- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question about "gun free zones"
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:07 am to WalkingTurtles
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:07 am to WalkingTurtles
quote:
It's fine because it's reasonable. It's common sense.
to you, maybe not to me
who are you define reasonable or common sense?
quote:
There is no way any business funds any of these services entirely. Yet the general public funds these entirely.
what? quote:
I guess I underestimate the amount of people who want to discriminate....
I am 100% against discrimination
I am also, however, 100% for private property rights and personal liberty
to believe in freedom, that means I have to believe that someone should have the right to do something that I might be morally opposed to
0
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:08 am to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
This is a form of discrimination that is not protected, but is still discrimination.
Large orders have feelings too!!!
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:10 am to WalkingTurtles
quote:
The government through private citizens ask that you not discriminate via age, sex, race, religion and orientation within reason. I don't see why people are so up in arms. I guess I underestimate the amount of people who want to discriminate....
In a prior post you just said it would be fine for a business to discriminate based on religion, but not race. But, because the government does not want you to discriminate via age, sex, race, religion and orientation; you should be forced to serve all races but not have to serve all religions?
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:11 am to Weekend Warrior79
If I run a small butcher shop and customer says I need a 1000lbs of beef by tomorrow, there may be no way I can get that done so I refuse. Not really discrimination. If I own a huge catering company that minimum orders are $10k but someone wants me to cater a small office lunch around $500 that may be a inefficient of how my business operates. That's not discrimination.
I agree the religious thing borders the line and I don't think there is a right or wrong.
I agree the religious thing borders the line and I don't think there is a right or wrong.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:13 am to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
My question here, is there really a difference in the principle of these two rules?
Fundamental difference is this...
The right to keep and bear arms is expressly provided for in our Constitution...
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:14 am to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Its good to be gay.
Now I have a Dire Straits song going through my head.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:14 am to Weekend Warrior79
If a Muslim walks in and asks you to make him a sandwich at your sandwich shop and you say get out, that's discrimination. He just wanted a sandwich, nothing to do with a violation of your religion.
If gays walk in and ask you to cater their wedding, then they are asking you to participate in a ceremony type event, which you should be able to reasonably refuse. If they ask you to make sandwiches which they will pick up themselves and serve at said wedding, then I believe that's the grey area.
If gays walk in and ask you to cater their wedding, then they are asking you to participate in a ceremony type event, which you should be able to reasonably refuse. If they ask you to make sandwiches which they will pick up themselves and serve at said wedding, then I believe that's the grey area.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:15 am to WalkingTurtles
quote:
There is no way any business funds any of these services entirely
So since Exxon paid $18 billion in taxes last year they can refuse service to whomever they want... because they funded the services entirely?
My hypothetical small business that paid $50,000 has to serve everyone because my taxes aren't enough to run the fire department or pave the roads?
Your argument doesn't makes sense.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:15 am to WalkingTurtles
quote:
Yet the general public funds these entirely. Are at a rate of about 99.9%. So would that business be ok only receiving .1% service.
Link? Because based on income, property, licenses, and general receipt taxes I would imagine that number is completely false. Now, if you were to ignore all taxes paid by a business and just assumed the numbers for their income then in La the number is sub 1%. Income tax is however only a small part of a budiness' yearly taxes.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:19 am to WalkingTurtles
quote:
If gays walk in and ask you to cater their wedding, then they are asking you to participate in a ceremony type event, which you should be able to reasonably refuse. If they ask you to make sandwiches which they will pick up themselves and serve at said wedding, then I believe that's the grey area.
There is no grey area. You think there SHOULD be a grey area, but in reality there isn't. The sandwich shop owner can make sandwiches for whomever he wants, whenever he wants and can refuse to make sandwiches whenever he wants. The only person that has a choice in that matter is the sandwich shop owner. You can bitch and moan all you want about it, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to roast beef au jus. You may think it's wrong on a moral basis, and I would agree with you, but on the technical side of things, the business owner is holding all the cards. That is how it is and that is how it ALWAYS should be. It is incredibly arrogant of you to think otherwise.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:21 am to shawnlsu
quote:
They actually aren't close, the right to bear arms is in the constitution, the right to force someone to bake you a penis/vagina/transgender cake is not.
But Congress's legislative authority and power to regulate interstate commerce is in Article 1, which is where the argument comes from.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:22 am to dnm3305
quote:
The sandwich shop owner can make sandwiches for whomever he wants, whenever he wants and can refuse to make sandwiches whenever he wants. The only person that has a choice in that matter is the sandwich shop owner. You can bitch and moan all you want about it, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to roast beef au jus. You may think it's wrong on a moral basis, and I would agree with you, but on the technical side of things, the business owner is holding all the cards.
That is how it is and that is how it ALWAYS should be. It is incredibly arrogant of you to think otherwise.
That is not how it is though.
You might think that is how it is, but it is incredibly ignorant to think otherwise.
Research the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically business that serve the general public.
Article 2
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 10:31 am
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:29 am to Riseupfromtherubble
OP, you really don't see much difference b/w 'no gays/blacks/jews/etc.' and 'no guns?' Just leave your gun in the car or at home, man. Try doing that with your gayness/blackness/jewishness.
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:30 am to WhoDat37
quote:
But Congress's legislative authority and power to regulate interstate commerce is in Article 1, which is where the argument comes from.
Many would argue that "regulating" commerce is not "mandating" commerce.
We live in a day and age when the government is has chosen to interpret regulating as mandating..
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:31 am to Riseupfromtherubble
the original concept, was created by the commies to brainwash the progressives...which didn't take much convincing
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:36 am to WhoDat37
quote:
interstate commerce
How many local mom and pops trade across state lines?
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:38 am to shawnlsu
quote:
How many local mom and pops trade across state lines?
In today's day and age? Probably all of them
But I'm not the one who interpreted the Constitution that way. Take it up with Congress, the Supreme Court, and President Johnson.
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 10:39 am
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:44 am to WhoDat37
I get that but I doubt there are many small bakeries/caterers/poboy shops/convenience stores that are doing business across state lines. If they are, fine, that would fall under the interstate commerce BS. If not, then the fed can't tell them shite, IMO
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:46 am to shawnlsu
quote:
If not, then the fed can't tell them shite, IMO
That may be your opinion, but it isn't how it has been ruled on or interpreted
LINK
quote:
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited race based discrimination by restaurants serving food obtained through interstate commerce. The Supreme Court held that Congress can regulate business activity that is purely local, if any part of the activity affects interstate commerce, if the aggregate activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce
The ruling was 9-0, and likely could have been passed under the 14th amendment too.
This post was edited on 4/22/16 at 10:54 am
Posted on 4/22/16 at 10:50 am to Speedy G
quote:
OP, you really don't see much difference b/w 'no gays/blacks/jews/etc.' and 'no guns?' Just leave your gun in the car or at home, man. Try doing that with your gayness/blackness/jewishness.
I said nothing about my beliefs on either subject. I merely asked if the principles were similar with different outcomes. Businesses can deny you a right granted by our constitution. They can not deny you service based on their belief (except in ms).
"I know it's the law, but we don't care, not allowed"- gun free zones
"I know it's the law, and we do care, but we'll do it because it's the law"- right to refuse
That's essentially the premise in both situations. One is upheld and the other is not
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News