Jusme wrote:To me the argument, that we try to force business owners, to agree with, or comply with our assertion, that we should be allowed us to carry on their property, is fascism.
Everyone has the right to self defense, carrying a gun is optional. Since it is optional, we can't force anyone else to allow us to do so in their business.
Our rights extend only as far as the door of someone else's business/property.
My wife doesn't like snakes, if she owned a business, she could exclude anyone carrying a snake, and would not be in violation of anyone's civil rights, because carrying a snake is optional. There is no prohibition against carrying snakes, so it is a right until it is prohibited. If a business owner doesn't want to hire people with tattoos and piercings, the same thing applies, those things are optional, while still constitutionally protected.
The only things that can't be excluded, are those things which are not optional, a person's ethnicity, disabilities, gender, etc..
A business owner can exclude,or have removed, people based on their clothing, their behavior, or a myriad of other things that they feel is inappropriate for their business, as long as the exclusion, is based on choices. The business owners can post signage detailing the things allowed, and not allowed in their business. The people, who violate any of those policies, and refuse to leave, can be charged with criminal trespass.
We have already seen too many examples of government overreach when it comes to forcing business owners to do things that go against their principles, or religious beliefs, even though the issues involved are optional.
I have three choices when I encounter a business that is posted 30.06, I can disarm, and go in, I can refuse to go in, and take my business elsewhere, or I can violate the law, and their wishes and carry anyway. Option two is my go to response.
For those who want to try to force businesses to do their bidding, they have the option of starting their own business, and the have full access to the goods and services, they feel they have been denied. Asking government to remove someone's property rights, is not the route we want to take. JMHO
I agree that this is a question of rights. But disagree about the logical conclusion that flows from there. There are a number of questions here, and I suspect that we agree on a lot of them.
Should a private property owner be able to restrict entry onto their property? Absolutely.
Should a private property owner be able to invite someone onto their property and then change their mind and order them to leave? Absolutely, and for any reason.
Should a private property owner be able to restrict the fundamental human rights of people they invite onto their property by making that invitation conditional on that person not exercising their right to vote, to believe in a religion, to keep and bear arms, or otherwise? My answer is "only if the exercise of such a right causes a disturbance or otherwise interferes with the ability of the property owner to enjoy the use of their property". If the exercise or a right is not even apparent to the property owner, then this condition would not be met. So, if I invite you on my property and you are a democrat, that is fine, but if you start spouting hate speech against President Trump, or I see a sticker professing your support for a hate filled organization (like "I'm with her"), then you gotta go. Same thing for religious beliefs. Your beliefs are fine up to the point at which they impact my right to enjoy my property by causing a disturbance (which would happen after they became apparent, not before). And the same thing applies to you carrying a gun. How can I, as a property owner argue that you have harmed my right to enjoy my property by carrying a gun, by being a Christian, by believe in Hitlery, or anything else, when these things are not even apparent?
Should a private property owner be able to have government agents enforce their personal prejudices against certain religions, political beliefs, guns, or anything else? Yes, but only if they have first asked the offending person to leave and that person has refused to do so.
I am not trying to force any business owner to "do my bidding". If I was, I would require that they offer me all goods at a penny over their cost, and provide free massages while installing gun ranges in the back of every store. Other groups use the law to force business owners to "do their bidding" by installing wheelchair ramps, widening doors, preserving wet lands, etc. I am not trying to force a business owner to do anything. I am just saying that I don't want the LEO's that I pay for to enforce conditions of entry unless the business owner has at least asked someone to leave first. The business owner can have a prejudice against anything they want. But if they want to restrict the rights of people they have invited into their store, then they need to at least ask that person to leave before using the time of my LEO employees.