Being gay or carrying a gun...why are they treated differently legally in businesses?

So I had a thought since there is a lot of conversation about open carry as well as CWP holders not being able to bring their weapons into a restaurant. Starbucks was one of the first large ones and now another major chain, Chipolte, has recently come to light by saying...

Link

...in a statement Monday, the company said that "the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers."

The announcement came after a petition by Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which has called on other companies to ban firearms in their stores as well. The group said its petition was in reaction to open-carry gun activists appearing at a Dallas-area Chipotle restaurant over the weekend.

Erika Soto Lamb, a spokeswoman for the group, said she thought the move by Chipotle was a "bold statement," especially considering its previous stance of complying with local laws.

Many states allow people to carry licensed guns in some way, but some businesses exercise their right to ban firearms.

Open carry to me could scare some people but why no CWP's? Gun ownership is a constitutional right so where is a legal basis to not allow weapons in stores? This leads me to another question...

How is this enforced by store owners but a store owner has to serve someone who is gay when it conflicts with his religion?

The baker in Colorado is the most famous case but being gay is not protected under the constitution so explain the difference?

Link

Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution as well as gun ownership but it seems to be pushed aside in both cases here...

Some people do not like to see guns...Some people do not like to see gay affection.
Personally, I think gay people should be able to marry/divorce/have kids just as I think a person has the right to carry a weapons.

What is the difference and How do you feel about? Is the 'right to refuse service to anyone' truly correct?

The difference is that one is part of the progressive agenda and the other two are not.

Progressives find the Constitution outdated and inconvenient

originally posted by: matafuchs
Open carry to me could scare some people but why no CWP's? Gun ownership is a constitutional right so where is a legal basis to not allow weapons in stores? This leads me to another question...

I am very pro-2nd Amendment but I also understand my Consitutional rights in regards firarms are in reference to the Government and not a private business.

How is this enforced by store owners but a store owner has to serve someone who is gay when it conflicts with his religion?

As a private business owner you can choose who to admit into your establishment but you are then subject to public retaliation (and possible loss of business) due to your personal viewpoints.

Stores & restaurants can refuse service to anyone they chose. As far as guns is concerned they have to post signage stating NO WEAPONS. If no sign, they are in a sticky wicket. As far as restaurant & store owners having to deal with Gays & lesbian customers & refusing to serve them......well they have the right to be backward asre idiots as well as the right to refuse service. I open carry almost everywhere I go. I have had one instance in the past few years of "I scared someone" It was more a "i pissed someone off moment". I was asked to leave the store...I refused, law called, law talked with me, law talked with store manager, because no sign, I was able to continue my shopping and leave. NO SIGN rights on your side. SIGN rights on stores side.......because all are abideing by the way the law is written.

As far as gays & lesbians being refused or a store owner having to deal with them against his or her religous beleifs.....I beleive the problem there would be the term " religous beleifs" . I mean do they have a gay & lesbian detector at the door? People have rights....some people are just backward arse idiots who will never accept the gay & lesbian community. A stupid as they may be..they have rights as well.......them store owners and restaurant owners need a" big ole gay guy come in practicing open carry" I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that encounter!!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This exactly. Freedom of association. A private business should be able to serve whomever they want or refuse to serve whomever they want. That is what freedom is about. However, if they drive away business because they upset their customer base by having stupid policies and go out of business, it is their fault and that's also how freedom works.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The difference is that one is part of the progressive agenda and the other two are not.

Progressives find the Constitution outdated and inconvenient

Yes they find it outdated that is why they have to keep pointing it out to the people who think they can pick and choose what laws to follow. Like to the ignorant redneck claims to know the constitution but thinks he has the right to ban people from his restaurant just because they are gay.

To answer the op a gun isn't a sexual preference, race or gender. A business has every right to say they don't want firearms on their property and that breaks no laws because firearms have no rights.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The difference is that one is part of the progressive agenda and the other two are not.

Progressives find the Constitution outdated and inconvenient

Does anybody who talks about the Constitution even understand what is says anymore? The Constitution does not have anything to with if you want serve people with weapons in your place or if your a bigot and do not want serve certain people types of people. A variety of Federal, State and Local laws deal with serving people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion etc. I swear the people who complain the most about others not liking the Constitution are the same ones who are completely clueless about what it says.

The op has asked the question about the difference in why is there different treatment between a person who is gay and who is carrying a gun.

Well there are a few answers to that question and some will raise more questions.

Why are people afraid of something that will not harm them, yet embrace an implement of death?

People fear change, they do not want to have to look into what they would find as an affront to the sense of what they would consider moral or immoral. To face such is an insult in most eyes, and can you blame them? Most people, especially older people, religion was a frame of mind, they go to church on a regular basis, follow a text of some time, that says what is and is not acceptable in society. Yet the problem with that is that people tend to use such as a weapon, to divide and constrict, restrict and ultimately, justify bad behavior.

History is a good example of such, as it has been done time and time again, in the USA, where part of the argument against something, or a group, biblical arguments were used to justify keeping a group separate from the rest of society. And when that group dared to push back, fear ran rampant, and there was much turmoil, taking a good generation for such to settle down and to be accepted.

But guns, well like any good thing, is the target right now, far worse, and ask yourself, has there been anything else that was once legal, that is now looked down on? Kind of like say smoking. At one time it was sociably acceptable, and now, if a person lights up, they are shunned and ostracized, far greater, than the other. And what is funny, is that it was and still is legal, though the government can not bear to take the next step and outright ban it, like say prohibition, rather it is piece here and a piece there.
Guns, happen to be the new gay smoking African American Muslim of the day. People know the laws, they know their rights, but will seek to impose their will on others, and fail to see that they open up a dangerous door that will ultimately constrain all.

How questions and arguments are presented are often as important as the issue, and how they are presented is equally important. Those against same sex marriage, frames the argument in the wrong way, using terms like morality and religion, while those for it, frame the argument in terms of legality and civil rights. And the courts lean on the side of legality and civil rights, not with religion. When it comes to guns, that is going to be a much harder fight, as both sides are using the law to fight it, and the courts and people are caught in the middle.

So here is the question that I will leave you with, why do people fear something that will not kill them, and embrace something that will?

a reply to: openyourmind1262

them store owners and restaurant owners need a" big ole gay guy come in practicing open carry" I'd like to be a fly on the wall for that encounter!! - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Awesome response...Two friends of mine walked out of a bar one night and someone decided to yell 'fags' because they had arms around each other. Fact was, they were brothers and one had just rotated home from the Marines...that was a great fight to watch. Never judge a book by it's cover.



Thanks for the responses from all...

originally posted by: MrSpad
Does anybody who talks about the Constitution even understand what is says anymore?

I gotta say, the vast majority do not. It's crazy-making!

To the OP: Maybe it's because being gay cannot kill the other patrons.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Why are people afraid of something that will not harm them, yet embrace an implement of death? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Because ideologues think and act as though ideas are superior to people.

Simple:

You cant stop being gay or certain race.

You CAN leave your gun at home.

One a OBJECTone is WHO YOU ARE.

Its the same principle as can I take a dog into a restaurant or can I wear a gimp costume into a 5 star restaurant. Those like guns are optional.

One thing is a choice.

The other is what someone is.

Think it's alright for a business to not serve... say... non-whites?

a reply to: NavyDoc

The US was founded on unwavering principles of freedom --if you are a white male protestant and not a debtor. e.g elites.

For the rest of the inhabitants of this exceptional land?
Slaughter, oppression, disease, human commerce, slavery, rape, torture and exclusion from bona fide citizenship.

a real bastion of liberty you've got there. It hinges on total ignorance of history.

a reply to: matafuchs

Is this an actual serious question?

You honestly don't see the difference between the two at all?

You don't see that one is part of someone's being and one is an inanimate object that someone chooses to carry?

One is harmless and the other's sole purpose is to kill.


But you honestly don't see the difference?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

As ratified the constitution says

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This was created for the basis of the citizens to be able to remove and protect themselves from a tyrannical government or foreign invaders.

Therefore, the 'right to bear arms' as a citizen is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It is how it is interpreted by the current judicial system that would matter and has always been that way.

In my OP, I was trying to state that a person who believes they have the right to bear arms and was turned away would feel the same as someone who was gay and turned away from a business. Correct? Are they the same or different?

Should a business have the choice to enforce a no gun policy if they are not allowed to enforce a no gay policy? That is the question...

a reply to: kruphix

This is not about my view but I think I made my feelings clear however in a few of my posts that I have no problem with someone who is gay, no problem with people carrying guns and chuckled when I read the Big Gay man with a gun comment.

So, if someone is gay they would think it is ok for them to not eat at an establishment if they carry but upset for being gay and not served?

I wanted to see how the forum felt on this subject as it was discussed with some friends recently, some gay and some with CWP's and some both. They were a lot more understanding than some of you here

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: MrSpad
Does anybody who talks about the Constitution even understand what is says anymore?

I gotta say, the vast majority do not. It's crazy-making!

To the OP: Maybe it's because being gay cannot kill the other patrons.

I object. If it was a really big gay guy, and a smaller skinny gay guy, the big guy could bludgeon someone with the skinny one.

The Gun will never ever jump up and shoot anyone by itself. Ever.

a reply to: matafuchs

If you, or your friends, can't see the difference between and inanimate object and part of someone's being...then that is at the root of the problem.

a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

LOLZ. Pulling the persecuted card then? The lack of logic you espouse--that since people were persecuted in the past, everyone shouldn't be free today--is silly. Part of being free is to make your own choices...yes or no?