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.
You can say whatever you like, no matter how offensive, and not do anything illegal.
In order for a law to be broken, she must ACTUALLY refuse service to someone based on their religion, AND that person must pursue the matter legally, AND that person must prove that service was refused because of their religion.
That ain't gonna happen. Because of this announcement, the third part would be fairly easy, but parts one and two? Unlikely.
I predict that someone will test this policy in the near future, and the range owner will gladly take their money.
What I think "should" be is not my right to enforce upon another with force or aggression. And I think that such an idiotic policy would put them right out of business when a smart business competed with them.
So is that a "yes" or a "no"?
Should the only emergency medical clinic in a community (think rural community - only clinic for 100 miles) be able to have a "no blacks" or "no gays" or "no Jews" policy?
Should they be able to turn people out into the streets to die because they're black, or gay, or Jewish? Is that a private property right associated with owning an emergency medical clinic?
Should the only emergency medical clinic in a community (think rural community - only clinic for 100 miles) be able to have a "no blacks" or "no gays" or "no Jews" policy?
Should they be able to turn people out into the streets to die because they're black, or gay, or Jewish? Is that a private property right associated with owning an emergency medical clinic?
Yes, they should be allowed to run their business into the ground with stupid decisions to reduce the market share. Again, I think that it is stupid to discriminate and a wholly horrible business decision to do so, but I believe that people have a right to be stupid. So that when a competitor who serves the largest possible market destroys the idiot who does not, it becomes a shining example of why people should not discriminate. I do not believe that anyone has a "right" to force someone to make an exchange with another.
This is a silly proposition anyway. Such a clinic would not last, period. The free market will "correct" them right out of business.
Why is it disgusting that a person may not want to trade with another? I think that forcing someone to trade with another is far more disgusting.
This is not a government owned establishment, it is a private establishment. If anyone doesn't like how that person runs their business, they are not forced to give them any of their business. And if someone was really smart, they'd open a "Muslim friendly" range close by.
Does this woman have a government-issued license to do business?
Is it a place that accommodates the public?
If so, she must abide by the laws governing such enterprises.
She actually agreed to do so when she applied for and accepted the terms of her license to do business.
Most religions teach the law of love - as opposed to the law of the jungle.
Islam is a contradiction, expressing sublime morality on one hand (Mecca period) and bloodthirsty pillage, conquest, slavery, pedophilia and rape on the other (Medina period). All manner of evil and predation is condoned as long as the victim is Kafir, or it advances “pure” Islam, or mimics their Prophet, the “Perfect Ideal.”
One can only conclude that Islam is not a religion, but is a predatory system. Islam is destructive to any civilization that is based on the Law of Love and that is opposed to the Law of the Jungle. The fact that Islam is entirely combative, contradictory and intolerant toward all non-Islamic societies makes it clear. Non-Muslims must come to grips of what Islam actually is, and close down all Mosques, Muslim schools and deport them all.
Or “surrender.”
There is no “peaceful co-existence” with endless jihad.
As to the "civil right" to advocate overthrow of American government and law and replace it with Shari'a and Islam - - -
The Alien Registration Act of 1940 (Smith Act), 76th United States Congress, 3d session, ch. 439, 54 Stat. 670, 18 U.S.C. § 2385 is a United States federal statute enacted June 29, 1940, that set criminal penalties for advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government and required all non-citizen adult residents to register with the government.
...
If you advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government, you're in violation of the SMITH ACT.
...
And this - - -
18 U.S.C. § 2385
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
...
Isn’t it curious that the administration refuses to enforce this law against Islamic jihadis?
...
You can say whatever you like, no matter how offensive, and not do anything illegal.
In order for a law to be broken, she must ACTUALLY refuse service to someone based on their religion, AND that person must pursue the matter legally, AND that person must prove that service was refused because of their religion.
That ain't gonna happen. Because of this announcement, the third part would be fairly easy, but parts one and two? Unlikely.
I predict that someone will test this policy in the near future, and the range owner will gladly take their money.
There are no muslims, community muslim leaders and no actual communities speaking out against these terrorist countries, individuals and really engaging in SERIOUS outreach.
If Christians were doing these acts I can assure you bishops, cardinals, the pope, and priests and CHURCHES would be speaking out about how there religion is not about killing people etc etc.
But muslims in this country where FREE speech and national media coverage is available the silence is amazing.
So what does that tell you about them.
They are willing to be silent? Is it because they AGREE or sort of agree with what goes on with Muslim terrorism.
Until the MUSLIM community and start proving they are TRULY AMERICANS living in this country, I think many people will see only one side of what muslims and terrorism has become.
NOW I have seen many muslims living in this country and some families live and work like normal liberty loving Americans.
But I think its about time we started seeing the other side of those who believe in freedom.
It would appear that you live a very sheltered life.
While this is completely off-topic, I will provide you with some enlightenment nonetheless:
Again, as I said in a previous post, they have a FFL which gives them the right to refuse sale to any one for any reason. Also, it does not say whether or not it is a private club or a public range. This makes a big difference.
Your concept of a private business is only pertinent and applicable if doing business privately, as within a restricted membership of like minded people. It does not however apply to you making a profit from engaging the general public who deserve and have the right to be indemnified from your illegal behaviour.
Your type of description would have you being granted the unrestrained ability to sell your customers hand grenades by telling them they're actually little metal pineapples with just the pulling of the little cotter pin standing between them and the best pineapple juice they've ever tasted.
You, nor was anyone else on here, born during a time of unrestrained business practices, so you should just stop the nonsense of thinking you've got that right today. You don't, nor did at least four generations prior to you, for very good reasons.
Your concept holds that there is no private business that exists. If the government decides who you have to do business with, it really isn't your business anyway, it is the government's. So we might as well abolish private property and all ownership since the exchanges are dictated by the government and not the owner.
The government can believe that they have a right to tell me who I have to sell my oranges to, but if they believe that, than they believe that the oranges are not mine to do with as I please. It does not really matter, as I would not discriminate, nor would I force anyone to sell or not sell to anyone. You are free to try to initiate force against your fellow man if you choose I guess, that is how our nation works now anyway, through acts of aggression.
This whole thing just points out the idiocy of the business in question. They could just turn away people because they were "trying to downsize" their business when patrons they didn't want to serve arrived. Saying that they are discriminating just invites tyrants to come out of the woodwork trying to impose their personal beliefs on them.
And I, and no one else, even the government, has a moral right to anyone else's labor/products/services/property. That is what I believe. And I have no problem with you believing otherwise. Supposedly free people should be able to act freely as long as they are not initiating force upon another.
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.
