Suits 'OKed' against CO movie theater owners where shooting happened.

[Scott Leyder]

http://concealednation.org/2014/08/judge-gives-the-ok-for-suits-to-begin-against-movie-theater-in-the-aurora-colorado-shooting-case/

What do you think about this?  I think it is great personally.

[CitizensHaveRights]

Does "We don't allow you to protect yourself on our property" imply that "We're taking responsibility for your protection because you can't"?

I tend to think it does.

[TheQ]

Does "We don't allow you to protect yourself on our property" imply that "We're taking responsibility for your protection because you can't"?

I tend to think it does.

I tend to think it doesn't. Don't like it? Don't patronize.

[Super Trucker]

I tend to think it doesn't. Don't like it? Don't patronize.

So it is ok that they (property owners) are forced to allow blacks, gays, jews and crippled people but if a paying customer wants to protect themselves that should be the property owners decision?

[CitizensHaveRights]

Don't like it? Don't patronize.

Now that I can agree with.

You don't like my rights?
Well, I hope you didn't want my money either, because you aren't getting any of it.

[TheQ]

So it is ok that they (property owners) are forced to allow blacks, gays, jews and crippled people

No, I disagree with Title II (the part you referenced) and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[Scott Leyder]

Well, ultimately I would agree with you Q but, the fact that we are in the regulation prone era that we are and most of these 'businesses' have backed regulation that favour them and impede competition from others, I will take this option.  If we could get more people that favour our rights to open similar businesses then, I am all for let the dollar be your vote. 

[Super Trucker]

No, I disagree with Title II (the part you referenced) and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ok, you had me worried for a minute.