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.
originally posted by: MrSpad
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Progressives find the Constitution outdated and inconvenient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.
originally posted by: matafuchs
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?
originally posted by: matafuchs
Freedom of religion is protected by the constitution as well as gun ownership but it seems to be pushed aside in both cases here...
originally posted by: matafuchs
Easy question. If I can sue a cake maker who will not make a cake can I not sue Starbucks for not letting me carry?
originally posted by: matafuchs
From what I am reading, if you support gay rights, it seems as if you make it personal and are telling me that it is a simple thing. Inanimate vs animate objects. Saying humans have rights and guns don't is inadequate as an argument.
originally posted by: matafuchs
A line has to be drawn? Why? So, what if a woman is raped and she carries to protect herself? It is ok to tell her to keep her gun at home?
originally posted by: matafuchs
My, how prejudice we are since I mention a gun and the right to carry. It immediately turns me into a gun nut?
originally posted by: matafuchs
Walking into a restaurant naked is crazy. Wanting to carry a gun to protect yourself is not?
originally posted by: matafuchs
. Saying humans have rights and guns don't is inadequate as an argument.
originally posted by: Greven
originally posted by: matafuchs
From what I am reading, if you support gay rights, it seems as if you make it personal and are telling me that it is a simple thing. Inanimate vs animate objects. Saying humans have rights and guns don't is inadequate as an argument.
Uhhh... no, it's quite an adequate argument.
People have rights, and guns are not people.
If you are a business, you are providing goods or services. Pretty frequently, you don't get to legally discriminate on who you can provide those goods or services to. You can tell people to leave if they are causing a disturbance and call the police to remove them, but you can't legally hold them for the police.
If you don't like it, quit and shutdown your business and start a club. (edit: and even those can be required to not discriminate.)
How is this enforced by store owners but a store owner has to serve someone who is gay when it conflicts with his religion? -
originally posted by: matafuchs
I do not support a business owner who based on religious beliefs does not make a cake. It is his right. Let him deal with the consequence.
I do not support a business who will not allow guns in their store. It is their right and let them deal with the consequence.
There is no difference between a gun owner and someone who is gay.