• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Help me understand the bias

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
I truely appreciate the wealth of legal knowledge here on the forum and I have what is probably a dumb question but I will ask anyway. I could spend hours researching an answer that others here could provide in the time it takes to type it.

So here we go. I understand that in our countries past, not all rights were afforded to everyone. The right for women to vote, slavery, segregation, are all things that I am glad have been addressed. I believe most of the were through constitutional ammendments but I could be very wrong.

Jump to today and I hear the argument that buisness owners can prohibit firearms in their buisnesses. Doesn't that allow a individual to take away my 2nd ammendment rights? A buisness owner could not choose to refuse to sell to a certain sect or race of people (Arab, Catholics, Venezualians) in a public business. They have to form a private club or members only establishment and carefully control those they allow to become members. If someone tried to ban a certain group of people there would be a cry and hue about their rights being denied.

I am serious in my question - I really don't understand. .... Why do we have to chose to shop elsewhere as our only recourse when our 2nd ammendment "right" is infringed by a buisness owner? Help me understand why it is okay to tell me I can't come in if I am exercising my right but they can't tell me I can't come in due to my color or beliefs because I have that right if they are going to do buisness with the general public.

thanks,
 

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
Because they have the right to own private property and with that comes the right to deny certain people access to your property.

As far as I am concerned it should be that way for everything, the government should not be telling business owners who they have to serve.

If you're a racist :cuss: and you want the world to know it you should be able to put up a sign "No blacks allowed."

I would rather know who they are, instead of helping them hide, and the free market (what little bit we still have) would drive these people out of business, or they would change voluntarily, without government force.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The Constitution was intended to protect rights from governmental intrusion, not from individual intrusion. For example, you may prohibit a person who enters your property from standing on a soapbox and spewing, say, racist hatred from your property onto the street, even though the First Amendment would protect that speech from governmental intrusion.

Unfortunately, a stupid little legal concept called "public accommodations" was instituted by the courts and then codified by some laws. This idea did not protect rights from governmental intrusion. Instead, it is a governmental intrusion into private property rights, telling owners what they may and may not do with their private property. The idea was accepted because it was seen as protecting individual rights. However, until then, we never had laws where one individual had to give up his rights to keep him from infringing on another's "rights."

One of the insidious aspects of the "public accommodation" nonsense was that it gave some who love Liberty the impression that forcing others to give up their rights, so that we might be able to lord ours over them, was a protection of rights rather than an infringement.

It is an infringement.

True Liberty means that property owners have the right to deny service to anyone, based on any criteria they choose, including skin color and armed status. We may not like that (I don't), but, if we want our rights respected, we must first respect the rights of others--including their right to do things we find objectionable.
 

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
I hear what you are saying and I too think it would be better for the free market to force people to act properly but....

Because they have the right to own private property and with that comes the right to deny certain people access to your property.

what allows them to deny people with guns access to their property but not people of color if the right for both resides in the constitution. where is the line between what they have to accept and what they can choose to accept?
 

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
One of the insidious aspects of the "public accommodation" nonsense was that it gave some who love Liberty the impression that forcing others to give up their rights, so that we might be able to lord ours over them, was a protection of rights rather than an infringement.

It is an infringement.

So is there a way we can use the system to make it illegal for business owners to discriminate against those exercising their 2nd ammendment rights?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
So is there a way we can use the system to make it illegal for business owners to discriminate against those exercising their 2nd ammendment rights?

Why do you wish to invite more government intrusion into our lives? If you don't like it go to the business down the road, stop looking to Uncle Sam to be everything to everybody. That got us into this mess to begin with!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
So is there a way we can use the system to make it illegal for business owners to discriminate against those exercising their 2nd ammendment rights?

Only if the Liberty of others does not matter to you and you want their rights infringed just to satisfy you.
 

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
I hear what you are saying and I too think it would be better for the free market to force people to act properly but....



what allows them to deny people with guns access to their property but not people of color if the right for both resides in the constitution. where is the line between what they have to accept and what they can choose to accept?

The difference is the Fed Gov overstepped its' bounds and passed a law to force property owners to let protected classes in their stores.

Even if they wanted to pass a new law making it illegal to deny gun carriers, I would be against it on Constitutional grounds.
 

wrearick

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
650
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
The difference is the Fed Gov overstepped its' bounds and passed a law to force property owners to let protected classes in their stores.

Even if they wanted to pass a new law making it illegal to deny gun carriers, I would be against it on Constitutional grounds.

I agree, two wrongs don't make a right.
 

Aceman7496

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
26
Location
Eastern NC
That statement demonstrates that you truly love Liberty. Then you must respect the right of the property owner to enjoy his property. Just don't go there.

This thread literally brought a smile to my face. A decent debate/conversation that culminated in a simple understanding of what this country [should] stand for.
 
Last edited:
Top