Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   


Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Title II

Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".



After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the Supreme Court upheld the law's application to the private sector, on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the States. The landmark case, Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, established the Constitutionality of the law, but it did not settle all of the legal questions surrounding the law.




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Whoa dude, you need to calm down - you're gonna have a coronary or something...


Like I said, you have the right to purchase property, and the property you already own can't be taken away from you without due process of law. You still have to pay for it, unlike your life or liberty, which are rights you are born with and do not/should not have to pay for.

Obviously, we are never going to agree on whether a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against someone based on their personal feelings. I'm sure you also think an employer should be allowed to not hire someone because they don't like Jews or Blacks or Christians. Thankfully, you are the minority.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'm a ccw holder and I have seen a gun go off when mishandled. It's a ridiculous argument comparing a womans breasts to a firearm. How many boobs have you seen fire a projectile? The most that will happen from mishandling a breast is a boner or a restraining order.
edit on 1/8/2014 by fenson76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   

NavyDoc

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.
You do realize that I agree with you right? My posts weren't arguing against the idea that it's ok for businesses to able to discriminate against one group and not another, just against your stupid comparison between a sentient being and an inanimate object.





new topics

top topics
 
14
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join