That’s exactly how it’s suppose to be. My house, my rules. If I don’t want purple mexicans in my business because I only want to cater to grey people who are veterans that wear pink for example, then don’t enter. If you or the community have issue with that, boycott me and put me out of business. Give your money to the guy next door.
Should private businesses be allowed to ban guns?
- Thread starter ronstar
- Start date
Yes. Add any demographic to that list. If you open up a business that caters only to veterans, that should be your choice.
Not mine.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Thats not how the law works buddy. We are all equal under the law. Like it or not. Sometimes its in our favor sometimes its not. its not perfect.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Nope.
Because of the unconstitutional civil rights act that was passed that usurps property rights.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No because we are all equal under the law. Nor shall there be any privileges
Why nope? Are you saying that I must bake a cake with two men kissing on it? Or that I must allow you into my exclusive club wearing flip flops when I require sport jackets and shoes?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
In the case of the cake issue,
In Tinker. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) the Court affirmed students’ First Amendment rights to free speech. Although the Court’s decision upheld students’ right to express themselves through certain items they wear, the Court has never specified whether that right bars uniforms, dress codes, or grooming requirements. (f it is against your religious beliefs No. In the case requireing a dress code , not sure how constitutional it is
In Tinker. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) the Court affirmed students’ First Amendment rights to free speech. Although the Court’s decision upheld students’ right to express themselves through certain items they wear, the Court has never specified whether that right bars uniforms, dress codes, or grooming requirements. (f it is against your religious beliefs No. In the case requireing a dress code , not sure how constitutional it is
No one is saying anything about equality. What is being said is that I should have the right to cater to whoever I want. Not allow firearms because I’m a liberal cuck. Not allow offensive clothing and swearing because I’m religious. Not allow men because my services are for women only.
I personally wouldn’t ban people regardless of their race or sex in my business but I should be able to if I want to.
Perhaps you don’t understand. The civil rights act is unconstitutional just like the laws that went into effect yesterday are unconstitutional. Yet both exist.
What exists doesn’t mean that it’s right or constitutional.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
YOUR SAYING equality! By treating people differently because of XXXXXXX Your denying them equal rights under the law. Your talking peas carrotts and oranges here. each one is a different thing. If you have a business that caters to women , because they are women, such as a womans gym like the YMCA thats a differnt thing. But if deny black women, then its a different issue, You can deny certain things under your religion because of YOUR rights to religion. But not everything.
The reason you dont have rights to cater to who ever you want is based on equality of the law. since your a public store, You have to deal with the public which in this country, is global.How about all the gas stations refuse you sell you gas because you voted for Trump? How about Your suppliers for your Business refuse to sell to you because xxxxxxxxxxxx.
This happened to the Jews in Germany in the 1930s, You start limiting rights to certain people and Sooner or later your gonna have problems
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
So your saying US citizens dont have civil rights? I thought that was what the Bill of rights was.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens, "without distinction of race or color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude." Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the legislation, that veto was overturned by the 39th United States Congress and the bill became law.
There are certain absolute rights which pertain to every citizen, which are inherent, and of which a State cannot constitutionally deprive him. But not only are those rights inherent and indestructible, but the means whereby they may be possessed and enjoyed are equally so. ... Every citizen, therefore, has the absolute right to live, the right of personal security, personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These are rights of citizenship. As necessary incidents of these rights there are others, as the right to make and enforce contracts, to purchase, hold, and enjoy property, and to share the benefit of laws for the security of person and property.[6]
Last edited:
What you are saying is that if I open a practice for bikini waxing women, I have to do men too because it’s a violation of their civil rights. If I open a support group for battered women, I have to let men in. If I open an exclusive club for millionaires, I have to let you in.
That’s what you are saying.
Government vs private property are two different things.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
The thing is when a business decides to take your right of self defense away which is guaranteed under the law as an In alienable right . Our rights are being restricted which is illegal itself because it is not in agreement with the constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I dont see it as loosing any rights but while I am in that property I have an obligation to protect the owners rights.
Rights cannot exist w/o obligations whether they are recognized in paper or simply natural rights.
Otherwise anyone could start building a mosque or a church in somebody elses land to expand their believes and faith that is protected by the constitution.
Private businesses do not violate the constitution. The constitution is for the government.
Still don’t understand what you are saying in regards to what I’m saying. The only thing I’m saying is that the constitution does not apply on private property. That’s it. Period. Finuto.
Whether I agree with it or not is besides the point.
spat
.950 JDJ
So, a private property owner can't control who uses his property?
Restaurant can't set a dress code ?
No, what we need is to stop making exceptions to the owners right to exclude anyone he wants.
If he wants to be a racist asshole and exclude people from an undesirable race, well, good luck staying in business, but it should be his right to flush the place down the toilet if he wants.
spat
.950 JDJ
Yes,a private business owner should be able to set whatever conditions he wants on entry.
Want to make topless Tuesdays at your bar ? Go for it.
I think that all private businesses should be able to make up whatever restrictions they want. No guns, no shirts, no this person or that person.
I have difficulty with the government forcing a business to make a choice.
I have an issue with the government telling a private business what they can and cannot do' or who they can or cannot serve.
The choice should be 100% up to the owners of the company.
I have difficulty with the government forcing a business to make a choice.
I have an issue with the government telling a private business what they can and cannot do' or who they can or cannot serve.
The choice should be 100% up to the owners of the company.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
As long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of people. denying the right to self defense in a place open to the public is infringement.
Topless Tuesdays ? Im in there, like swimwear.
The Bill of Rights is a protection for the People by the government, not a private entity.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
If you infringe on a persons rights Your breaking the law. the constitution supersedes your right to exclude.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Infringements of rights is against the law. denying someone the right to self defense is an infringement.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No.
And they have no right to self defense on a private property that does not wish them to have that right.
The Constitution limits what the government can do. Nothing more.
You are factually wrong on this.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
An assault is an infringement also.