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.
There is a pretty important difference between the two: Target is saying don't bring a gun into our stores--people do not have a right to carry a weapon on the private property of someone else without permission. Hobby Lobby is saying give us an exemption from the group health requirements--its employees have a right to group health coverage that covers preventive care, including contraceptives. The case does not find that ACA infringes Hobby Lobby's freedom of religion (its 1st Amendment rights). Instead, it finds that another statute gives Hobby Lobby rights that go beyond the 1st Amendment.
But they have to follow the law--including, until the Court's decision, the Affordable Care Act.
Actually, that is not what they are saying. They said they would continue to follow state and local laws..
In other words, they aren't changing their policy, to spite anti-gun groups saying different and trying to gin up a false momentum.
I support Targets right to refuse to allow anyone in who has a firearm with them, and to evict any who disobey Target's right to dictate terms in their stores, as well as to copy identification and publish names if they wish in all their stores who have violated said policy.
Oh good, then we agree?
Because that is exactly what I said in the post you quoted, just not with all the vitriol.
Because that is exactly what I said in the post you quoted, just not with all the vitriol.
No vitriol, just the facts. I understand Target's position, as from a liability standpoint, if anyone was harmed by a gun in their stores, they'd be fried. So even forgetting any prefrences they have (subjective), there are objective financial risk issues that also come into play.
No vitriol, just the facts. I understand Target's position, as from a liability standpoint, if anyone was harmed by a gun in their stores, they'd be fried. So even forgetting any prefrences they have (subjective), there are objective financial risk issues that also come into play.
What position? Allowing customers to bring in guns where state law permits? Because that is the position they continue to hold..
They merely asked that customers leave guns at home, probably to prevent the ignoramousus who sling AK-47's on their back from staging political demonstrations in their stores.... which I don't blame them for that.
If there were an incident in their store, they'd be in a tenuous legal position, and would have to provide a settlement to the victim. It's little different than slipping in a store, even if you were clumsy, if it goes to court, the store will lose, hence, they settle. So this move in all liklihood provides Target more wiggle room should someone disobey their edict and end up shooting another customer.
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.
