
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.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
All people have their right to beliefs, opinions and actions.
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...
originally posted by: Greven
Let's say all gun shops (and other gun sellers) decided to not sell guns to women. Now, all men are able to easily go buy a gun, but it'd be much harder for women to obtain guns. This infringes on the right of women to bear arms... and greatly impacts their safety.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: MarlinGrace
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.
Correct, but that's why I phrased what I wrote as such - that you frequently don't get to discriminate. As mentioned, various states have already passed laws adding sexual orientation to the list of things you don't get to discriminate on, while other states have not.
There's a reason there is law regarding this. Let's say all gun shops (and other gun sellers) decided to not sell guns to women. Now, all men are able to easily go buy a gun, but it'd be much harder for women to obtain guns. This infringes on the right of women to bear arms... and greatly impacts their safety.
In a more indirect scenario, if banks were able to discriminate on whom they gave loans to, it would have immense effects on society. If banks all refused loans to a certain group of people, that group would really suffer. No cars, no homes, no businesses...
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: Greven
Let's say all gun shops (and other gun sellers) decided to not sell guns to women. Now, all men are able to easily go buy a gun, but it'd be much harder for women to obtain guns. This infringes on the right of women to bear arms... and greatly impacts their safety.
I don't think this is true. There is no right to BUY guns.
The same SHOULD apply to open carry for business owners to say NO!. It is NOT a Constitutional Right to carry a gun on your hip anywhere your whims may fancy it. Even for us with a permit to carry, every state is off limits with places like Court Houses or Jail lobbies, among other things. States that don't have supremacy written in for it also see very different laws (challenged and lost) which bar open carry in some cities but not others.
Something I wonder about is if a guy sits down at a table in a restaurant to eat with a side arm, how do we know someone will not grab his gun and use it? It makes the weapon open to everyone around him in a sense.
originally posted by: matafuchs
Open Carry and Concealed Carry to me are two separate things and will be addressed I am sure in another thread. In this case, I was really referring to people who may have a CWP and are not allowed in a Starbucks, Chipolte, etc. I mentioned earlier that I would leave a restaurant if I was there with my kids and there was an open carry.
I appreciate the comments in the thread.
I just wanted to see what the consensus thought about whether a business owner should have the right to restrict something that is legal to do within the guidelines of the state you live in.