While FFLs and range operators have a great deal of latitude in their business dealings, it is doubtful that a blanket ban based upon religion is remotely viable on First Amendment grounds. This is no more legally viable than a ban on Baptists or Catholics.
It is also monumentally stupid.
31 comments:
Fuck 'em Mike. Let them start their own firing range.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact
Hmm... I wonder if that is how Spain took their country back from those bastards. Some guy some where just sayin', "Ya know, I've had just about enough of this shit. You guys aren't comin' in here." And the whole thing just snowballed from there.
I certainly hope so. Call me anything you like. But I hope so.
This idea is probably pretty stupid, granted, but why should it be "illegal?" She has the same right to associate and do business with whom she pleases as anyone else should have. She can make ANY rules or limitations on those she does business with... the "no shirt/shoes, no service" signs all over the country come to mind... Who has any legitimate authority to say that she can't refuse to do business with Muslims, Catholics or anyone else?
Freedom means free to do whatever we wish, as long as it does no physical harm to others. If someone doesn't want to bake cakes or take photos of homosexuals or anyone else, nobody has a right to force them to do so - any more than they have the right to confiscate our guns or bank accounts or the food in our cupboard.
If her customers agree with her, she'll do fine. If they don't, she'll go out of business. That's the way it should be. In the end, the free market is a very harsh mistress.
Ah yes, the First Amendment:
"Private organizations shall make no rules respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting--" oh, wait, that's not how it goes at all.
Also of note: doing something somebody else thinks is "monumentally stupid" is a basic right that ought to be embraced by liberty-minded folk.
The jist of the article is so predictable: 'It's not fair to exclude musloids based on their religion.'
I fully support the shop owners refusal to do business with some people, including musloids.
I'm not sure why you say it is monumentally stupid. I will allow that the reason I don't understand is because I also am, but would you care to elaborate for those of us who are eternally dense?
If this range operator wants to band muslim's there is no law against that.
You can sell what you want to who you want. that is not discrimination. Other wise I could force someone to sell some trinket they prized and did not want to sell based on the fact I want that trinket.
All the rest is pants twisting wussies.
Business owners have a right to refuse service to anyone. I would not have announced it maybe ..... but .....
A private business owner has a great deal of latitude in who he or she can invite or not invite into the business. The first amendement applies to the government. The government or can not oppress first amendement rights. I think a private business owner, if you are on the property of the business can tell you certain words are ok, not ok, etc. An example would be a business owner asking you to leave if you start swearing or start talking about the evils of abortion. Yes, it is your first amendment right to do this... on the street near the business, but a business owner can kick you out.
They will be charged and prosecuted under patriot act provisions that protect against backlash against Muslims.
A business cannot even refuse service to gays when it comes to wedding cakes! Hilarious would be a claim under the ADA! Islam - the new disability.
Rather than "ban" Muslims, the way to do this is simple.
Hang Arabic infidel signs, Mohammed bomb turbin pics and serve pork only at the snack shack.
There are First Amendment issues with outright banning a religion so one needs to be more subtle - making it "uncomfortable" for muzzies.
The high horse her critics are on is what I find most obnoxious. They need to get with reality, or else reality if going to get with them.
Islam is the barbarian horde of our time. They don't fit into the paradigm of classical Western liberalism because there is no reciprocity to be had from them. Implicit in our freedom of religion is that each religion so protected will in turn tolerate others. That is anathema to Islam. Tolerance for that religion merely gives it the time and space it needs to gestate inside its host, before bursting through the ribcage like the creature in the movie.
These sophomoric libertarians like Caleb sound like people condemning antibiotics because they violate the rights of bacteria.
It's monumentally stupid b/c she's going to lose in court under our biased legal system who has expanded 1st A protections to privately owned businesses (unconstitutionally, I might add) through the Civil Rights Act.
It's also not in keeping with the precepts of equality and judging INDIVIDUALS (not groups) according to their deeds that we claim to uphold as a nation.
That said, it should be the property owner's right to determine what goes on at their facility....just as it is the patrons right to decide to do business with that company for its policies.
In short, this is much ado about nothing....up until Uncle Sugar gets involved and FORCES this gun range to accept a group. Then it becomes ALL of our business. Stand together or hang separately and all that.
We should support her right to choose who can access her business....even if we don't agree with banning an entire religion of people (even while acknowledging the legitimate threat Islam poses to western civilization and the American way of life).
Let us not become the beast we seek to contain through hatred and bigotry, but rather stick to our principles of judging people on the content of their character as individuals, not as part of a collective. Should they violate that trust and infringe on other's rights.....we should respond accordingly, but not before such threat is imminent with means, motive and opportunity.
Stupid or not, if a Gov't can force a private business who they must deal with, then that's the beginning of forcing everything else they want onto them.
Hi Mike,
All she has to do is "exclusively" use "Silver Bullet Gun Oil" made with 13% "PIG FAT!!" on all her for rent guns and any thing else that would need some lube. Someone else mentioned only sell pork products in the snack shack. Guaranteed a muzzie won't even get close!!!heheheheheh!!!!!
Got Gunz??,
III%,
skybill-out
PS, Got some SBGO on order!!
Ya know, a door mat made of korans, and free bacon snacks might work as well.
Gee, BBQ establishments don't flagrantly ban Muslims, but I doubt you'll find any chowing down on a pulled pork special.
The ATF gives her the right to refuse sales for any reason, and as a business owner, she can refuse service as well.
Enough!!!!
You Go Girl!!!!
If Ms. Morgan were truly a PRIVATE business owner doing a nonregulated, nontaxable business on PRIVATE land, then she could exclude Musloids or anybody else she wanted for any reason, stated or not. But because her property IS on the tax rolls (meaning has been unlawfully converted by the county from private land to "real estate"), and she DID apply for a license from the state or county or city, then, unfortunately, she has to follow their rules.
So yes, Mike, I agree with you that it's "monumentally stupid". But not for the reasons most people think.
Fuckem. Let god sort em out.
I don't think it's "monumentally" stupid. I think it's prudent considering the violent and homicidal nature of some unidentified Muslims.
Does the phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" mean anything to you Mike?
Mike,
Would you sleep with a rattlesnake? How about a cottonmouth in your house?
Religions are not allowed, by Supreme Court ruling, to engage in their religion to the harm of others. The First Amendment does not cover "Fire" in a crowded theater, nor does it cover human sacrifice so some yahoo can make it to "paradise."
just put a sign up stating, we are not responsible for any towel heads that get accidently shot.
I support her in this.
Enough is enough, it's time to stop pandering and show Muslims everywhere that we're pissed off.
Having said that, I'd bet that she loses any court case due to the gov being so pussiepants politically correct these days.
- Charlie
anyone citing the civil rights act is mistaken, because her business does not fall under the type cited in title 2 of the act. It is a gun range. It is not a retail business. She is totally within her rights. Of course CAIR and the ACLU will sue her pants off anyway, and a Judge may even ignore the Law. That is another story.
Anon 6:43
Just for a minor point of clarification: the SCOTUS ruled against calling out "fire" FALSELY in a crowded theater.
B Woodman
III-PER
There was a bakery in Radford Va. that refused to sell cookies to Obama and they got away with that.
No problem here.
If she sells anything there....she's a retail outlet.
And...even if she doesn't directly fall under the Civil Rights Act....keep in mind that the legal suit will not be cheap to defend even if ACLU and CAIR are wrong in bringing it. They can bankrupt her in the short term.
The following is not intended to offend but to emphasize the truth. If you cannot get through this without becoming offended you may be a liberal. Accepting our short comings is the first step in repairing them, so here goes.
The Bill of Rights is a prohibition on the acts of government, period. (Not as in the Obama "period" :))
The reason that government has turned the tables on us is because we are lazy, ignorant louts.
We sing our ignorance via the internet, no two people can agree on the meaning of our Fundamental Law because we will not put ourselves to the study and actually "know" what the Hell the Framers were taling about. i bet the elites are LTFAO over this.
tp prove my point look at all this gibberish trying to "rationalize" their position instead of using reason to arrive at a "reasonable" conclusion. You may think that i am using symantics but then again you do not know Logic as a formal discipline any more than the Marxists.
For my example look up reason and the rationalize in the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language-the only one congress is suppoesd to use when compiling statutes as this maintains consistancy. (There are Supreme Court decisions regarding this matter.)
Remember arguments based upon definition are deductive-the best possible form of reasoning known to the discipline.
If you do nothing else at the very least look this up and realize how the Marxists "spin" their web to catch the children and the weak minded.
After that we can have a reasonable discussion.
Muslims....should have never let them in the country to begin with. Oh and they're a "religion" and thus righteous? Well....then I suppose they're no less the religious faithful as Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are "reverends". Just implore religion for blacks and Muslims and all is well and justified.
I agree with Mike V. that excluding Muslims from a firing range is stupid. More generally, it's stupid to buy into the notion that American Muslims pose some kind of unique threat. There are millions of Muslims in America, and most have lived here for years. They have had plenty of opportunity to carry out suicide attacks and other acts of violence. How many have done so? And what percentage of the US Muslim population is that? Maybe 0.0001%?
If you look at violent crime statistics, it would make far more sense to exclude blacks than Muslims. Blacks commit a disproportionate number of the murders, rapes, and other violent crimes in America. Yet most blacks are not violent criminals, so it wouldn't be right to exclude them, either. It's best to vet individuals rather than make blanket judgments about huge populations.
I think a lot of the paranoia about Muslims is stirred up by people with an agenda (neocon Israel loyalists, e.g., Pamela Gellar). Then others jump on the Muslim-bashing bandwagon for a variety of reasons: genuine fear, to appear tough, as a safe outlet for politically incorrect tendencies (don't you DARE bash blacks, Jews, or Hispanics, but Muslims are a legitimate target), and so on.
I don't know why so many remain blind to the REAL threat: the Police State. It, not any Muslims, is the sole realistic threat to your freedom and mine. As for safety, you're much more likely to be killed by a common American criminal, or even struck by lightning, than killed by a terrorist.
All that aside, I do support the right of private property owners to exclude anyone they wish from their property. That means Muslims, Jews, blacks, whites -- anyone. "Private property" means exactly that.
Years ago I owned a neighborhood store and from time to time I would have "Hearing Problems" when some arrogant A-Hole would flap his gums but I couldn't hear a word he said. The layout of my store was that I had to fetch everything since the customers were caged in using panels from sliding doors that were framed into a 4 foot by 9 foot customer area and all my liquor etc was behind glass, therefore out of reach of the customers. Only had to pull out a 12 gauge shotgun one time on some goober who got out of line.
Post a Comment