Wrong or Right

[Sam Kinard]

If shes so stupid she cant tell the difference between a good person and an extremist then maybe she shouldn't sell guns at all. I don't see how discriminating against one religious group is upholding the constitution and representing everything the 2A stands for protecting the freedom of religion.

The Constitution protects the individual from the government's discrimination. It does not force a business owner to allow anyone and everyone into their business. I don't necessarily agree with her stance and by definition it is discrimination, but The Constitution states that we will be protected from religious discrimination by the government, not from another individuals views and the rules they put in place for their business.

Simply as an example, The Mormon Church has temples that allow visitors into certain areas. Only those deemed worthy are allowed into other areas, even though the temple is in fact a public place. I have no interest in debating Mormons, but the point is that they are within their rights to do so on their property. It would be completely different if Muslims or any other religious group were not allowed to shoot at Camp Perry matches, because we are then crossing into government discrimination.

Here's a cute story: Once, my son came home from school and had a note for me to sign about some minor trouble he got into. When asking him about what happened, he implied that his 5th Amendment Rights were in play and he did not have to incriminate himself to me. He was reminded that I am not the US government and that those rules protect us from a tyrannical government and do not protect us from our Fathers.

If we all went out and polled strangers on the street it would be appalling how many people agree with a private business barring those carrying guns, but feign disgust over a business that bars Muslims. All this debate proves is that most "Americans" have no clue what their founding documents do and do not protect. They also want you to pass a test before you purchase a gun, but feel as though they have no obligation to pass a test on the content of The Constitution and Bill Of Rights before voting or telling us falsely what the documents actually contain.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

Sorry use of the term humorous in regards to Al Sharpton Tracksuit types following along pointing fingers with jeers going look at what shes doing. You know the circus that follows.

I agree. I said in my first post that I am on her side but I don't think She will win. You said it was getting humorous. I also agree with AZ you should be able to refuse to serve those who want in this case to kill you.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

Sorry use of the term humorous in regards to Al Sharpton Tracksuit types following along pointing fingers with jeers going look at what shes doing. You know the circus that follows.

I agree. I said in my first post that I am on her side but I don't think She will win. You said it was getting humorous. I also agree with AZ you should be able to refuse to serve those who want in this case to kill you.

 

[Koda]

Koda, I am aware that an employer cannot discriminate in regards to employment or workplace. The United States Commission on Civil Rights defined religious discrimination as follows:

"religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."

Unless a shooting range is a "public service" or "public facility" it is hard to see where refusal to serve a retail customer is discrimination. In fact, there is a case active that has not yet been adjudicated regarding a flower shop refusing to sell flowers to a homosexual couple for their wedding. If refusal to provide a good or service (other than the ones specifically outlined by law, like housing) was illegal, that case would have been easily decided.

I am pessimistic about the chances of a business retaining it's right to refuse service at it's discretion (whatever the reason) because of the Nanny State impetus to control every last decision made in society. But at this point, there is still some discretion left.

Please point out the pertinent laws you reference so the rest of us can get a better understanding of the situation. Thanks!

The Commission on Civil Rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights. Religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom." If your business is open to the public, and/or your providing a service to the public, it would be illegal to discriminate.

If the flower shop case is still open, then we don't know. But Sweet Cakes bakery WAS convicted of illegal discrimination by violating the homosexual couples Civil Rights. This supports my argument. So a shooting range that is open to the public, has to accommodate all of the public.

Now its possible that if her shooting range is private, then she can do as she wants. I haven't looked into that so I dont know.

You do have good points, thank you for bringing them up. Im not a lawyer or expert on the law and only participating with what I understand. Thank you for the polite challenge to my argument, Im willing to learn more and be corrected in that context but so far based on the Sweet Cakes case I am understanding this as illegal discrimination.

 

[Provincial]

Now that I have been alerted to the Sweet Cakes lawsuit, it appears that it is an entirely different legal argument. The shooting range is in Arkansas, and the Sweet Cakes lawsuit is based on an Oregon law. Sweet Cakes has yet to be decided, and at first blush, it appears that the Oregon statute may violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
The Act protects against laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. Any restriction on Sweet Cakes would have to pass a test that refusal to sell a product creates a discrimination that more harmful than the religious discrimination of forcing them to participate in a practice that is against their religious principles. The Hobby Lobby decision by the US Supreme Court gives us an insight about how this might play out. Since Rachel and Laurel probably can source the cake nearby, they have an uphill battle. Melissa may have a stronger case against Rachel and Laurel based on the RFRA than they have under Oregon law!

The Gun Cave may have to deal with the RFRA, but unless the Koran mentions firearms, it may be difficult to establish the link. It will be an interesting legal battle.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

...Religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom." If your business is open to the public, and/or your providing a service to the public, it would be illegal to discriminate.

...

This supports my argument. So a shooting range that is open to the public, has to accommodate all of the public.

...

This:

Religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied "the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."

Does not equal this:

If your business is open to the public, and/or your providing a service to the public, it would be illegal to discriminate.

All of the first statement is referring to state or federal amenities or amenities that the state or fed has regulated, such as infrastructure. The first statement when talking about "public accommodation" defines "public accommodation" within the law. I have quoted it's definition below.

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments (meaning it must be within this section) which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

Note the bold.

Nowhere in this section does it talk about shooting ranges. Nowhere in this section does it talk about anything that could be construed to include shooting range...


UNLESS...

a shooting range was to say "provide logging, food, a gas station, a theater, a concert hall, a sports arena, holding an exhibition," and several others I am not going to type up.

SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

Note that the next section specifically DOES NOT talk about public businesses but instead is talking about the governmental/ municipality discrimination.

The later section talks about if someone was to break Sec 101 or 202, or if it is reasonable to assume they might be and how to deal with the situation if that is to happen.


But nowhere in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should it be construed that a person that owns a shooting range must not discriminate based on religion.

That is not to say that it is right, that is not to say that it is wrong, that is not to say that it ought or ought not be a certain way merely that it is in fact not unlawful under this law.


Source: http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm



Eagle

 

[Koda]

Eagle, thanks for replying. I guess for now I cant say its illegal for her to discriminate against Muslims, I really don't know enough about the law to argue further but some of what your saying makes sense.

Hopefully this gun range story wont go viral because I think its bad publicity for gun rights, IMO. Then I read this article that states a Muslim group is requesting the DOJ to investigate her gun range so.... hopefully this wont explode. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...range-that-declared-itself-a-muslim-free-zone

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Eagle, thanks for replying. I guess for now I cant say its illegal for her to discriminate against Muslims, I really don't know enough about the law to argue further but some of what your saying makes sense.

Hopefully this gun range story wont go viral because I think its bad publicity for gun rights, IMO. Then I read this article that states a Muslim group is requesting the DOJ to investigate her gun range so.... hopefully this wont explode. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...range-that-declared-itself-a-muslim-free-zone

I have no argument against this.

 

[balaperdida]

Islam is a dangerous political movement masquerading as a religion. Those who would let muslims play the religion card are either fools or traitors.

 

[44mag2ndamend]

Islam is a dangerous political movement masquerading as a religion. Those who would let muslims play the religion card are either fools or traitors.

It is becoming well known to the World that certain entities, groups, individuals are increasingly becoming more dangerous to the entire world.

Look how much damage a radical Like O.B.L did to not only us but other countries as well. Our government knows it, the radicals using a religion to justify their acts is bringing their entire culture to becoming colored, or tainted in the world picture.

Look at that ladies reaction, is she scared, yes, look to 9/11, and all the recent be-headings of innocent lives. She most likely is reacting and enforcing her rights based on what has become a norm. Domestic Terrorism. And that sucks period.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Sorry 44mag, but I think most of the world knows how dangerous islam is.
But I am convinced that the current iteration of the American government will be either the last to know, or has serious designs on cooperating with islamic leaders to foster a bad end for this country as we know it.

 

[Partsproduction]

There are some stupid responses here. If a political group, or a book club or quilting group declared hatred of all those not belonging to their group, and their source documents said to murder those not belonging, would some of you non quilters (Non book club etc etc) say it is wrong to exclude them? Some of the arguments of the left are moronic.

gets bible thumpers

By your eyes I must be a "Bible thumper" because I believe in the God of the Bible, who tells us today that we must not murder. Horrible huh? But you want those of "The religion of peace" next to you on the firing line?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

You should make sure your organ donor card is up to date.

As for me and my Bible (Which I thump all day long) I believe from reading it that muslims are deluded and need love, not hatred. Pray for them that hurt you, that specifically says pray FOR them. God loves every one of them, but like many on death row they must not be allowed to go around armed because their source documents say to kill you! The stated intent of the koran followers is to kill you! It would be entirely irresponsible to sell guns to someone who holds such beliefs.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

The last 4 posts are the precise reason why religious discussion is against forum rules and the same reason why we have mod edited posts previously on page 1.