Florida gun shop owner to make business "muslim free zone."

[ogibillm]

Discrimination means, in this case,selling to one but not another.

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

Perhaps, perhaps not -- I am not under any obligation to prove myself correct or help my accuser prove his case.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern....

That would, of course depend on how many Muslims cam into my store and were denied a sale based on my discretion -- need three or more to establish a pattern -- and how many of them could prove they were so denied.

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

and when they're deposed, and the question asked "why did you think that?" what will happen? what will happen when the security footage doesn't show what they claim, or when the other buyers that day didn't see what was claimed. what happens when suddenly every muslim that tries to buy a gun is somehow believed to be a danger to themselves or others for no reason?

"I don't recall specifically, I just remember that's how I felt at the time"


Of course we both know it would never even get that far.

you don't think the first thing that would happen is a sworn deposition? what about when the pattern can be shown? and if there's security footage? if the person made you feel that uncomfortable, why weren't they reported?

the story wouldn't hold up.

Gun dealers are nor required to report to authorities when they feel uncomfortable.

 

[ogibillm]

of course it would. how many legit reasons are there for denying someone the sale of a gun?

You only need one.

and again, when that is eliminated?
and you do realize that you're arguing for someone to perjure themselves, right?

An opinion isn't a lie. If my opinion is that you are acting in a way that makes me uncomfortable selling you a gun, good luck in proving my opinion wrong.

Let me also add, that it doesn't matter if you are legally able to purchase a weapon, I am not legally bound to sell you one.

and when a pattern of discrimination can be shown? when you have to say, under oath, what it was that made you uncomfortable?
i don't argue that a person could get away with it, but that's mainly because people are not as willing to go through the trouble of fighting for their rights as they should be.

You have to prove that the pattern is targeting a "protected class", I simply have a pattern of not selling to people who show a certain attitude that makes me think they could be a danger to themselves or others. I will not sell a gun to anyone that I don't feel comfortable with and the law cannot force me to. As a matter of fact, the law is on my side in cases like that. All I legally need is sufficient likelihood or suspicion.

Gun Dealer Code of Conduct Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

so you do have a requirement - and when you can't substantiate that suspicion, and when it can be shown that you discriminate against muslims at a higher rate than others - what then?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just a matter of time it seems.

20 years and counting.

Which changes nothing at all. Thanks anyway.

Which simply proves you are an idiot that talks about things he knows nothing of.

A gun dealer in Arizona refused to sell Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords' husband a weapon.

Several guns dealers in several states have explicitly stated they will not sell a firearm to Obama supporters.

Show where any of those were sued.

I don't need to. In the case of Muslims the DOJ handles that part. If other people decided not to sue, for other reasons. that doesn't mean the law wasn't broken.

That's what I thought, when challenged you cower.

Not at all. The fact that Google only shows me who got sued for selling a gun, pages and pages of it, and the DOJ deals with discrimination based on religion, only shows that you believe you aren't breaking the law, if you can get away with it and no one sues that is...

 

[ogibillm]

and when they're deposed, and the question asked "why did you think that?" what will happen? what will happen when the security footage doesn't show what they claim, or when the other buyers that day didn't see what was claimed. what happens when suddenly every muslim that tries to buy a gun is somehow believed to be a danger to themselves or others for no reason?

"I don't recall specifically, I just remember that's how I felt at the time"


Of course we both know it would never even get that far.

you don't think the first thing that would happen is a sworn deposition? what about when the pattern can be shown? and if there's security footage? if the person made you feel that uncomfortable, why weren't they reported?

the story wouldn't hold up.

Gun dealers are nor required to report to authorities when they feel uncomfortable.

no, they aren't. but when asked under oath why they didn't feel the need to report someone what would the answer be? "i thought he was dangerous, but not so dangerous that i might inform the authorities."
doesn't help that lie out, does it?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

Perhaps, perhaps not -- I am not under any obligation to prove myself correct or help my accuser prove his case.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern....

That would, of course depend on how many Muslims cam into my store and were denied a sale based on my discretion -- need three or more to establish a pattern -- and how many of them could prove they were so denied.

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

He doesn't have to answer a single question, he is not required to even take the witness stand. He doesn't have to prove his case, the plaintiff does. This isn't Perry Mason you moron!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

20 years and counting.

Which changes nothing at all. Thanks anyway.

Which simply proves you are an idiot that talks about things he knows nothing of.

A gun dealer in Arizona refused to sell Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords' husband a weapon.

Several guns dealers in several states have explicitly stated they will not sell a firearm to Obama supporters.

Show where any of those were sued.

I don't need to. In the case of Muslims the DOJ handles that part. If other people decided not to sue, for other reasons. that doesn't mean the law wasn't broken.

That's what I thought, when challenged you cower.

Not at all. The fact that Google only shows me who got sued for selling a gun, pages and pages of it, and the DOJ deals with discrimination based on religion, only shows that you believe you aren't breaking the law, if you can get away with it and no one sues that is...

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[ogibillm]

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

Perhaps, perhaps not -- I am not under any obligation to prove myself correct or help my accuser prove his case.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern....

That would, of course depend on how many Muslims cam into my store and were denied a sale based on my discretion -- need three or more to establish a pattern -- and how many of them could prove they were so denied.

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

He doesn't have to answer a single question, he is not required to even take the witness stand. He doesn't have to prove his case, the plaintiff does. This isn't Perry Mason you moron!

he would be deposed. you know that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

and when they're deposed, and the question asked "why did you think that?" what will happen? what will happen when the security footage doesn't show what they claim, or when the other buyers that day didn't see what was claimed. what happens when suddenly every muslim that tries to buy a gun is somehow believed to be a danger to themselves or others for no reason?

"I don't recall specifically, I just remember that's how I felt at the time"


Of course we both know it would never even get that far.

you don't think the first thing that would happen is a sworn deposition? what about when the pattern can be shown? and if there's security footage? if the person made you feel that uncomfortable, why weren't they reported?

the story wouldn't hold up.

Gun dealers are nor required to report to authorities when they feel uncomfortable.

no, they aren't. but when asked under oath why they didn't feel the need to report someone what would the answer be? "i thought he was dangerous, but not so dangerous that i might inform the authorities."
doesn't help that lie out, does it?

They will never be under oath, they do not have to take the stand in their defense. What part of that don't you get? They do not have to prove their motives, the plaintiff does!

Damn you one dense fucker!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

Perhaps, perhaps not -- I am not under any obligation to prove myself correct or help my accuser prove his case.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern....

That would, of course depend on how many Muslims cam into my store and were denied a sale based on my discretion -- need three or more to establish a pattern -- and how many of them could prove they were so denied.

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

He doesn't have to answer a single question, he is not required to even take the witness stand. He doesn't have to prove his case, the plaintiff does. This isn't Perry Mason you moron!

he would be deposed. you know that.

The Fifth Amendment is made for that purpose.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

of course it would. how many legit reasons are there for denying someone the sale of a gun?

You only need one.

and again, when that is eliminated?
and you do realize that you're arguing for someone to perjure themselves, right?

An opinion isn't a lie. If my opinion is that you are acting in a way that makes me uncomfortable selling you a gun, good luck in proving my opinion wrong.

Let me also add, that it doesn't matter if you are legally able to purchase a weapon, I am not legally bound to sell you one.

and when a pattern of discrimination can be shown? when you have to say, under oath, what it was that made you uncomfortable?
i don't argue that a person could get away with it, but that's mainly because people are not as willing to go through the trouble of fighting for their rights as they should be.

You have to prove that the pattern is targeting a "protected class", I simply have a pattern of not selling to people who show a certain attitude that makes me think they could be a danger to themselves or others. I will not sell a gun to anyone that I don't feel comfortable with and the law cannot force me to. As a matter of fact, the law is on my side in cases like that. All I legally need is sufficient likelihood or suspicion.

Gun Dealer Code of Conduct Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

That's very nice but the law can force you to sell to a protected class if it can be shown that you do not, and for no other reason. Try it, and find out.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

Perhaps, perhaps not -- I am not under any obligation to prove myself correct or help my accuser prove his case.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern....

That would, of course depend on how many Muslims cam into my store and were denied a sale based on my discretion -- need three or more to establish a pattern -- and how many of them could prove they were so denied.

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

He doesn't have to answer a single question, he is not required to even take the witness stand. He doesn't have to prove his case, the plaintiff does. This isn't Perry Mason you moron!

he would be deposed. you know that.

The Fifth Amendment is made for that purpose.

Do try, since people always (and wrongly) believe that anyone using the Fifth is guilty...

 

[ogibillm]

and when they're deposed, and the question asked "why did you think that?" what will happen? what will happen when the security footage doesn't show what they claim, or when the other buyers that day didn't see what was claimed. what happens when suddenly every muslim that tries to buy a gun is somehow believed to be a danger to themselves or others for no reason?

"I don't recall specifically, I just remember that's how I felt at the time"


Of course we both know it would never even get that far.

you don't think the first thing that would happen is a sworn deposition? what about when the pattern can be shown? and if there's security footage? if the person made you feel that uncomfortable, why weren't they reported?

the story wouldn't hold up.

Gun dealers are nor required to report to authorities when they feel uncomfortable.

no, they aren't. but when asked under oath why they didn't feel the need to report someone what would the answer be? "i thought he was dangerous, but not so dangerous that i might inform the authorities."
doesn't help that lie out, does it?

They will never be under oath, they do not have to take the stand in their defense. What part of that don't you get? They do not have to prove their motives, the plaintiff does!

Damn you one dense fucker!

so they would offer no defense?
they absolutely would have a sworn deposition, and they absolutely would be asked why they did what they did.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You only need one.

and again, when that is eliminated?
and you do realize that you're arguing for someone to perjure themselves, right?

An opinion isn't a lie. If my opinion is that you are acting in a way that makes me uncomfortable selling you a gun, good luck in proving my opinion wrong.

Let me also add, that it doesn't matter if you are legally able to purchase a weapon, I am not legally bound to sell you one.

and when a pattern of discrimination can be shown? when you have to say, under oath, what it was that made you uncomfortable?
i don't argue that a person could get away with it, but that's mainly because people are not as willing to go through the trouble of fighting for their rights as they should be.

You have to prove that the pattern is targeting a "protected class", I simply have a pattern of not selling to people who show a certain attitude that makes me think they could be a danger to themselves or others. I will not sell a gun to anyone that I don't feel comfortable with and the law cannot force me to. As a matter of fact, the law is on my side in cases like that. All I legally need is sufficient likelihood or suspicion.

Gun Dealer Code of Conduct Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

That's very nice but the law can force you to sell to a protected class if it can be shown that you do not, and for no other reason. Try it, and find out.

If

hahahahahaha

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Perhaps, perhaps not -- I am not under any obligation to prove myself correct or help my accuser prove his case.
That would, of course depend on how many Muslims cam into my store and were denied a sale based on my discretion -- need three or more to establish a pattern -- and how many of them could prove they were so denied.

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

He doesn't have to answer a single question, he is not required to even take the witness stand. He doesn't have to prove his case, the plaintiff does. This isn't Perry Mason you moron!

he would be deposed. you know that.

The Fifth Amendment is made for that purpose.

Do try, since people always (and wrongly) believe that anyone using the Fifth is guilty...

It's an option.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

He doesn't have to answer a single question, he is not required to even take the witness stand. He doesn't have to prove his case, the plaintiff does. This isn't Perry Mason you moron!

he would be deposed. you know that.

The Fifth Amendment is made for that purpose.

Do try, since people always (and wrongly) believe that anyone using the Fifth is guilty...

It's an option.

That it is, just a very bad one. Makes you look guilty as hell.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

and again, when that is eliminated?
and you do realize that you're arguing for someone to perjure themselves, right?

An opinion isn't a lie. If my opinion is that you are acting in a way that makes me uncomfortable selling you a gun, good luck in proving my opinion wrong.

Let me also add, that it doesn't matter if you are legally able to purchase a weapon, I am not legally bound to sell you one.

and when a pattern of discrimination can be shown? when you have to say, under oath, what it was that made you uncomfortable?
i don't argue that a person could get away with it, but that's mainly because people are not as willing to go through the trouble of fighting for their rights as they should be.

You have to prove that the pattern is targeting a "protected class", I simply have a pattern of not selling to people who show a certain attitude that makes me think they could be a danger to themselves or others. I will not sell a gun to anyone that I don't feel comfortable with and the law cannot force me to. As a matter of fact, the law is on my side in cases like that. All I legally need is sufficient likelihood or suspicion.

Gun Dealer Code of Conduct Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

That's very nice but the law can force you to sell to a protected class if it can be shown that you do not, and for no other reason. Try it, and find out.

If

hahahahahaha

"if" is proven all the time. All you need is a pattern, which the courts are good at seeing.

 

[ogibillm]

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

Perhaps, perhaps not -- I am not under any obligation to prove myself correct or help my accuser prove his case.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern....

That would, of course depend on how many Muslims cam into my store and were denied a sale based on my discretion -- need three or more to establish a pattern -- and how many of them could prove they were so denied.

you would be asked, under oath, for the reason and the cause.

look, bank robbers sometimes get away with it too. so do murderers. but just because they can sometime evade prosecution doesn't mean the law is on their side.

He doesn't have to answer a single question, he is not required to even take the witness stand. He doesn't have to prove his case, the plaintiff does. This isn't Perry Mason you moron!

he would be deposed. you know that.

The Fifth Amendment is made for that purpose.

the gun seller can use the fifth to protect himself, not the company.

 

[Ravi]

Reasonable cause is not, Hey buddy, you look like a sand ****** to me. Unless you are willing to take it to court, if the background check is clear, sell them the gun.

What law says he has to? I don't have to sell you a damn thing.

Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw

When one uses one's own link to own one, one calls that pwnage.

From your link:

Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

What part of that says guns?

You're a fucking moron and you proved it.

heh. Guns should be above all of the other things since they are guaranteed us constitutionally.

Not if you're not a US citizen.

Many Muslims are, like the one that just killed 5 people.

I see a lot of you are for some gun control.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"I don't recall specifically, I just remember that's how I felt at the time"


Of course we both know it would never even get that far.

you don't think the first thing that would happen is a sworn deposition? what about when the pattern can be shown? and if there's security footage? if the person made you feel that uncomfortable, why weren't they reported?

the story wouldn't hold up.

Gun dealers are nor required to report to authorities when they feel uncomfortable.

no, they aren't. but when asked under oath why they didn't feel the need to report someone what would the answer be? "i thought he was dangerous, but not so dangerous that i might inform the authorities."
doesn't help that lie out, does it?

They will never be under oath, they do not have to take the stand in their defense. What part of that don't you get? They do not have to prove their motives, the plaintiff does!

Damn you one dense fucker!

so they would offer no defense?
they absolutely would have a sworn deposition, and they absolutely would be asked why they did what they did.

No defense is really required. You charge that a person discriminated against another, you have to prove it. Basically all the dealer has to say is that he wasn't comfortable selling that individual a weapon.