Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights

[NYcarbineer]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Here is something else you may wish to consider.

Given the recent farce of a ruling regarding States rights and the gay issue, the ruling essentially says that each state must accept the license of every other state.

This includes conceal carry licenses.

Some unintended consequences going on right there.

No it didn't. You won't be hunting legally in NY on a PA hunting license anytime soon.

 

[Darkwind]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Here is something else you may wish to consider.

Given the recent farce of a ruling regarding States rights and the gay issue, the ruling essentially says that each state must accept the license of every other state.

This includes conceal carry licenses.

Some unintended consequences going on right there.

No it didn't. You won't be hunting legally in NY on a PA hunting license anytime soon.

You'll forgive Me if I just ignore your amateur nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said "seem to think".
They way you all act you should be allowed to bring your guns - concealed - anywhere you want regardless of what anyone else thinks.

No one argues this.

You don't think there should be any background checks

No one argues this.

guns should be allowed in bars (effing crazy)

Many states allow this.
Point out the problems arising in doing so.

That's what I get from the NRA.

You then argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

You can not discriminate against another person based on their sexuality, and your entire OP is a strawman...

Of course you can. I can refuse to rent to two homosexuals if I want to.

For now but the laws will change and bigots like you will be forgotten...

 

[The Rabbi]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

You can not discriminate against another person based on their sexuality, and your entire OP is a strawman...

Of course you can. I can refuse to rent to two homosexuals if I want to.

For now but the laws will change and bigots like you will be forgotten...

OK so you admit your post was wrong and you were misinformed. That's a start.

 

[Ernie S.]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "WHITE ONLY"? It seems to me that in that example, the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of race.

Oh, wait. We don't have to imagine. It actually happened.

And now the same kind of people want to put up STRAIGHT ONLY signs.

Same bullshit, different decade.

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

The owner then would have to deal with the consequences in the market place.
If I, for instance refused to serve blacks, that would surely get around town. I might attract a few customers, but my business would suffer greatly.

 

[The Rabbi]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "WHITE ONLY"? It seems to me that in that example, the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of race.

Oh, wait. We don't have to imagine. It actually happened.

And now the same kind of people want to put up STRAIGHT ONLY signs.

Same bullshit, different decade.

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

The owner then would have to deal with the consequences in the market place.
If I, for instance refused to serve blacks, that would surely get around town. I might attract a few customers, but my business would suffer greatly.

Agreed.
Think about it. Not only would a business lose all its black customers, but it would lose all its other customers who disagreed with it. I personally would not patronize a business that discriminated like that.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

You can not discriminate against another person based on their sexuality, and your entire OP is a strawman...

Of course you can. I can refuse to rent to two homosexuals if I want to.

For now but the laws will change and bigots like you will be forgotten...

OK so you admit your post was wrong and you were misinformed. That's a start.

No, you can not discriminate against them when it come to marriage and that is what this thread is about, and not your wish to be a homophobic bigot.

 

[g5000]

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

So do I. Unfortunately, the intransigence of bigots forced the issue and now we have a burlier federal government. They got the government they deserve.

I don't blame blacks or gays for federal government overreach. I place the blame exactly where it belongs: On the heads of the bigots, past and present.

 

[Ernie S.]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "WHITE ONLY"? It seems to me that in that example, the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of race.

Oh, wait. We don't have to imagine. It actually happened.

And now the same kind of people want to put up STRAIGHT ONLY signs.

Same bullshit, different decade.

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

The owner then would have to deal with the consequences in the market place.
If I, for instance refused to serve blacks, that would surely get around town. I might attract a few customers, but my business would suffer greatly.

Agreed.
Think about it. Not only would a business lose all its black customers, but it would lose all its other customers who disagreed with it. I personally would not patronize a business that discriminated like that.

Nor would I (or my ex wife).
The point is, it's my property. I don't allow strangers into my home against my wishes. Why must I at my place of business?

 

[The Rabbi]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

You can not discriminate against another person based on their sexuality, and your entire OP is a strawman...

Of course you can. I can refuse to rent to two homosexuals if I want to.

For now but the laws will change and bigots like you will be forgotten...

OK so you admit your post was wrong and you were misinformed. That's a start.

No, you can not discriminate against them when it come to marriage and that is what this thread is about, and not your wish to be a homophobic bigot.

Your attempt to backtrack is truly pitiful. The context was discriminating in business. And that is surely allowed in most states.
Just man up, admit you're wrong and we'll go on. Otherwise it will get ugly.

 

[The Rabbi]

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

So do I. Unfortunately, the intransigence of bigots forced the issue and now we have a burlier federal government. They got the government they deserve.

I don't blame blacks or gays for federal government overreach. I place the blame exactly where it belongs: On the heads of the bigots, past and present.

You're talking about incidents from 50 years ago. Surely you dont think people are bigoted to the same extent today, right?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

You can not discriminate against another person based on their sexuality, and your entire OP is a strawman...

Of course you can. I can refuse to rent to two homosexuals if I want to.

For now but the laws will change and bigots like you will be forgotten...

OK so you admit your post was wrong and you were misinformed. That's a start.

No, you can not discriminate against them when it come to marriage and that is what this thread is about, and not your wish to be a homophobic bigot.

Your attempt to backtrack is truly pitiful. The context was discriminating in business. And that is surely allowed in most states.
Just man up, admit you're wrong and we'll go on. Otherwise it will get ugly.

I am so scare now!!!

Rabbi the hateful bigot is now making a threat about how it will get ugly, and guess what do what you want because I am telling you how it is and will be and those like you will be forgotten which will be great!

Now excuse yourself because I do not care what you write and didn't you once tell me you would ignore me, so why would I care what a Bigoted liar has to say to me?

I mean what Jewish person in their right mind write the " N " word as much as you do, sides with Social Conservative Christians, and has a Confederate Flag for their avatar?

So get ugly because you will not sway me from standing my ground against hateful bigots like you.

 

[PratchettFan]

Equal protection would probably not apply. That doesn't obligate states to change laws, only apply them equally. So if the same restrictions are applied equally to everyone, there is equal protection. That argument just won't fly.

"May issues" states do not apply the law equally

Questionable. I doubt the argument would stand up. But it might be worth a try.

 

[PratchettFan]

The thing is, I think businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone within reason.

So do I. Unfortunately, the intransigence of bigots forced the issue and now we have a burlier federal government. They got the government they deserve.

I don't blame blacks or gays for federal government overreach. I place the blame exactly where it belongs: On the heads of the bigots, past and present.

You're talking about incidents from 50 years ago. Surely you dont think people are bigoted to the same extent today, right?

Absolutely. People haven't changed in 50 years. It just isn't as popular.

 

[PratchettFan]

"Gun Rights vs. Gay Rights"

The situation in your OP has nothing to do with 'rights' since there's no government involvement, no effort by the government to regulate, limit, or restrict the rights of gun owners or gay Americans.

With regard to denying services to gay patrons, it would depend on whether or not the business in question is located in a jurisdiction with a public accommodations law that has as one of its provisions sexual orientation, absent such a provision, the business could deny services to gay patrons with impunity.

With regard to a business owner who disallows firearms on his property, again, there are no gun rights violations because the Second Amendment applies only to the relationship between government and those governed, not the relationship between and among private persons or organizations – including private businesses.

While I essentially have to agree, You have to admit that someone being denied service because he was armed could be an interesting test case of public accommodation laws.
PA laws are there to ensure various protected class citizens have equal access to services.
I won't argue whether it is proper to force a business to serve blacks or gays or Martians, but the fact that only race, gender, sex, disability and sexual orientation are mentioned in PA laws, would ordinarily mean that gun owners are not covered. However, considering the recent SCOTUS ruling extending subsidies to obamacare recipients in states with no exchanges, could one assume that SCOTUS is apt to rewrite laws to fix presumed improper omissions?
The right to bear arms is so plainly protected by the Constitution, might SCOTUS include that right in existing PA laws?

It would only apply if the state's PA laws included people who carry guns. If SCOTUS ruled on this based upon the 2nd, it would not involve PA laws at all.

One would think that, but considering SCOTUS last week essentially rewrote ACA, the precedent is there to allow them to add other rights and classes to public accommodation laws.

They did not rewrite ACA.

 

[PratchettFan]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

You can not discriminate against another person based on their sexuality, and your entire OP is a strawman...

Why can't you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Equal protection would probably not apply. That doesn't obligate states to change laws, only apply them equally. So if the same restrictions are applied equally to everyone, there is equal protection. That argument just won't fly.

"May issues" states do not apply the law equally

Questionable. I doubt the argument would stand up. But it might be worth a try.

They also not recgognize the licenses that have been issued by other states.

 

[PratchettFan]

Equal protection would probably not apply. That doesn't obligate states to change laws, only apply them equally. So if the same restrictions are applied equally to everyone, there is equal protection. That argument just won't fly.

"May issues" states do not apply the law equally

Questionable. I doubt the argument would stand up. But it might be worth a try.

They also not recgognize the licenses that have been issued by other states.

Yes. I think that actually has a chance. I have permits from three states, but I think the one from my home state should allow me to carry in any other state. I don't think it would apply to DC or any of the possessions though.

 

[Syriusly]

As a gun owner and an advocate of concealed carry, I've often wondered about this: Currently all 50 states have some kind of a concealed carry law on the books. The state I live in allows concealed carry just about everywhere except on a school property, within a jail or courthouse, and any business establishment which posts a sign at all of the entrances, prohibiting the carry of weapons into the premise. Of course in my state, disregarding the sign only results in a misdemeanor trespassing charge if the offender refuses to leave.

However, could you imagine what would happen if a business put up a sign reading "Gays Not Allowed"? It seems to me that in one example the business would be attempting to refuse service on the basis of sexual preference and the other case, the business would be putting a person in jeopardy by depriving a person of their right to defend themselves.

In the case of the business which prohibited firearms, it would be easy to say "My business, my rules." But not so much in the other case.

Here is something else you may wish to consider.

Given the recent farce of a ruling regarding States rights and the gay issue, the ruling essentially says that each state must accept the license of every other state..

No- it doesn't.

However- there is a case to be made that States should accept the concealed carry license of other states- don't know whether it would succeed or not, but I support your right to take that case to court.