Toby Keith's I Love This Bar & Grill

[stainless1911]

+1 dan. A2 is supposed to be portable. carried anywhere that a gun can be carried, so the gun can be carried anywhere.

[jeffsayers]

im assuming this is a chain?

might want to check for a corporate policy,the place could very possibly be in violation of they're corporate policy,and therefore would have to remove the sign.

This should be the standard of comparison for us. We must act civily and present logic-based arguements to advance our purpose. This cannot be done when you have violated the rights of a property owner because by violating their right they are emotionaly on the defensive. Honor their wishes and communicate with them logically at a later time. We have a voice of over 130 members/ potential customrs within our organization alone to help drive home your point. And many of us are fond of saving receipts from competitors!

[venator]

Firearm owner isn't a protected class, such as age, sex, race or religion.  Like it or not, legally, it isn't the same.

Isnt the constitution supposed to do that?

Constitution guarantees private property rights as well.  Would you like your private property rights trumped/trampled by somebody elses freedom of religion/speech?  Fred Phelps and his crew show up and want to  use your lawn as a gather point to protest the latest military death, you think the Constitution guarantees them the right to do that no matter what you say?
[/quote]

You mean like the government telling private business owners they can't allow smoking in their businesses?  How about the government telling people when/if they can dig a pond or fill a wetland.  There is a big diference between a person's private property not open to the public and on open to the public.

The point is firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment and if a private business is open to the public then a person's bill of rights ought to be protected.  If the government can demand private business to ban smoking they should be able to demand that public businesses allow firearms which are specifically mention in the bill of rights.

I'm all for private property rights, but come on, there is a double standard and many of you are perpetuating that by what you are posting.

Either firearms are protected in public places or they are not.  Obviously they are not.  But they should be and we should be doing everything to change that...private personal property is very different than private property that is open to the public.

[FatboyCykes]

The government mandated smoking ban is BS.  Open to the public or not, it's private property, and as the owner, I stick by their rights however much I may disagree with their decision.

[DanC]

I sent two E-Mails to them, and I still never got a reply.

[stainless1911]

OC in someone elses private home is different than a buisiness open to the public. My car is my private property, yet I cant OC or CC  my gun there without permission. Yet I can in my home, which is my private property.


The government needs to sit down and rethink this whole private property thing.

[FatboyCykes]

So, should a Christian, Jewish or Islamic book store be required to hire an openly gay person?

[stainless1911]

Im not sure what youre getting at.
The Bible is clear, homosexuality is sin, and all sin is punishable by death, and Christians are not to associate with those who will not repent.
So no, under the 1st amendment, and Christian law, they should not.

[Savage.Detroit]

Im not sure what youre getting at.
The Bible is clear, homosexuality is sin, and all sin is punishable by death, and Christians are not to associate with those who will not repent.

Can you expound on what you mean by "not associate"?  I think that choice of wording lends toward a seclusion from the world.  We can't avoid associating to some degree unless we go Amish which I think they are in error in that regard.  Christian are in the world but not of it. Their affections should be toward God and they should not conform to the world.

[FatboyCykes]

Im not sure what youre getting at.
The Bible is clear, homosexuality is sin, and all sin is punishable by death, and Christians are not to associate with those who will not repent.
So no, under the 1st amendment, and Christian law, they should not.

As private business, Bible aside for a moment, you believe they should be able to restrict certain things in their store according to their beliefs.  How is a private bisuness barring gun owners any different?  We may not like it but as of now, they have the legal right to do it.

[venator]

The government mandated smoking ban is BS.  Open to the public or not, it's private property, and as the owner, I stick by their rights however much I may disagree with their decision.

Perhaps, but my point is that the government already controls many aspects of private property rights.  Why can't they at least enforce a natural right outlined in the bill of rights and make private business follow the US constitution while they do business in the US.  Seems simple to me.

I mean they already make business follow some of the rights outlined in the constitution by creating Protected classes, why can't gun owners be a protected class too?  Either we are free or we are not!

[stainless1911]

Im coming from the position that a store owned for instance by a redneck, wouldnt be able to bar a dark skinned individual from the buisiness because of a sign. Also, a store owner couldnt bar someone wearing those muslim female headcoverings because they are protected by the 1st amendment. I am supposedly protected by the second amendment.

[FatboyCykes]

Race and religion are protected classes, firearm ownership is not.  Should it be, I dunno....  Honestly I don't think there should be any...I"m not a 100% sure where I stand on this subject.  Obviously bigotry is alive and well in this country, but stores like that probably wouldn't last anyways nowadays.  I don't like the idea of forcing a business to do anything.  I know it happens everyday, but that doesn't make it right.

[stainless1911]

They force hem to pay taxes, which fund a government that doesnt protect your rights. And also funds things that you may be morally opposed to funding.

Why support the first amendment, and not the second?

I dont like seeing someone in the mall or whatever, who is dressed all in black, covering not only their head, but their face too. Creeps me out, Im expecting them to pull out an uzi, or some switch to a body bomb at any second. But its their freedom of religion under the first amendment, and I have to respect that. I realise there are people who feel the same way about me and my second amendment too, but I expect them to respect my rights.

I wonder what would have happenned if the secutity team had asked the woman to uncover her face or leave?

Its exactly the same thing. A1 or A2.

[FatboyCykes]

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.  I'm for private property rights in their purest form.  If the owner of the mall doesn't want berkas allowed, then they should be able to ban them discrimination should be allowed, because simply put, most people won't put up with it.  So most businesses would avoid it anyways, but as a private owned business/property, open to the public or not, they should be able to make up any ridiculous rules they want and the business with either sink or swim.

[CrossPistols]

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.  I'm for private property rights in their purest form.  If the owner of the mall doesn't want berkas allowed, then they should be able to ban them discrimination should be allowed, because simply put, most people won't put up with it.  So most businesses would avoid it anyways, but as a private owned business/property, open to the public or not, they should be able to make up any ridiculous rules they want and the business with either sink or swim.

Right on, That Judge is full of sh..! The bill of rights limits Government! not Private citizens.

[dtmartin408]

I just did a little catching up on this topic here and figured I'd put my thoughts out there. I think it is BS that a business weather or not it is privately owned or a large corporation should be able to discriminate against anything or anyone as long as nothing is breaking any laws.  A business should not be able to pick and chose who and what it wants to discriminate against.  And I think the laws and government should stick up for everyone and anything and shouldn't be able to play some BS political game about picking what it wants to stand up for and what not.  Think about all the other things that the laws and government stand up to protect but god forbid I'd like to legally and respectfully  might I ad carry a gun to protect my family and myself.  If a business were to try and pull any sort of discrimination against race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or who knows what else there would be some DA or Jeffery Fieger all over it with a gang of people and picket signs. 

[FatboyCykes]

So religious nudists, should be a protected class and shop where ever they want?

[stainless1911]

Yes.
If you want exclucivity, or the ability to exclude certain groups of people, then you need a private club, not a public buisiness.

[dtmartin408]

If you want to be able to discriminate against someone or something then make your establishment private and not open to the public then you won't have to worry about it.  Make it open to members only then the entire problem will go away but if not then play by the rules not just the ones that you want to apply to you and the ones you don't.  If you own a business and you want the police to protect you and your property then play by the entire rule book not just half.  And if you don't like the rule book get you and your uptight friends together to try and change the ones you don't like but until then its legal for me to do it so stay out of my way and leave your political views on hand guns at home.  Because as far as the law says I am doing nothing but exercising my rights and not breaking any laws.