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.
Since private business cant discriminate against minorities why should they be able to restrict free speech or prevent one from walking in their business with a legal gun on their hip?
Since private business cant discriminate against minorities why should they be able to restrict free speech or prevent one from walking in their business with a legal gun on their hip?
Very good question. There are a ton of examples of how businesses already do discriminate and dictate the rules. The left is just trying to make this about racism because, quite frankly, that is what their platform is based on.
Since private business cant discriminate against minorities why should they be able to restrict free speech or prevent one from walking in their business with a legal gun on their hip?
Requiring coat, shoes or shirt, not allowing a gun or wearing of a hood or hat = not discrimination.
No blacks, whites, browns, whites, reds, or those who differ politically, sexually, national origin or religion, or lack of religion = discrimination.
I know it's a tough concept to understand. You can't discriminate against a object.
If you want a private club, just put your hood on the door and a sign for members only.
Since private business cant discriminate against minorities why should they be able to restrict free speech or prevent one from walking in their business with a legal gun on their hip?
A businessman can keep you from bringing a gun into his business because you can patronize his business just as easily without a gun. The same with speech. You can easily patronize his business by shutting up.
However, you cannot leave your white skin at home in order to patronize his business. He is asking the impossible. When a businessman makes you do the impossible as a qualification for entering his business; that's discrimination.
In his concurring with the 8-0 decision in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States 379 U.S. 241 (1964) Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
"The Senate Committee laid emphasis on the Commerce Clause. S.Rep. No. 872, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 12-13. The use of the Commerce Clause to surmount what was thought to be the obstacle of the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, is mentioned. Ibid. And the economic aspects of the problems of discrimination are heavily accented. Id. p. 17 et seq. But it is clear that the objectives of the Fourteenth Amendment were by no means ignored. As stated in the Senate Report:
Does the owner of private property devoted to use as a public establishment enjoy a property right to refuse to deal with any member of the public because of that member's race, religion, or national origin? As noted previously, the English common law answered this question in the negative. It reasoned that one who employed his private property for purposes of commercial gain by offering goods or services to the public must stick to his bargain. It is to be remembered that the right of the private [p285] property owner to serve or sell to whom he pleased was never claimed when laws were enacted prohibiting the private property owner from dealing with persons of a particular race. Nor were such laws ever struck down as an infringement upon this supposed right of the property owner.
But there are stronger and more persuasive reasons for not allowing concepts of private property to defeat public accommodations legislation. The institution of private property exists for the purpose of enhancing the individual freedom and liberty of human beings. This institution assures that the individual need not be at the mercy of others, including government, in order to earn a livelihood and prosper from his individual efforts. Private property provides the individual with something of value that will serve him well in obtaining what he desires or requires in his daily life.
Is this time-honored means to freedom and liberty now to be twisted so as to defeat individual freedom and liberty? Certainly denial of a right to discriminate or segregate by race or religion would not weaken the attributes of private property that make it an effective means of obtaining individual freedom. In fact, in order to assure that the institution of private property serves the end of individual freedom and liberty, it has been restricted in many instances. The most striking example of this is the abolition of slavery. Slaves were treated as items of private property, yet surely no man dedicated to the cause of individual freedom could contend that individual freedom and liberty suffered by emancipation of the slaves.
There is not any question that ordinary zoning laws place far greater restrictions upon the rights of private property owners than would public accommodations [p286] legislation. Zoning laws tell the owner of private property to what type of business his property may be devoted, what structures he may erect upon that property, and even whether he may devote his private property to any business purpose whatsoever. Such laws and regulations restricting private property are necessary so that human beings may develop their communities in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Surely the presence of such restrictions does not detract from the role of private property in securing individual liberty and freedom.
Nor can it be reasonably argued that racial or religious discrimination is a vital factor in the ability of private property to constitute an effective vehicle for assuring personal freedom. The pledge of this Nation is to secure freedom for every individual; that pledge will be furthered by elimination of such practices."
Since private business cant discriminate against minorities why should they be able to restrict free speech or prevent one from walking in their business with a legal gun on their hip?
I'd say that as long as someone isn't committing violence, stealing or damaging someone else's property they should be left alone.
I never bought the concept of "public" rights or "public" good. Every right is private.
People, including business, should be able to do as they see fit as long as they aren't doing one of the 3 things I mentioned.
Since private business cant discriminate against minorities why should they be able to restrict free speech or prevent one from walking in their business with a legal gun on their hip?
The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, notwithstanding Randy's inarticulate attempt to link the two.
If think you can convince the legislature of your state to pass a law that says that every business is required to let people bring their guns in, feel free to try. If you are successful, that will be the law of your state.
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.
