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.

 

Why Denying Access to Public Accommodations IS a Crime

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Mmmmmm, I was talking about the Acts wording, about business. Sam's is certainly one, but, while the public certainly does have access to it, it's only if you become a "member" there.

Personally: I take a dim view of any business owner or business that denies service to anyone because of their race, religion or sexual orientation.

What I personally feel is this: if your views on those things make you not want to provide service to those people, then you shouldn't be in that business in the first place!




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I would have agreed with businesses banning guns because it is a business and business owners have that right, except for a term that's come up lately.

Public accomidation.

If it is legal in the area to carry/conceal a firearm, yet business doesn't allow it, then it is discrimination against a certain group of people that carry/conceal firearms.

What you're asking people to do, is alter their lifestyle to accomidate a business owner.

You can defend the hypocrisy all you want.

But I think it's funny to see you all do so.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: theantediluvian

and you couldn't debate this in the other thread...? Had to make another thread instead of discussing the topic?

So weird when people seem to do all they can to avoid an actual debate, and just appear to want to push their own point of view without opposition...



Clearly you are concerned with my views going unopposed which is why you stopped in not to offer an opposing view but rather some off base accusation with a sanctimonious delivery.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


But in the same breath, without the public, there would be no need for a business in the first place. The person basically would be living "off the grid," and that's perfectly possible without the aid of society.

Sometimes we forget that society benefits from business as much, if not more (sometimes), than business benefits from society.


This is very true and isn't society all about mutual benefit?


Government can't legislate hatred out of the hearts of people, but it's very easy to legislate away our freedom and pretend that the law does something greater.


This is also very true. In this case, I would argue that a law that is ostensibly about protecting religious freedom is actually laying the groundwork for legislating away civil rights.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Could it be that you've constructed a false comparison? Gender, race, sexual preference, etc are all inherent qualities. You can't leave your gender in the car when you enter a Chipotle or keep your race securely locked up at home when you go out.

Despite your attempts to fetishize guns, absent a gun on your hip, you don't cease to be the person you are.

Perhaps a better analogy would be a restaurant that bans people for OWNING guns. Would you support that?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: beezzer

Could it be that you've constructed a false comparison? Gender, race, sexual preference, etc are all inherent qualities. You can't leave your gender in the car when you enter a Chipotle or keep your race securely locked up at home when you go out.


No. I didn't construct a false comparison. It is discrimination. Plain and simple. It is a business determining what a person may carry on themselves, even if it is legal.


Despite your attempts to fetishize guns, absent a gun on your hip, you don't cease to be the person you are.


Nice accusation. We just have a private business telling someone what they can or cannot do. Even if it is legal.


Perhaps a better analogy would be a restaurant that bans people for OWNING guns. Would you support that?


Changing the narritive won't work.

I'm still going to call you all hypocrites.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

Yes, "pay to play". That is their business model and their style of business requires membership as do health clubs etc... as long as memberships are available to all, there's no problem. Now if they wanted to discriminate they can do so by not advertising to the public and not being open to the public. I've seen plenty of businesses with signs up that say not open to the public.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

It's legal across the entire USA to carry a back-pack too, however some stores don't allow them because of shop lifting concerns. I imagine some businesses also worry about being robbed at gunpoint. Your argument is moronic, myopic and illogical.

ETA: Also... public accommodation is not new wording or terminology, it's older than you or I or anyone living today. The reason it's resurfaced is because irrational individuals, collectively wish to change what's always been because they don't like the newest additions to the public... gay people.
edit on 4/1/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

It's legal across the entire USA to carry a back-pack too, however some stores don't allow them because of shop lifting concerns. I imagine some businesses also worry about being robbed at gunpoint. Your argument is moronic, myopic and illogical.


And you are a hypocrite.

I mean, if we're going to call each other names. . . . .

Some discrimination you approve of.

Some you don't.

Me?

I say let each and every business make that determination.

But we can't do that now.

Public Accomodation



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Read my addition and what discrimination is it exactly that I approve of? I also did not insult you but your horrible, weak argument.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Read my addition and what discrimination is it exactly that I approve of? I also did not insult you but your horrible, weak argument.


Then I take it back by only calling your stance on the topic fetid with the stench of hypocrisy.

You approve of businesses discriminating against people who are legally able to conceal/carry.

Simple.
edit on 1-4-2015 by beezzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Doubling down doesn't improve your worthless argument. You may as well accuse businesses of discriminating against bare feet at this point.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Doubling down doesn't improve your worthless argument. You may as well accuse businesses of discriminating against bare feet at this point.


Are you saying that legal acceptable discrimination occurs and that you approve of it?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

In respect for everyone's safety, perhaps we should treat these people, who can't leave home or enter a business without a gun strapped to their thigh or forearm, the same as those with disabilities that need companion dogs to soothe their anxiety. But, they'd need to have a doctor's note on them, always!

I can think of 2 recent cases FOR turning away unscreened people with guns One, a woman accidentally shot herself adjusting her bra, and another where a woman's toddler shot her reaching into her purse. Then there's the guy who got tackled to the ground entering Walmart with a gun, and other guy who got shot in Walmart for playing with a display gun. It's like shouting "FIRE" in a theater.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

I've always been a big fan of Thomas Paine, and I'm particularly fond of an excerpt from Agrarian Justice that I believe succinctly encapsulates the philosophical underpinnings of my argument:

Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.

Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came.

Without the public, business owners would have no business to own. It is the effect of society and everything that entails (infrastructure, law enforcement protection, currency, etc) that enables the owner to engage in successful commerce. I'll end by quoting myself from another thread from today (I'm a programmer, I reuse what I can when I can!):


Brilliant and thanks for the source.



edit on 1-4-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Does you saying it is hypocritical make it a fact that it is?

Guns are not people, they can not be discriminated against.

The people can still use the establishment.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

All you've managed to accomplish is demonstrating that there's no use discussing this with you.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


No. I didn't construct a false comparison. It is discrimination. Plain and simple. It is a business determining what a person may carry on themselves, even if it is legal.


Ah, it's "plain and simple" because you've declared it so. Thanks for clearing that up! Carrying a gun isn't an inherent quality. It's not some permanent attribute from which a person cannot be separated. Your refusal to acknowledge the difference is duly noted.


I'm still going to call you all hypocrites.


and I'll say that at best you're being willfully ignorant.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer




By Kali74 --- Your argument is moronic, myopic and illogical.



From Beezer




And you are a hypocrite.

I mean, if we're going to call each other names. . . . .


POINT OF FACT -

Kali called your argument whatever not you.

You are the only one calling another person names.
edit on 1-4-2015 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

No, I disagree with both of you...

there is a middle ground that is most appropriate, but the law has to be black and white which makes the middle place more difficult to write and too many people want to obey only the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the intention of the law..

the reason people want only the letter of the law and they want the letter just their way is because they aren't grown up enough to say this is the spirit of the law and follow that spirit appropriately without throwing temper tantrums over stupitity that falls well outside that spirit.

BUT... I have hope that some day we as a society will grow up, and it will start when we stop throwing temper tantrums and can discuss the facts with one another..

and so long as there needs to be two threads dealing with the same issue each having an opposing view of said issue then it means we have yet to grow up enough to deal with the spirit of anything!

Therefore I said something.. and will continue to say something until people decide they can actually sit and discuss the facts and the real issues...attempting to learn from and grow with one another.

laws are not a means to bully another human - they should protect all parties.
edit on 1-4-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join