Whataburger says no to Open Carry; add them to your list gun nuts

[candycorn]

The law says that I can turn right on a red light. Oddly enough, that does not give me the right to turn right into your storefront.

But, you knew that, didn't you?

Precisely what in the world does this have to do with this case?

A guy legally carrying a gun into a store is breaking no law, not in any way.

.

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

So a business is within its rights to control what goes on inside its doors?

It can refuse service?

.

If there is reasonable expectation that the persons in question are going to hurt their business. Yes.

Here is the stupidity of your position. According to you,since the State passes a law, Whataburger is violating it by saying it won't serve customers who are obviously armed and are not law enforcement. Let alone their reasoning which is clear...LE is trained on the use, the proper use, the situational awareness of when to engage/not engage etc and history has shown time and again, the background checks are pretty useless. Anyway, that is Whataburger's stance and you say they are violating the law; right?

Well, wouldn't they also be violating the law if the manager tells an employee to not bring his Uzi to work and wear it over his shoulder while ringing up a #5 combo? There is no law on any State's books stating that Whataburger employees must wear the same orange T-Shirts. If a manager sends an employee home who is wearing her bath robe, isn't he infringing on her right of the "pursuit of happiness" through working and earning money?

That sure is a lot of effort.

You have a lot of idiocy in your statements.

I think a business should be able to make these decisions, whether it's serving a perfectly legal gun owner or a perfectly legal gay couple. You don't.

I think that if you put out your shingle that you're selling cakes or burgers, you should sell cakes or burgers to anyone who comes in to buy one if there is no downside; such as fully robed KKK members or loud NOI missionaries, guys creating a dangerous atmosphere with guns, gays or heteros with overly enthusiastic PDAs, loud or obnoxious customers etc...

Stating that some sort of eternal damnation will ensue if you sell a cake to a couple is silly.

Nearly every one else can see it. You can't.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The law says that I can turn right on a red light. Oddly enough, that does not give me the right to turn right into your storefront.

But, you knew that, didn't you?

Precisely what in the world does this have to do with this case?

A guy legally carrying a gun into a store is breaking no law, not in any way.

.

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

So a business is within its rights to control what goes on inside its doors?

It can refuse service?

.

If there is reasonable expectation that the persons in question are going to hurt their business. Yes.

Here is the stupidity of your position. According to you,since the State passes a law, Whataburger is violating it by saying it won't serve customers who are obviously armed and are not law enforcement. Let alone their reasoning which is clear...LE is trained on the use, the proper use, the situational awareness of when to engage/not engage etc and history has shown time and again, the background checks are pretty useless. Anyway, that is Whataburger's stance and you say they are violating the law; right?

Well, wouldn't they also be violating the law if the manager tells an employee to not bring his Uzi to work and wear it over his shoulder while ringing up a #5 combo? There is no law on any State's books stating that Whataburger employees must wear the same orange T-Shirts. If a manager sends an employee home who is wearing her bath robe, isn't he infringing on her right of the "pursuit of happiness" through working and earning money?

Uzi?

Someone that can jump through the hoops, and afford the licenses needed to own an automatic weapon, is not going to be working at Whataburger.

As for background checks....

I'd REALLY like to see your plan for getting Crips, Bloods, Hells Angels, etc to volunteer to get background checks for their firearms.

I'd like to see a law that would send anyone who sold a weapon to a convicted felon in the slammer, which is exactly what a background check law would do.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Precisely what in the world does this have to do with this case?

A guy legally carrying a gun into a store is breaking no law, not in any way.

.

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

So a business is within its rights to control what goes on inside its doors?

It can refuse service?

.

If there is reasonable expectation that the persons in question are going to hurt their business. Yes.

Here is the stupidity of your position. According to you,since the State passes a law, Whataburger is violating it by saying it won't serve customers who are obviously armed and are not law enforcement. Let alone their reasoning which is clear...LE is trained on the use, the proper use, the situational awareness of when to engage/not engage etc and history has shown time and again, the background checks are pretty useless. Anyway, that is Whataburger's stance and you say they are violating the law; right?

Well, wouldn't they also be violating the law if the manager tells an employee to not bring his Uzi to work and wear it over his shoulder while ringing up a #5 combo? There is no law on any State's books stating that Whataburger employees must wear the same orange T-Shirts. If a manager sends an employee home who is wearing her bath robe, isn't he infringing on her right of the "pursuit of happiness" through working and earning money?

That sure is a lot of effort.

You have a lot of idiocy in your statements.

I think a business should be able to make these decisions, whether it's serving a perfectly legal gun owner or a perfectly legal gay couple. You don't.

I think that if you put out your shingle that you're selling cakes or burgers, you should sell cakes or burgers to anyone who comes in to buy one if there is no downside; such as fully robed KKK members or loud NOI missionaries, guys creating a dangerous atmosphere with guns, gays or heteros with overly enthusiastic PDAs, loud or obnoxious customers etc...

Stating that some sort of eternal damnation will ensue if you sell a cake to a couple is silly.

Nearly every one else can see it. You can't.

There is no use in even trying, Candy. Some people don't know the difference between banning someone with no shoes, and banning someone brandishing a bazooka.

 

[Auld Phart]

Precisely what in the world does this have to do with this case?

A guy legally carrying a gun into a store is breaking no law, not in any way.

.

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

So a business is within its rights to control what goes on inside its doors?

It can refuse service?

.

If there is reasonable expectation that the persons in question are going to hurt their business. Yes.

Here is the stupidity of your position. According to you,since the State passes a law, Whataburger is violating it by saying it won't serve customers who are obviously armed and are not law enforcement. Let alone their reasoning which is clear...LE is trained on the use, the proper use, the situational awareness of when to engage/not engage etc and history has shown time and again, the background checks are pretty useless. Anyway, that is Whataburger's stance and you say they are violating the law; right?

Well, wouldn't they also be violating the law if the manager tells an employee to not bring his Uzi to work and wear it over his shoulder while ringing up a #5 combo? There is no law on any State's books stating that Whataburger employees must wear the same orange T-Shirts. If a manager sends an employee home who is wearing her bath robe, isn't he infringing on her right of the "pursuit of happiness" through working and earning money?

Uzi?

Someone that can jump through the hoops, and afford the licenses needed to own an automatic weapon, is not going to be working at Whataburger.

As for background checks....

I'd REALLY like to see your plan for getting Crips, Bloods, Hells Angels, etc to volunteer to get background checks for their firearms.

I'd like to see a law that would send anyone who sold a weapon to a convicted felon in the slammer, which is exactly what a background check law would do.

That's hilarious.

People who steal guns and sell them to other criminals are going to worry about background checks.

On straw purchasers, I agree.

But the ones shooting up the various ghettos aren't getting them from gun stores, for the most part.

 

[Auld Phart]

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

So a business is within its rights to control what goes on inside its doors?

It can refuse service?

.

If there is reasonable expectation that the persons in question are going to hurt their business. Yes.

Here is the stupidity of your position. According to you,since the State passes a law, Whataburger is violating it by saying it won't serve customers who are obviously armed and are not law enforcement. Let alone their reasoning which is clear...LE is trained on the use, the proper use, the situational awareness of when to engage/not engage etc and history has shown time and again, the background checks are pretty useless. Anyway, that is Whataburger's stance and you say they are violating the law; right?

Well, wouldn't they also be violating the law if the manager tells an employee to not bring his Uzi to work and wear it over his shoulder while ringing up a #5 combo? There is no law on any State's books stating that Whataburger employees must wear the same orange T-Shirts. If a manager sends an employee home who is wearing her bath robe, isn't he infringing on her right of the "pursuit of happiness" through working and earning money?

That sure is a lot of effort.

You have a lot of idiocy in your statements.

I think a business should be able to make these decisions, whether it's serving a perfectly legal gun owner or a perfectly legal gay couple. You don't.

I think that if you put out your shingle that you're selling cakes or burgers, you should sell cakes or burgers to anyone who comes in to buy one if there is no downside; such as fully robed KKK members or loud NOI missionaries, guys creating a dangerous atmosphere with guns, gays or heteros with overly enthusiastic PDAs, loud or obnoxious customers etc...

Stating that some sort of eternal damnation will ensue if you sell a cake to a couple is silly.

Nearly every one else can see it. You can't.

There is no use in even trying, Candy. Some people don't know the difference between banning someone with no shoes, and banning someone brandishing a bazooka.

hmmm, no shirt, no shoes?

Health hazard, backed by Health Department.

Bazooka?
Hyperbole.

Firearms?

Got a sign in your window stating the owner suffers from hoplophobia?

 

[candycorn]

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

So a business is within its rights to control what goes on inside its doors?

It can refuse service?

.

If there is reasonable expectation that the persons in question are going to hurt their business. Yes.

Here is the stupidity of your position. According to you,since the State passes a law, Whataburger is violating it by saying it won't serve customers who are obviously armed and are not law enforcement. Let alone their reasoning which is clear...LE is trained on the use, the proper use, the situational awareness of when to engage/not engage etc and history has shown time and again, the background checks are pretty useless. Anyway, that is Whataburger's stance and you say they are violating the law; right?

Well, wouldn't they also be violating the law if the manager tells an employee to not bring his Uzi to work and wear it over his shoulder while ringing up a #5 combo? There is no law on any State's books stating that Whataburger employees must wear the same orange T-Shirts. If a manager sends an employee home who is wearing her bath robe, isn't he infringing on her right of the "pursuit of happiness" through working and earning money?

That sure is a lot of effort.

You have a lot of idiocy in your statements.

I think a business should be able to make these decisions, whether it's serving a perfectly legal gun owner or a perfectly legal gay couple. You don't.

I think that if you put out your shingle that you're selling cakes or burgers, you should sell cakes or burgers to anyone who comes in to buy one if there is no downside; such as fully robed KKK members or loud NOI missionaries, guys creating a dangerous atmosphere with guns, gays or heteros with overly enthusiastic PDAs, loud or obnoxious customers etc...

Stating that some sort of eternal damnation will ensue if you sell a cake to a couple is silly.

Nearly every one else can see it. You can't.

There is no use in even trying, Candy. Some people don't know the difference between banning someone with no shoes, and banning someone brandishing a bazooka.

Yeah I know.

I like seeing the lengths they go to. It's quite unbelievable to see the rationalization. I mean, there is a woman with a rifle at Target that has it slung over her shoulder while she places an order at a snack bar.. Anyone who wants to can reach up and pull the trigger. To make matters worse, they brought their young kids to Target with them.

One would think that the "responsible" gun owners and former GI Joe, True Blue American Heroes (it seems as though every conservative here has spent decades in the military and/or law enforcement does it not) would come out and say, "Yep, she shouldn't have done that." But no...not a peep.

This is what I like to expose. The guy who just said kids can't buy guns for example. You have to wonder what planet he's been living on for the past few years.

I'll be the first to admit; I don't like guns. I think the people in the above image are mentally ill for what they are doing. I understand people who want to have them for self-defense and sporting purposes. I'm also at odds with my liberal friends about having security guards at schools. I mean, if you're going to call a cop to come and take care of an active shooter, wouldn't having an armed security guard on the premises make more sense?

 

[Mac1958]

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

So a business is within its rights to control what goes on inside its doors?

It can refuse service?

.

If there is reasonable expectation that the persons in question are going to hurt their business. Yes.

Here is the stupidity of your position. According to you,since the State passes a law, Whataburger is violating it by saying it won't serve customers who are obviously armed and are not law enforcement. Let alone their reasoning which is clear...LE is trained on the use, the proper use, the situational awareness of when to engage/not engage etc and history has shown time and again, the background checks are pretty useless. Anyway, that is Whataburger's stance and you say they are violating the law; right?

Well, wouldn't they also be violating the law if the manager tells an employee to not bring his Uzi to work and wear it over his shoulder while ringing up a #5 combo? There is no law on any State's books stating that Whataburger employees must wear the same orange T-Shirts. If a manager sends an employee home who is wearing her bath robe, isn't he infringing on her right of the "pursuit of happiness" through working and earning money?

That sure is a lot of effort.

You have a lot of idiocy in your statements.

I think a business should be able to make these decisions, whether it's serving a perfectly legal gun owner or a perfectly legal gay couple. You don't.

I think that if you put out your shingle that you're selling cakes or burgers, you should sell cakes or burgers to anyone who comes in to buy one if there is no downside; such as fully robed KKK members or loud NOI missionaries, guys creating a dangerous atmosphere with guns, gays or heteros with overly enthusiastic PDAs, loud or obnoxious customers etc...

Stating that some sort of eternal damnation will ensue if you sell a cake to a couple is silly.

Nearly every one else can see it. You can't.

There is no use in even trying, Candy. Some people don't know the difference between banning someone with no shoes, and banning someone brandishing a bazooka.

Bazooka? In how many municipalities are citizens allowed to carry around bazookas in public?

This is yet another example of why trying to communicate with a hardcore partisan ideologue is a waste of time.

Either end.

.

 

[Mac1958]

So now we see that, just as they are in charge of what words & phrases we're allowed to use, the PC Police is also in charge of what laws businesses have to and don't have to follow.

I repeat my request for a web site you folks can publish and update every day so that we know what we're allowed to do and say.

.

 

[hadit]

So unimportant, they made it second on a list of ten.

And still a bad idea.

Quite a few Americans disagree with you.

From BOTH sides of the aisle.

So, the founding fathers were the only group of folks who never got anything wrong? Interesting...I thought to err was human.

As for it being the 2nd Amendment out of ten (as if there was an importance given to it being #2), the 3rd Amendment was about quartering soldiers in homes. Hardly an issue today. Which, of course, lends credence to the document's time of writing influencing what they thought was important. We have cops on top of cops on top of cops backed up by the feds today. They didn't have that in 1790.

But those are facts. I don't want to bore you with them.

A kid in Phoenix plays a dangerous video game.
A kid in London plays a dangerous video game.

It gives him an idea to settle a difference as they did on the game; with a gun. After all, the guy was out of prison in 20 seconds on the game with no other ramifications.

So he looks into buying a gun.

Thanks to our 2nd Amendment, the kid in Phoenix has his choice of places to buy almost any firearm he wants; no questions asked.

Thanks to their not having a 2nd Amendment, the kid in London has almost no access to buying a firearm and if he did, the costs will be outrageous.

It is the only thing that allows the monthly slaughters that occur here.

Wait a minute. A "kid" (by definition NOT an adult, correct?) cannot legally buy a gun in this country. Therefore, to say that he "has his choice of places to buy almost any firearm he wants; no questions asked" is fallacious.

Oh obviously....those gun show sellers are of the highest ethical standards...no doubt. But let's make it a young adult.

Well, see now, you're introducing some unlikely elements. How likely do you really think it is for a gun show, complete with criminal gun sellers, to be held locally to said young adult at the time he decides he wants to buy a gun? Your case, though emotionally compelling, is becoming more exaggerated as we go. You've already moved the goal posts once, let's not do it again.

I would posit that said youth would be more likely to obtain a weapon from someone he knows on the street, something already illegal. We're looking for ways he could obtain the weapon quickly, easily, and legally in order to condemn the US.

 

[candycorn]

So now we see that, just as they are in charge of what words & phrases we're allowed to use, the PC Police is also in charge of what laws businesses have to and don't have to follow.

I repeat my request for a web site you folks can publish and update every day so that we know what we're allowed to do and say.

.

Nothing has changed insofar as your right to not invite those that would do injury to your business as long as there is a reasonable expectation of the cause and effect...i.e. Klan robes driving away customers. The changes have only taken place in your mind.

 

[Mac1958]

So now we see that, just as they are in charge of what words & phrases we're allowed to use, the PC Police is also in charge of what laws businesses have to and don't have to follow.

I repeat my request for a web site you folks can publish and update every day so that we know what we're allowed to do and say.

.

Nothing has changed insofar as your right to not invite those that would do injury to your business as long as there is a reasonable expectation of the cause and effect...i.e. Klan robes driving away customers. The changes have only taken place in your mind.

What's taking place in your mind is that you're assuming a legal gun owner with a legal gun is going to shoot up the place.

You are prejudiced against these people and don't want to serve them. I think that's your right. I also think it's the right of another business owner not to serve someone they don't want to serve. I can't fix bigotry on either side, but people have a right to be bigots. On either side.

I'm consistent.

.

 

[Vandalshandle]

So now we see that, just as they are in charge of what words & phrases we're allowed to use, the PC Police is also in charge of what laws businesses have to and don't have to follow.

I repeat my request for a web site you folks can publish and update every day so that we know what we're allowed to do and say.

.

Nothing has changed insofar as your right to not invite those that would do injury to your business as long as there is a reasonable expectation of the cause and effect...i.e. Klan robes driving away customers. The changes have only taken place in your mind.

His mind? HIS MIND? He don't need no stinkin' mind!

 

[candycorn]

So now we see that, just as they are in charge of what words & phrases we're allowed to use, the PC Police is also in charge of what laws businesses have to and don't have to follow.

I repeat my request for a web site you folks can publish and update every day so that we know what we're allowed to do and say.

.

Nothing has changed insofar as your right to not invite those that would do injury to your business as long as there is a reasonable expectation of the cause and effect...i.e. Klan robes driving away customers. The changes have only taken place in your mind.

What's taking place in your mind is that you're assuming a legal gun owner with a legal gun is going to shoot up the place.

You are prejudiced against these people and don't want to serve them. I think that's your right. I also think it's the right of another business owner not to serve someone they don't want to serve. I can't fix bigotry on either side, but people have a right to be bigots. On either side.

I'm consistent.

.

Again, "reasonable expectation".If you see a guy carrying a gun when NOBODY ELSE IS CARRYING ONE, who is being reasonable...the guy with the gun or the multitudes of happy patrons without.

I'm not putting myself into the equation one bit. I'm saying that he owner has a reasonable expectation that it will be bad for business if people carrying weapons in the open were coming into his business day in and day out so they have a right to withhold service. If you're running a shooting range, what is "reasonably expected" in terms of standards shifts. If you're at a gun show, that changes again. If you're at a church...you guessed it, changes once more.

As for the right to be a bigot; the doctrine of reasonable expectation doesn't apply. As a private citizen, sure. As a business owner, you don't have the right to discriminate.

Sorry, it's 2015, not 1815. You lose again.

 

[candycorn]

So now we see that, just as they are in charge of what words & phrases we're allowed to use, the PC Police is also in charge of what laws businesses have to and don't have to follow.

I repeat my request for a web site you folks can publish and update every day so that we know what we're allowed to do and say.

.

Nothing has changed insofar as your right to not invite those that would do injury to your business as long as there is a reasonable expectation of the cause and effect...i.e. Klan robes driving away customers. The changes have only taken place in your mind.

What's taking place in your mind is that you're assuming a legal gun owner with a legal gun is going to shoot up the place.

You are prejudiced against these people and don't want to serve them. I think that's your right. I also think it's the right of another business owner not to serve someone they don't want to serve. I can't fix bigotry on either side, but people have a right to be bigots. On either side.

I'm consistent.

.

Again, "reasonable expectation".If you see a guy carrying a gun when NOBODY ELSE IS CARRYING ONE, who is being reasonable...the guy with the gun or the multitudes of happy patrons without.

I'm not putting myself into the equation one bit. I'm saying that he owner has a reasonable expectation that it will be bad for business if people carrying weapons in the open were coming into his business day in and day out so they have a right to withhold service. If you're running a shooting range, what is "reasonably expected" in terms of standards shifts. If you're at a gun show, that changes again. If you're at a church...you guessed it, changes once more.

As for the right to be a bigot; the doctrine of reasonable expectation doesn't apply. As a private citizen, sure. As a business owner, you don't have the right to discriminate.

Sorry, it's 2015, not 1815. You lose again.

 

[Mac1958]

Sorry, it's 2015, not 1815. You lose again.

Agreed.

This country has been taken by intolerant, hypersensitive, bigoted narcissists, and I've long since reached the conclusion there's nothing I can do about it. Making it a bit worse is the fact that you're clearly not going to be gracious winners about your victory, you're going to enforce it aggressively at every opportunity.

And to confirm my personal opinion on this, there's even a growing list of lefties who appear to embarrassed by this behavior.

Sad to see, but yes, you're right, I do realize it is what it is.

.

 

[Auld Phart]

"Sorry, it's 2015, not 1815."

Yes, it is.

and the Second Amendment is still in effect.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The law says that I can turn right on a red light. Oddly enough, that does not give me the right to turn right into your storefront.

But, you knew that, didn't you?

Precisely what in the world does this have to do with this case?

A guy legally carrying a gun into a store is breaking no law, not in any way.

.

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

One more time: someone could go into your store armed, and you would NEVER KNOW IT!

 

[Auld Phart]

The law says that I can turn right on a red light. Oddly enough, that does not give me the right to turn right into your storefront.

But, you knew that, didn't you?

Precisely what in the world does this have to do with this case?

A guy legally carrying a gun into a store is breaking no law, not in any way.

.

Mac, are you that dense? I don't allow kids to skate board in my store. I don't allow people to yell obscenities in my store. I don't allow people to enter my store with no shirt or shoes. I don't allow people remove all the merchandise of the East side of the store and put it on the West side of the store. I do not allow anyone in my store to have a gun, except me.

I really should not have to explain stuff like this, Mac. Turn off your AM radio and get real.

One more time: someone could go into your store armed, and you would NEVER KNOW IT!

The idea of someone carrying a weapon isn't nearly as scary as actually seeing one.

 

[hjmick]

Whataburger is still in business? Huh...

 

[candycorn]

"Sorry, it's 2015, not 1815."

Yes, it is.

and the Second Amendment is still in effect.

And still a bad idea.