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.

 

Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   

technical difficulties

NavyDoc

technical difficulties

NavyDoc

technical difficulties

NavyDoc

crazyewok

NavyDoc



Now, I wonder what the response would be if one changed "gun owners" to "gays" or "African Americans." Would people still say, "his store, his rules?"


You can leave a gun at home if you really want to go. You cant stop being black, a women or gay (though diffrent debate on that one) ect Basicaly huge diffrent between a OBJECT you can leave or a inbuilt human traite you cant change. So unless you were born with a gun for a hand your argument dont hold water.


It holds plenty of water. I both cases the business owners decide to refuse business to different sets of people simply because they do not like them. It is hypocritical to say that one business owner should make that decision for himself but another business owner does not. You are making a decision based on what you like and what you don't feel comfortable with.

I agree that any business should make their own decisions whether I like them or not. If I do not agree with their decision, I will take my business elsewhere. This is freedom.
Actually, it's not the same. As Ewok said, you can leave your guns in the car or at home. The sign says no guns allowed, not no gun owners allowed. There's a huge difference between banning a person and banning a object.

I agree that business owners have the right to discriminate, but comparing those two situations is a pretty simple minded thing to do.


I disagree. You think they are not comparable because you don't want to face the fact of the hypocrisy in the leftist stance: take away choice you don't like but support choice you do.

I've been consistent: the business owner should be the one who decides who or what he wants to do business with. You guys have been picking and choosing which groups get protected status and which groups do not.
They're not comparable because ones an inanimate object and the other is a human characteristic. Objects can be left at home or some other place; human characteristics not so much. Gun owners can still get served if they don't bring their guns with them into the establishment; the other guys, not so much.

I will gladly post pictures of humans and guns if you still have trouble understanding the difference between the two.

edit on 3-1-2014 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)


Shrug. Again, you discriminate on things you don't like. Your snarky attitude and lack of courtesy aside, you accept discrimination as long as you agree with the discrimination and can justify it in your own mind.

And you still don't get it. Alright, I'm going to take a different approach on this.

You probably own a gun right?

If so, are you currently holding/carrying that gun?

If not, then keep not doing that and go to an anti-gun establishment.

See, Blacks, Women, Gays (well, maybe), and other minority groups don't really have that privilege because they're being discriminated on a physical characteristic. I really can't dumb this down any further for you.

Is it wrong to ban guns because of the actions of a few? Yes. Now is it the same as what blacks, women, and gays are going through? Not really.



You delineate who you think the government must make laws to protect people from discrimination based on who they are. You justify it, but you still are making selective discrimination decisions. Unlike yourself, I think laws should protect people equally. If a business owner can refuse to do business with one group, he should be able to refuse business with all groups. If he is forced to do business with one group, then he should be forced to do business with all groups.

Either the business owner has autonomy with his business decisions, or he does not. You just want a graded approach where the state can pick and choose who is protected and who is not.




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

No response then??? Not surprised.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


My view is that you should not be able to discriminate against a person. In other words, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse to do business with a gay person, a black person, a Jewish person, or a gun-loving person. That doesn't mean you can't ban certain actions and/or inanimate objects from your establishment. If you don't want sex happening in your establishment, you can ban that action - doesn't mean you are discriminating against sex-loving people. Sex-loving people should be welcome, just not the action of sex in the establishment. Gun-loving people are welcome, just not the guns themselves. You are not discriminating against a person when you ban guns from your establishment. You ARE discriminating against a person when you ban that person from your establishment.

edit on 8-1-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


My view is that you should not be able to discriminate against a person. In other words, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse to do business with a gay person, a black person, a Jewish person, or a gun-loving person. That doesn't mean you can't ban certain actions and/or inanimate objects from your establishment. If you don't want sex happening in your establishment, you can ban that action - doesn't mean you are discriminating against sex-loving people. Sex-loving people should be welcome, just not the action of sex in the establishment. Gun-loving people are welcome, just not the guns themselves. You are not discriminating against a person when you ban guns from your establishment. You ARE discriminating against a person when you ban that person from your establishment.

edit on 8-1-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


Shrug. You are picking and choosing who and why one can be discriminated against in usual leftist "identity politics" fashion. It is the identity of who is being discriminated against that validates discrimination in your eyes.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 09:47 AM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


My view is that you should not be able to discriminate against a person. In other words, you shouldn't be allowed to refuse to do business with a gay person, a black person, a Jewish person, or a gun-loving person. That doesn't mean you can't ban certain actions and/or inanimate objects from your establishment. If you don't want sex happening in your establishment, you can ban that action - doesn't mean you are discriminating against sex-loving people. Sex-loving people should be welcome, just not the action of sex in the establishment. Gun-loving people are welcome, just not the guns themselves. You are not discriminating against a person when you ban guns from your establishment. You ARE discriminating against a person when you ban that person from your establishment.

edit on 8-1-2014 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)


Shrug. You are picking and choosing who and why one can be discriminated against in usual leftist "identity politics" fashion. It is the identity of who is being discriminated against that validates discrimination in your eyes.

A gay person can hide his gayness in public. By your logic a ban on gays in a restaurant work. After all, they can leave any behavior that might indicate that they are gay at home and nobody would know they were gay unless they said or did something to indicate otherwise.

You could, by that standard, ban Christians or Atheists or KKK members.
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

NavyDoc


Shrug. You are picking and choosing who and why one can be discriminated against in usual leftist "identity politics" fashion. It is the identity of who is being discriminated against that validates discrimination in your eyes.

A gay person can hide his gayness in public. By your logic a ban on gays in a restaurant work. After all, they can leave any behavior that might indicate that they are gay at home and nobody would know they were gay unless they said or did something to indicate otherwise.

You could, by that standard, ban Christians or Atheists or KKK members.
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Nope, you can't just ban a person. You can ban certain types of clothing, you can ban cigarettes, you can ban shouting, you can ban guns, you can ban fighting, you can ban knives. You can't ban a person for being a person.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


Shrug. You are picking and choosing who and why one can be discriminated against in usual leftist "identity politics" fashion. It is the identity of who is being discriminated against that validates discrimination in your eyes.

A gay person can hide his gayness in public. By your logic a ban on gays in a restaurant work. After all, they can leave any behavior that might indicate that they are gay at home and nobody would know they were gay unless they said or did something to indicate otherwise.

You could, by that standard, ban Christians or Atheists or KKK members.
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Nope, you can't just ban a person. You can ban certain types of clothing, you can ban cigarettes, you can ban shouting, you can ban guns, you can ban fighting, you can ban knives. You can't ban a person for being a person.


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


It only solidifies the statement that it is always different for Progressives.

Mind numbing.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

NavyDoc


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.


So you justify killing in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a killer based on your own ideology. Killing you agree with is acceptable, unless it is killing you don't agree with, in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force a killer not to use his own discretion.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.


So you justify killing in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a killer based on your own ideology. Killing you agree with is acceptable, unless it is killing you don't agree with, in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force a killer not to use his own discretion.


Killing infringes upon the rights of another person. Self defense protects a person's inalienable right to life. What inalienable right does a person have to go into a business against the owner's wishes? What inalienable right does one have to use the coercive power of the state to force someone to do business against his will?
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.


So you justify killing in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a killer based on your own ideology. Killing you agree with is acceptable, unless it is killing you don't agree with, in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force a killer not to use his own discretion.


Killing infringes upon the rights of another person. Self defense protects a person's inalienable right to life. What inalienable right does a person have to go into a business against the owner's wishes? What inalienable right does one have to use the coercive power of the state to force someone to do business against his will?
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


What inalienable right does owning a business give you?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.


So you justify killing in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a killer based on your own ideology. Killing you agree with is acceptable, unless it is killing you don't agree with, in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force a killer not to use his own discretion.


Killing infringes upon the rights of another person. Self defense protects a person's inalienable right to life. What inalienable right does a person have to go into a business against the owner's wishes? What inalienable right does one have to use the coercive power of the state to force someone to do business against his will?
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


What inalienable right does owning a business give you?


You can't answer a question with a question. Answer the question.

A business is a property. You have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Why does a business owner's rights to do with his property what he will go out the window because his decisions hurt your feelings?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.


So you justify killing in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a killer based on your own ideology. Killing you agree with is acceptable, unless it is killing you don't agree with, in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force a killer not to use his own discretion.


Killing infringes upon the rights of another person. Self defense protects a person's inalienable right to life. What inalienable right does a person have to go into a business against the owner's wishes? What inalienable right does one have to use the coercive power of the state to force someone to do business against his will?
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


What inalienable right does owning a business give you?


You can't answer a question with a question. Answer the question.

A business is a property. You have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Why does a business owner's rights to do with his property what he will go out the window because his decisions hurt your feelings?


Umm, you do NOT have inalienable rights to property. You do NOT have an inalienable right to own a business. Businesses are part of civil structure. We have civil laws to deal with our civil structure. Our civil laws both protect and restrict the people. We protect people from being discriminated against, and we restrict people from discriminating. Guns and cigarettes are not people, therefore they are not protected from discrimination.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.


So you justify killing in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a killer based on your own ideology. Killing you agree with is acceptable, unless it is killing you don't agree with, in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force a killer not to use his own discretion.


Killing infringes upon the rights of another person. Self defense protects a person's inalienable right to life. What inalienable right does a person have to go into a business against the owner's wishes? What inalienable right does one have to use the coercive power of the state to force someone to do business against his will?
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


What inalienable right does owning a business give you?


You can't answer a question with a question. Answer the question.

A business is a property. You have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Why does a business owner's rights to do with his property what he will go out the window because his decisions hurt your feelings?


Umm, you do NOT have inalienable rights to property. You do NOT have an inalienable right to own a business. Businesses are part of civil structure. We have civil laws to deal with our civil structure. Our civil laws both protect and restrict the people. We protect people from being discriminated against, and we restrict people from discriminating. Guns and cigarettes are not people, therefore they are not protected from discrimination.


You do have a right to property. It is even spelled out in our bill of rights. You do have a right to own a business if you buy for said business. The rights to property are very clear. What you and your ilk want is to use the coercive power of government to infringe upon the rights of one set of people (the business owner) to make yourself feel good.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


We protect people from being discriminated against, and we restrict people from discriminating.

That's not an accurate statement, so I'll correct it for you:
We protect SOME people from being discriminated against, and we restrict SOME people from discriminating.

See ya,
Milt



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc

kaylaluv

NavyDoc


So you justify discrimination in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a business owner based on identity. Discrimination you like is up to the owner's discretion unless it is discrimination you don't like in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force the business owner not to use his own discretion. Gotcha.


So you justify killing in your own mind with mental gymnastics. You justify using the force of law to remove autonomous decision making of a killer based on your own ideology. Killing you agree with is acceptable, unless it is killing you don't agree with, in which case the coercive power of the state must be used to force a killer not to use his own discretion.


Killing infringes upon the rights of another person. Self defense protects a person's inalienable right to life. What inalienable right does a person have to go into a business against the owner's wishes? What inalienable right does one have to use the coercive power of the state to force someone to do business against his will?
edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


What inalienable right does owning a business give you?


You can't answer a question with a question. Answer the question.

A business is a property. You have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Why does a business owner's rights to do with his property what he will go out the window because his decisions hurt your feelings?


Umm, you do NOT have inalienable rights to property. You do NOT have an inalienable right to own a business. Businesses are part of civil structure. We have civil laws to deal with our civil structure. Our civil laws both protect and restrict the people. We protect people from being discriminated against, and we restrict people from discriminating. Guns and cigarettes are not people, therefore they are not protected from discrimination.


You do have a right to property. It is even spelled out in our bill of rights. You do have a right to own a business if you buy for said business. The rights to property are very clear. What you and your ilk want is to use the coercive power of government to infringe upon the rights of one set of people (the business owner) to make yourself feel good.



You do NOT have an inalienable right to property. You have the right to purchase a property IF the owner of said property wants to sell it to you. An inalienable right to property means you can take any property you feel like taking without paying for it. If you don't have the money, or an owner doesn't want to sell it to you, then you don't have the right to it. You're talking about the 14th amendment, which says the government cannot take away property you already own without due process of the law. Due process of the law DOES allow your property to be taken.

There is nothing in the bill of rights that says a business owner has the right to refuse service to any person they want.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   


There is nothing in the bill of rights that says a business owner has the right to refuse service to any person they want.


One could also say there is nothing saying an owner must serve someone. That seems to has arisen based on the Interstate Commerce Act.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

roadgravel



There is nothing in the bill of rights that says a business owner has the right to refuse service to any person they want.


One could also say there is nothing saying an owner must serve someone. That seems to has arisen based on the Interstate Commerce Act.


This is why we have civil rights acts and anti-discrimination laws. So that every person gets treated equally within our civil structure. Public businesses are part of our civil structure, which is why employers also have to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Civil rights do not take away any rights already held by a business owner via the Constitution.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

kaylaluv


You do NOT have an inalienable right to property. You have the right to purchase a property IF the owner of said property wants to sell it to you. An inalienable right to property means you can take any property you feel like taking without paying for it. If you don't have the money, or an owner doesn't want to sell it to you, then you don't have the right to it. You're talking about the 14th amendment, which says the government cannot take away property you already own without due process of the law. Due process of the law DOES allow your property to be taken.

There is nothing in the bill of rights that says a business owner has the right to refuse service to any person they want.


LOL. No it doesn't. That is the most laughable thing I've heard in a while. First of all, you cannot tell the difference between a right and an entitlement. You have a right to property, but that does not mean you can steal it from someone else because they have a right to property too. You have the right to free speech but that does not entitle you to a free radio station. You have the right to life but you cannot take someone else's life unless your life is in danger. A RIGHT is not an ENTITLEMENT. You lack of understanding this principle is one reason why we have so many problems in this country.

You don't even know what the 14th amendment says. Here, let me help you:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I was referring to the 5th Amendment:



No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation


Where the rights to life, liberty, and property are enshrined by law.

You lecture me on the Constitution when you don't even know what it says? Laughable.

Yes there is something in the Bill of Rights (I don't know why you even say this since you obviously do not even know what the Bill of Rights says as obvious above) that says that a business owner can choose whom he wants to serve or not. They are the 9th and 10th amendments:

9th:



The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


10th:



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people


Just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution does not mean they do not exist and, according to the 9th Amendment, unless there are specific limitations put on people or given the government by the Constitution, then the assumption that this is a right of the people.

In fact, unless the Constitution states that the government has the task of telling a business owner who they may or may not serve, then that right belongs to the individual.

Then, of course, is the freedom of association. Not expressly written in the First Amendment, but considered part of the concept of freedom of assembly, the freedom of association is the right to associate with whom you please and that the state ahs no business whom you may or may not associate with.

Don't understand what a right vs an entitlement is. Check.
Cites the Constitution but does not even know what the Amendments say. Check.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join