Carry Instructor Bars Muslims & Obama Supporters

[goett047]

He stated he supports the right to refuse service based on race. I'd like to know where he works so I can reserve the right to not to use their services.

It would appear you would then be discriminating against someone because of their beliefs.

Yes. I suspect you don't have a problem with that.

Only that it's hypocrisy at its finest.

[infidel]

He stated he supports the right to refuse service based on race. I'd like to know where he works so I can reserve the right to not to use their services.

It would appear you would then be discriminating against someone because of their beliefs.

Yes. I suspect you don't have a problem with that.

Not at all, as I believe it is your right.

If religion is a belief, would it then be acceptable for a private party to deny services based on religion?

[Heffay]

Not at all, as I believe it is your right.

If religion is a belief, would it then be acceptable for a private party to deny services based on religion?

No. I believe that if you are going to conduct business in America, you should not be able to deny service based on race, religion, sex, and a few other factors. Which I believe is the law anyway, although I'm sure you'll argue that the law is unconstitutional (despite having survived every challenge to date). So I'll boycott the businesses of racists even if they aren't allowed to act on their beliefs.

Reasonable regulations aren't evil. The invisible hand isn't infallible. But feel free to put in your slippery slope argument below.

[goett047]

So it's ok for you to be prejudice against racist?

[45usp45]

Who is up for a road trip for some training?

[Heffay]

So it's ok for you to be prejudice against racist?

Yes. It's not ok for me to deny someone at my work based on race, religion, etc.

If you choose to not go to my business for my views, that is ok as well.

[goett047]

Why hold the business owner to a stricter standard than the customer base?

[Heffay]

Why hold the business owner to a stricter standard than the customer base?

That's the rules for doing business in America. You can hate your customers for being black, but you can't turn them away at the door for being black.

If you insist on doing so, at least *try* to find some non-racial cover for it.

Edit: Let me put it this way. You can think whatever you want, but you can't do whatever you want.

[mattxd]

Why hold the business owner to a stricter standard than the customer base?

That's the rules for doing business in America. You can hate your customers for being black, but you can't turn them away at the door for being black.

If you insist on doing so, at least *try* to find some non-racial cover for it.

Edit: Let me put it this way. You can think whatever you want, but you can't do whatever you want.

sure you can you just can't be stupid enough to explain why.

[goett047]

They may be the "rules" but they sure in hell are not as the founding fathers would have intended. They are modern day"politically correct" bull-****

[Dick Unger]

The government is all of the people. They ALL have to pay taxes and fight to keep a free country.

It's that government which provides the economic freedom which makes it possible for the private ownership of businesses, and keeps them safe, and enforces the contracts which make the business possible. Naturally, all the people don't want to do this stuff for businesses which systematically exclude some of them based on a general inexact catagory or irrational basis. So they passed laws which are generally accepted today.

It's called civil rights. (As opposed to political correctness) It's a struggle between the rights of the people generally, or the rights of a few bigots, who own businesses that would be "in the way" of some of the folks who fought and died and paid taxes to keep the free. In theory, any person has an equal right to do business with any other person. Like everything, if one feels too strongly about his bigotry, he can not have a business or move to a country where the laws are more to his liking.

[goett047]

Everyone also should have a right to NOT do business with anyone for any reason.

[Dick Unger]

Everyone also should have a right to NOT do business with anyone for any reason.

And so they do. In fact no one is required to operate a business. Your choice. If you do, you simply have to follow the laws of the people who provide the government which protects you.

You can refuse service to anyone, for no reason, or any LEGAL reason. But if you choose to operate a business, you just cannot refuse service for an ILLEGAL reason, without possibly getting caught and paying a penalty for breaking the law.. (Race, color, creed, gender, or sometimes sexual orientation are prohibited catagories.) A business can often coverup illegal discrimination, just as a business can often avoid taxes illeagally.

I guess as the majority of Americans walk down the street, that they've provided and made safe, they don't want to waste the energy required to walk on by businesses operated by bigots. Or continue to provide services to these businesses. Americans argued this issue for a couple of hundred years, and here we are. Rights of folks generally, or the right to operate a business in a bigoted fashion. One or the other had to lose.

Of course as with anything in government, there is uncertainty, and half the folks will not even understand the law, and will misconstrue it. It's hard to legislate common sense. A businessman, excercising his rights should be smart enough to know the limits of his rights.

[Heffay]

Why hold the business owner to a stricter standard than the customer base?

That's the rules for doing business in America. You can hate your customers for being black, but you can't turn them away at the door for being black.

If you insist on doing so, at least *try* to find some non-racial cover for it.

Edit: Let me put it this way. You can think whatever you want, but you can't do whatever you want.

sure you can you just can't be stupid enough to explain why.

Once we can get past the ad hominem attacks, I think Mr Unger did a fine job explaining how it works.

They may be the "rules" but they sure in hell are not as the founding fathers would have intended. They are modern day"politically correct" bull-****

They are exactly as the founding fathers intended them. They set up the framework, and the government tries to work within that framework. If the legislative branch fails, there are checks and balances through the judicial branch.

But that's all a red herring anyway on this topic, since it appears that the guy doing this violated *state* laws (and possibly the state constitution), and if you want to start pulling that string, states are perfectly entitled to pass civil rights laws. I'd like to see your argument that it is illegal for the state to pass civil rights laws. Actually, can you do me a favor? Can you find me all the states that don't have an equivalent to the Civil Rights Act in their state constitutions?

[goett047]

I have no problem with civil rights laws. I have a problem when they cross over to the private sector. Let the market regulate itself