TexasCHLforum.com

mcscanner wrote:

Keith B wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:
I understand perfectly, but it doesn't make it right or fair.

Sure it does. Do you believe it is right to ban someone on color of their skin? Is it right to ban women? Protected classes are set to make sure that all people are treated 'right and fair'.

It a legal question and I have no qualifications to know and maybe to comment. However... protected classes pursuing job, education and medical care seems appropriate for 'right and fair' treatment. If I don't want to sell/buy/service you because of your protected class classification, I am not going to. That seems 'right and fair' from the other direction.

Under your definition of "right and fair", our society could go back to refusing to serve black people at the lunch counter.

Don't overlook the historical conditions that created the public support for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Personally, I do not want society to revert to segregation as it was wrong then and would be wrong now. Returning to the current case, I think the FFL is a nimrod who would never get my business. He can have those opinions in his personal life but it is illegal to refuse service to protected classes in his business.

It's a shame how people can't see the difference between being decent people with personal principles that guide them and being outright racist and bigoted. There is a difference between selling a cake to a gay guy and baking a custom cake with custom decorations celebrating a gay wedding. There is a difference between refusing service or selling to all people of a certain religion or race and customizing a gun with engraving such as "Death to the infidel" or "death to America" along with the ISIS flag.

Just as the flight school that trained one of the terrorists that flew one of the planes into the tower, it would have been wrong to refuse him training based on his race, nationality or religion but it should have been a red flag when the guy showed no interest in learning to land a plane.

Property rights are human rights but they do not trump all other human rights.

When I was in high school I worked at a sporting goods store and we did printing for uniforms, etc. Two girls came in and wanted to to buy a shirt and have custom lettering done on it. When they told me what they wanted I refused to print it as it was profane. I would have gladly sold them a shirt, but there are some things that go well beyond providing the same service to all customers.

Exactly! Wish more would recognize that distinction.

mojo84 wrote:

Glockster wrote:Not pointed at anyone in particular but about property rights, it seems that property rights get discussed a lot here as a constitutional right but I am having a hard time finding where exactly they are enumerated as a constitutional right (other than the "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" I find no other mention of the word property) so perhaps a cite for that would be good.

Is it your opinion the only rights one has are those enumerated in the Constitution?

No, I didn't say that at all. Having a right is probably quite different than having a right that is enumerated within the constitution. I'm simply asking where it is that property rights are declared to be constitutionally protected, since that seems to be often compared to for example, the second amendment. My questioning has to do with what kind of a so-called right is property rights if it isn't either constitutional or fundamental. Founding fathers compared property rights to creator endowed rights (John Adams), and yet they aren't listed as a specific right within the constitution. Blackstone wrote that the three creator given rights were life, liberty, and property...and yet even though his thoughts were instrumental to framing the principles within the constitution, property was lost to pursuit of happiness as to what was in the end incorporated within the constitution.

Jumping Frog wrote: Under your definition of "right and fair", our society could go back to refusing to serve black people at the lunch counter.

Don't overlook the historical conditions that created the public support for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Personally, I do not want society to revert to segregation as it was wrong then and would be wrong now. Returning to the current case, I think the FFL is a nimrod who would never get my business. He can have those opinions in his personal life but it is illegal to refuse service to protected classes in his business.

I actually believe we are at a point in this country where we would be better off without the Civil Rights Act. I can't imagine any lunch counter that refuses service to blacks surviving very long in today's social climate.

Jumping Frog wrote:

mcscanner wrote:

Keith B wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:
I understand perfectly, but it doesn't make it right or fair.

Sure it does. Do you believe it is right to ban someone on color of their skin? Is it right to ban women? Protected classes are set to make sure that all people are treated 'right and fair'.

It a legal question and I have no qualifications to know and maybe to comment. However... protected classes pursuing job, education and medical care seems appropriate for 'right and fair' treatment. If I don't want to sell/buy/service you because of your protected class classification, I am not going to. That seems 'right and fair' from the other direction.

Under your definition of "right and fair", our society could go back to refusing to serve black people at the lunch counter.

Don't overlook the historical conditions that created the public support for passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Personally, I do not want society to revert to segregation as it was wrong then and would be wrong now. Returning to the current case, I think the FFL is a nimrod who would never get my business. He can have those opinions in his personal life but it is illegal to refuse service to protected classes in his business.

I agree that segregation was wrong then and would be now too. Segregation and refusing to buy/sell/service at the point of contact I will admit will look similar and have the same outcome. What is the background information that support a person's decision I think makes a significant deference. Maybe his actions are illegal and maybe not. The legal system for better or worst can take the time to unravel all the issues of what he was thinking, said and actions. They will have weeks of time and tons of paper work to come to an 'informed' decision. Here we just pound it out one post at a time in the course of 10-15 minutes.

Mike

K.Mooneyham wrote:No matter what, the political left always gets their way. And I am constantly amazed by how many folks seem to think that is just peachy keen and cool. The "protected classes" only seem to be THEIR "protected classes". Now, to be honest with y'all on here, I think the gun store owner lacks some common sense or the ability to reason. He should have known that this administration will immediately go to the defense of certain groups while leaving others to flap in the breeze, we have been shown that again and again during this presidency. However, I am still amazed how someone can be forced to bake a "gay wedding" cake, or even one with the ISIS flag on it, under threat of governmental force. That isn't liberty and it sure isn't the free market at work, either.

Thanks K. Mooneyham, this is primary point I was trying to make in all my posts about "property rights" mainly as they apply to private property rights.

Public property/institutions are another issue, there is also unfairness there (ie. affirmative action ) to but that's a separate issue.

The protected classes are protected at the expense of the unprotected classes. I'm not a protected class and it's ok to squash my rights to protect someone else's. It's the uneven application of who has what rights and who doesn't. When my rights negate someone else's and vice versa then it becomes about choice when they don't it becomes tyranny.

"No matter what, the political left always gets their way. And I am constantly amazed by how many folks seem to think that is just peachy keen and cool. The "protected classes" only seem to be THEIR "protected classes"

I don't understand this comment as most all of the criteria (protected classes) do or could apply to everyone.

The "protected classes" only seem to be THEIR "protected classes"

Here are the federally protected classes. It seems all or almost all apply to everyone.

Federal protected classes include:
Race. (Aren't we all of a particular race?)
Color. (Don't we all have a skin color?)
Religion or creed. (Don't we all have a religious belief or beliefs regarding religion?)
National origin or ancestry. (Don't we all have parents and ancestors that came from some nation?)
Sex. (Aren't we all one sex or the other with the exception of some very few and rare that are considered intersex? This one has been twisted to include sexual preference and gender preference when originally, as I understand, it was intended to be related to gender.)
Age. (Aren't we all of a certain age?)
Physical or mental disability. (Aren't we all susceptible to obtaining a disability through disease, accident or other cause?)
Veteran status. (Do we really want to discriminate against those that participated in protecting our country and freedoms?)
Genetic information. (Don't we all have genes?)
Citizenship. (Are we not all a citizen of a nation?)

The point is, these are not valid reasons to discriminate against someone. However, there are other basis on which discrimination is allowed and proper. I think many confuse these and get up in arms over something that they shouldn't. Comparing discrimination of how one carries their gun or whether one can carry at all on someone's private property to discrimination on one of the above basis is not a valid comparison.

Property rights come down to who owns the property, not for what purpose it is being used. However, opening a property to the public for commerce or other valid reasons requires the property owner/operator to make reasonable accommodations and prohibits them from discriminating based upon the certain criteria listed above. People need to keep in mind, property and business owners have a vested interest and have financial risk at stake. A customer does not and can chose to go their or not. Therefore, the property owner is allowed to establish the rules and terms of entrance.

I do not understand why so many act as if the property owner has little to no rights. It is not publicly owned property that is owned by a government entity which means it is owned by the citizens. Instead of saying "their" protected classes, I think the argument is how the protected classes are being skewed and abused in order to claim discrimination.

mojo84 wrote: I think the argument is how the protected classes are being skewed and abused in order to claim discrimination.

That is definitely true, but I don't think that's the whole argument. It seems some classes or certain sub classes are ignored or given lesser priority over others, and when that happen it becomes a "their" classes issue.

Does gender preference trump religious beliefs? An do they trump Muslim beliefs the same as Christian beliefs?

You reverted back to how the protected classes are being skewed and abused. The problem is the abusive use of the protected classes in order to promote a certain agenda.