Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under what law? I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer in that regard. I already explained that the cited to statutes above do not seem to apply to this scenario.
Discrimination based on Religion would do for starters. Same as if I had a "Christian" free store.
You folks can try to spin that in either direction, but in court, some stuff don't spin. This is one. If you think it would not apply, let me know how the "Gay" free thing worked out for you.
Under what law? I'm still waiting for a satisfactory answer in that regard. I already explained that the cited to statutes above do not seem to apply to this scenario.
If you read enough, you would know that a "Specific" Law does not have to be provided, if the infraction is in the same spirit as a Law, since every single instance can not be recorded in Law Books. You should have learned all that from the recent fiasco over Gays Civil Rights. Not everything was spelled out to the letter, but was deemed unlawful. Learn, and grow.
Covered establishment is defined, not only in the CRA, but under Florida state law as well which pretty much parallels the CRA.
Still waiting for someone to answer you...what statute.
Are you seriously casting yourself in the role of the ignorant pedant? His actions are clearly in violation of the Civil Rights Act as upheld and elaborated upon in Jones vs. Mayer Co. in which the opinion of the court clearly stated "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Real property being defined as "any interest in land, real estate, or improvements upon it" and personal property being defined as "anything other than land that may be subject to ownership."
And don't even try to apply your pedantry to the "as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof" bit, because any and all courts would find that to be an obiter dictum.
This man's actions are 100% in violation of federal law. Any attempt to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility. Playing a "let's pretend to be attorneys!" game by disputing the semantics of "public accommodations" really belongs in the threadline of a youtube video, not here. The prosecution will win this case, I promise you.
Last edited by MaxtheRoadWarrior; 07-23-2015 at 02:18 PM..
Are you seriously casting yourself in the role of the ignorant pedant? His actions are clearly in violation of the Civil Rights Act as upheld and elaborated upon in Jones vs. Mayer Co. in which the opinion of the court clearly stated "All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Real property being defined as "any interest in land, real estate, or improvements upon it" and personal property being defined as "anything other than land that may be subject to ownership."
And don't even try to apply your pedantry to the "as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof" bit, because any and all courts would find that to be an obiter dictum.
This man's actions are 100% in violation of federal law. Any attempt to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility. Playing a "let's pretend to be attorneys!" game by disputing the semantics of "public accommodations" really belongs in the threadline of a youtube video, not here. The prosecution will win this case, I promise you.
Nothing you posted states anything about religion.
If he is 100% in violation of federal law, where are the charges? Or does it take the justice department this long to actually find a charge?
"Are you seriously casting yourself in the role of the ignorant pedant?"
Asking a question, one of which no one has answered yet.
If you read enough, you would know that a "Specific" Law does not have to be provided, if the infraction is in the same spirit as a Law, since every single instance can not be recorded in Law Books. You should have learned all that from the recent fiasco over Gays Civil Rights. Not everything was spelled out to the letter, but was deemed unlawful. Learn, and grow.
Actually, a specific law does have to be provided. The recent gay fiasco, like the bakery, violated state law which was specific. The CRA has also been expanded to include gays and transsexuals.
later Florida Gun Supply learns that CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front group and is on UAE's terrorist organization list. Declines CAIR's offer to meet and play the deception game they are so good at.
Wouldn't that make the sacrosanct provision, "Shall not be infringed" useless? It doesn't specify catagories of who can infringe. Infringement is like pregnancy. You can't be slightly infringed or pregnant. You either are or you aren't. I see the shop owner infringing on the American citizen's right to legally own a firearm strictly for arbitrary reasons. If he could do it, so could the town council. If they can do it so can the County and so on.
The Constitution is there to protect the people from the government. Not to protect people from each other.
If we go by what you are saying, then I should be able to go up to you and buy a firearm from you, whether it is for sale or not. Otherwise, wouldn't you be infringing on my rights?
He's breaking the law. You can't ban people of religions you don't like from coming in your store any more than you could ban certain races.
He's not breaking a law like, say, a natural law. He has a natural and inalienable property right to ban whoever he wants from his own store for whatever reasons he chooses, whether the government respects that or not. Read John Locke or Frederic Bastiat for some good explanation of this. He's breaking an edict of the federal government. The same government, I might add, who prohibits him from banning Muslims from his store, but claims the authority to kill them in drone strikes all day every day and it's just fine. It's his store. This guy is hilarious, if anything.
NEWSER) – The owner of a gun store in Florida who declared his shop to be a "Muslim-free zone" is now the target of a lawsuit. The Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a federal lawsuit calling the policy at Florida Gun Supply discriminatory, reports Reuters. The move comes after owner Andrew Hallinan, 28, posted a video to Facebook announcing his new policy in the wake of the Chattanooga rampage. "I have a moral and legal responsibility to ensure the safety of all patriots in my community," Hallinan says in the video, as quoted by NBC Miami. "So effective immediately, I'm declaring Florida Gun Supply as a Muslim-free zone. I will not arm and train those who wish to do harm to my fellow patriots."
But the chief executive of CAIR calls it blatant "Islamophobia" that must be challenged. "Unfortunately, he caved in to a lot of the anti-Muslim pressure and anti-Muslim base that he's pandering to," Hassan Shibly tells USA Today. "When he refused to reconsider his position, when he refused to reconsider to be educated, refused to engage this community, refused to respect American law, we had no choice but to bring forward this lawsuit." Meanwhile, Chris Martin, a US military veteran who converted to Islam, has traveled to Inverness, Florida, from California so he can try to enroll in a training course at the shop to challenge the ban, reports WFTS-TV. Federal agents are reportedly keeping a close eye on the situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
