Gun Nuts attack singer for no-gun restaurants

macman
reply to post by CB328

 

My gosh, can you believe this????
I mean, how can a business deny service to someone based on their belief in the right to bear arms?

We should not allow business, that is open to the public to deny service to people. That is discrimination.

deny service because of a belief?...who did that?...how did you get that from the article?...what sort of thought process went into that conclusion?...c'mon, really?

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.

reply to post by jimmyx

reply to post by crazyewok


Is it denying service to someone or not?

macman
reply to post by jimmyx

 

reply to post by crazyewok

 

Is it denying service to someone or not?

edit on 2-1-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)

So I should be able to bring a dirty flea ridden dog into a place that serves food?


Sorry but there is some leway that business owner should have when it comes to rights to deny service to THERE BUSINESS.

The line should be if its a traite or feature that cant be changed like race, colour or disability. If these are there then you cant deny service. Otherwise you get secound class citzens like in pre 70's America, not very free when you cant do day to day things or get a education because your black right?

If its something that one can change such as clothing, objects on them (such as guns) and personel hygenine, or religous or sexual acts that you can refrain from doing while on said property then yes the shop owner should get the leway to deny service.

reply to post by crazyewok


So, the Progressive mantra of "It's different" wins again.

The dog scenario is a health concern. The fleas are not inanimate objects. The act on their own accord.

The simple fact, is that people are turned away from a public business. If it sounds like discrimination, it is.

reply to post by crazyewok


I think you're stretching a bit.

A business owner, based on his religious beliefs, decides not to bake a cake and participate in a gay wedding.

People say that he was wrong. He should not deny service.

Now we have a business owner, based on his personal beliefs, denying access to his restaurant, even though the rights of the patrons are Constitutionally guaranteed, and people are okay with that.


I, personally, side with the business owners. Both of them.

But I see many struggling with the dichotomy of their decisions. There is much qualifying, based on the individual aspect, instead of the business owners decision.

macman

Is it denying service to someone or not?

edit on 2-1-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)

Yes I never have denied that and think shop owners should have the right to deny service under certain conditions.


My only problem is ignorant arse holes useing that to try and make the lifes of minoritys impossible to live, when race and colour are not things one can just change or leave at home. Hense why SOME sort of guidlines needs to be set.

A gun is just a tool, its is a object. It not a part of one selfe.

macman


So, the Progressive mantra of "It's different" wins again.

O look its it turns this into a left right thing.
How very narrow and simple of you


Right Im out of here disscusiing things with you.


O and you say the dogs a health risk?

I say a guns a health risk in a place that serves alcohol

In my state it is written into the firearms laws. A business can prevent carry inside but not in the parking lot.

beezzer
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I think you're stretching a bit.

A business owner, based on his religious beliefs, decides not to bake a cake and participate in a gay wedding.

People say that he was wrong. He should not deny service.

Now we have a business owner, based on his personal beliefs, denying access to his restaurant, even though the rights of the patrons are Constitutionally guaranteed, and people are okay with that.


I, personally, side with the business owners. Both of them.

But I see many struggling with the dichotomy of their decisions. There is much qualifying, based on the individual aspect, instead of the business owners decision.

You know what its a difficlut thing.

A real difficlut thing.

Im with you on both businesses.


And really I think that one should be able to detrmine what goes on on one on property.



Thing is though there are some areas particlularly within some area of the USA that would use that would missuse that freedom to make life impossible for certain groups. Just look at pre 70's America blacks? I hate to say it but I think some areas would jump at a chance to return to that.

So we have a difficult problem? How do we allow freedom of business and property without risking it going sour? My only suggestion is there needs to be a red line somewere. Be intresting to know what you think breezer?

reply to post by crazyewok


Ahhh, now I am sad.

Bye bye.

reply to post by crazyewok



It's always different for Progressives.

macman
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Ahhh, now I am sad.

Bye bye.

Well its stupid that you turn everything into a 100% left or 100% right thing.


Only people with limited intelligence think on such rigid absolutes terms

Id have better luck debating with my cat.

macman
reply to post by crazyewok

 

It's always different for Progressives.

Do you call eveyone that disagree with you even slightly a progressive?

Does it have to be Good verse Bad?

Is that the only way you can comprhend the big bad world around you?

Awwww cute

reply to post by crazyewok




Has to do with freedom. Either we have it, or we don't.

reply to post by crazyewok


If it sounds like a Progressive, and walks like a Progressive, must be a Progressive.

macman
reply to post by crazyewok

 

If it sounds like a Progressive, and walks like a Progressive, must be a Progressive.

If it sounds like a blockhead, walks like a blockhead and thinks like a blockhead then it must be a blockhead.




Sorry I just view the world as more than black and white. Not every situation is the same and not every solution anwnsers all problems. If you cant see that then read above ^

reply to post by crazyewok


Awww, I may cry in the corner now.

The grey area argument is best used by those that have no spine to make direct choices, or those knowing their stance is wrong, but have justified with the "grey Area".

It either is, or it isn't.
We either have freedom or we don't.

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.

You certainly can't carry ( carry permit or not) inside any establishment that sells alcohol in Texas. It's illegal.

Most other places are at the option of the owner, but liquor stores and bars are completely off limits.