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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   

CB328
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone an America-hater for not wanting weapons of destruction in their business is crazy? Really the obnoxiousness and downright stupidity of gun worshippers has gotten so far out of hand I think it is irreparable. Mad Max here we come:

Toby Keith under fire for no guns policy at his restaurant chain

social.entertainment.msn.com...


now that he's gotten the free publicity for the resturant, he should now remove the signs so he can get another free piece of publicity for the resturant chain. that way he's also no longer alienate anyone. And he'd get 2 for the price of 1 in free media.




posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

CB328
Am I the only one who thinks that calling someone an America-hater for not wanting weapons of destruction in their business is crazy?

I think it's crazy to call people names simply because they want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights to self protection via the use of a firearm.

And it's also crazy to call a self protection firearm in the custody of a law abiding citizen a 'weapon of destruction'.


Really the obnoxiousness and downright stupidity of gun worshippers has gotten so far out of hand

Really, the obnoxiousness and downright stupidity of 2nd Amendment foes has gotten out of hand. And to for enemies of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to call Americans who legally protect themselves via the use of firearms "gun worshippers' ... well that's pretty dang pathetic on their part.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

badgerprints
His restaurant, his rules.

Unless those rules break the law ... the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Does his ban break the law? Maybe.
What if he decided not to serve black people? His restaurant, his rules?
What if he decided not to serve Catholics? His restaurant, his rules?
What if he decided not to serve Democrats? His restaurant, his rules?
What if he decided not to serve people in wheelchairs or with crutches? His restaurant, his rules?

edit on 1/2/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Oh but that is different.
CNN, Al Sharpton, 0bama, GLAAD and others have all told me so.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
In the case of the bakery, the customer is protected by laws barring discrimination.

In the case of the restaurant, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects those who wish to carry a firearm.


Each has rights, freedoms.

But those stop when they infringe on the rights of others.

In the case of the bakery, it infringed on the religious rights of the owner.
In the restaurant, it infringed on the personal choice of the owner.


Yet, in the case of the bakery; many sided with the customer, while in this instance, many are siding with the business owner.

What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a social acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


It's ridiculous to compare basic human rights to this issue.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   

beezzer
In the case of the bakery, the customer is protected by laws barring discrimination.

In the case of the restaurant, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects those who wish to carry a firearm.


Each has rights, freedoms.

But those stop when they infringe on the rights of others.

In the case of the bakery, it infringed on the religious rights of the owner.
In the restaurant, it infringed on the personal choice of the owner.


Yet, in the case of the bakery; many sided with the customer, while in this instance, many are siding with the business owner.

What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a social acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.


Intresting and deffinatly something to think on.

Who freedoms take priority is the queation and when? Shop owner all the time? Customer all the time ? Or half and half and wheres the red line drawn

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



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   
In case this was missed in the OP story.
As a business owner, I know what they mean. They should have dropped the "safer" B.S. though.



and based on insurance regulations



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

beezzer
In the case of the bakery, the customer is protected by laws barring discrimination.

In the case of the restaurant, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protects those who wish to carry a firearm.


Each has rights, freedoms.

But those stop when they infringe on the rights of others.

In the case of the bakery, it infringed on the religious rights of the owner.
In the restaurant, it infringed on the personal choice of the owner.


Yet, in the case of the bakery; many sided with the customer, while in this instance, many are siding with the business owner.

What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a social acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.


And that's the point. So many say "his restaurant his rules" only when they agree with the owner's decision. Otherwise it's "there aught to be a law!"



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

beezzer


What I'm finding is that it isn't about "rights" or freedoms. It's about social favorites, and social memes where gun-toting Christians are a social acceptable target for arbitrary applications of laws.


I think you just summed up 9 pages here on this thread, and other topics as well.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

NavyDoc


And that's the point. So many say "his restaurant his rules" only when they agree with the owner's decision. Otherwise it's "there aught to be a law!"


The problem is do you want buisness owners to have the rights on what goes on there property?

If so would you want those freedoms to go as far as discrminating againt race and colour and going back 60 years to were blacks and other races can barely live day to day?

Either you have to:
A) Acceptt the buisness owner has no rights and can not refuse service to anyone
b) Has some rights and can refuse service to some but not to others and if so were to draw the line?
c) Allow business owners to be able to refuse service to anyone and us much you have thr risk of some areas of the USA being impossibe to live in if your are of a certain race or colour?


So its A B or C.


A B or C someones freedom is going to be restricted be it the buisness owner or customers.

So we have to make a choice who freedom is more important the customer or business owner? Or do we try and balance it so both have some rights and some restrictions?
edit on 2-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

crazyewok

NavyDoc


And that's the point. So many say "his restaurant his rules" only when they agree with the owner's decision. Otherwise it's "there aught to be a law!"


The problem is do you want buisness owners to have the rights on what goes on there property?

If so would you want those freedoms to go as far as discrminating againt race and colour and going back 60 years to were blacks and other races can barely live day to day?

Either you have to:
A) Acceptt the buisness owner has no rights and can not refuse service to anyone
b) Has some rights and can refuse service to some but not to others and if so were to draw the line?
c) Allow business owners to be able to refuse service to anyone and us much you have thr risk of some areas of the USA being impossibe to live in if your are of a certain race or colour?


So its A B or C.


You watch too much television. Nowhere in the US is there going to be "areas of the USA being impossible to live if you are a certain race or color" if business owners were left alone to make their own decisions. C. would be the pro-freedom answer except you extrapolated a nonsensical end result to it.

As it stands, we have a "B" position where it is obviously perfectly okay to discriminate unless you are of several protected classes. Either A or C would be more consistent.

Less government and more freedom of choice would be the best approach.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


The business owner should not deny service unless those customers have infringed on his rights.

Simple enough.

You don't have a right to deny business based on the colour of ones skin. You don't have a right to deny service based upon sexual orientation.

But if (as in the case of the bakery) the owner was forced to participate in a ceremony that went against his religious beliefs, he should have that right to deny service. As in the case of the restaurant owner. He didn't discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation.

His house.

His rules.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

NavyDoc
would be the pro-freedom answer except you extrapolated a nonsensical end result to it.

Really?

I guess the blacks living in the south of the USA in the 1960's lives in a land of rainbows, unicorns and sunshine.


Sorry but there are still some very ignorant and very racsist area of the USA who would jump on such freedoms to run every non white, no anglo origin American out of town.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by crazyewok
 


The business owner should not deny service unless those customers have infringed on his rights.

Simple enough.

You don't have a right to deny business based on the colour of ones skin. You don't have a right to deny service based upon sexual orientation.

But if (as in the case of the bakery) the owner was forced to participate in a ceremony that went against his religious beliefs, he should have that right to deny service. As in the case of the restaurant owner. He didn't discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation.

His house.

His rules.


With you on this



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

crazyewok



Sorry but there are still some very ignorant and very racsist area of the USA who would jump on such freedoms to run every non white, no anglo origin American out of town.


You watch too much TV.

Nothing more really to say.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

macman

crazyewok



Sorry but there are still some very ignorant and very racsist area of the USA who would jump on such freedoms to run every non white, no anglo origin American out of town.


You watch too much TV.

Nothing more really to say.


Actually he doesn't. I was to the States(Northern state of Migh) about 10 years ago and was shocked at the racist attitude I saw there. I can't see it getting any better in a decade. Racism IS alive and well.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by intrepid
 


Oh good hell.
I see no more racism in any other place.
There is racism, but not occurring at the levels of what foreigners are eluding to.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by intrepid
 


Oh good hell.
I see no more racism in any other place.
There is racism, but not occurring at the levels of what foreigners are eluding to.


Well I'm a foreigner and I know what I heard. Moot point anyway as basic human rights are protected.



posted on Jan, 2 2014 @ 01:26 PM
link   

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)


no...the "someone" can get service, but not if he brings in a gun....did it every occur to you that maybe, he doesn't want any chance of a robbery, domestic dispute, gang payback, nutcase to shoot up a restaurant to gain notoriety?.....

why do you keep arguing about this....to get more stars?...just to argue, even if it makes no sense?...ego boost?...open a restaurant and allow all the gun carriers you want in it, if you are so freakin' passionate about this.
edit on 2-1-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join