So a judge rules that a business must serve gays...

[karder]

11. Off-topic posts/threads: Since they tend to cause the most problems for other boards, our "off-topic" sub-forum is not an "anything goes" area. Absolutely no discussions of immigration/border security, abortion, race matters, or any other hot-button political issues. (Gun-related political issues can be discussed in the Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues forum.)

We've gone from discussing the extension of the "wedding cake" application to 30.06 signs to a violation of Rule 11. Let's get back on topic.

Chas.

My appologies to the forum. This is an issue which I have extremely strong opinions on so it is probably best that I bow out of this discussion.

[ghostrider]

If a fellow walks into my store with a hammer and CYCLE t-shirt and declares to be a communist, as a business owner I should have the right to say, "I don't do business with communists, get out".

hey, don't be confusing us motorCYCLE enthusiasts with the 'hammer & sickle' crowd :-)

[Scott Farkus]

I started a similar thread a few months back and was very encouraged by the discussion. This is something that I think gun owners need to take a really hard look at.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=76260

For me, the bottom line is that we (gunowners) are doing ourselves a disservice if we hold onto the "property rights are sacrosanct" argument. That's not true for businesses that are open to the public and hasn't been for a long time. We can't play by one set of rules while the left/anti-gunners play by another.

[Javier730]

A business like the cake shop could become a private business that requires membership. Membership can be free or really cheap. They could then choose their members. They could refuse service to non members similar to the private only women gyms who can legally discriminate against men because the business is private.

[ScottDLS]

A businesses like the cake shop could become a private business that requires membership. Membership can be free or really cheap. They could then choose their members. They could refuse service to non members similar to the private only women gyms who can legally discriminate against men because the business is private.

What if I identify as a woman? Can I join?

[sherlock7]

ScottDLS,
That was too Funny! Made me laugh!

[The Annoyed Man]

A businesses like the cake shop could become a private business that requires membership. Membership can be free or really cheap. They could then choose their members. They could refuse service to non members similar to the private only women gyms who can legally discriminate against men because the business is private.

What if I identify as a woman? Can I join?

Only if you use the boys' locker room. Oops! There's no boys' locker room? Time to get lawyered up.

[RoyGBiv]

The gay person does not have that option of leaving their gayness at the door.

This is one of the parts of the "gay rights" narrative that bothers me the most. Of course a gay person can leave their gayness at the door. Any person that goes into a business to conduct normal transactions, does not need to reveal their sexual practices during the course of that transaction.

I think you misunderstood my intent. Of course they can leave their practices at the door, but not their preferences. Look, I'm a guy that takes the genetics argument with a huge grain of salt. But for the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter if a person is gay for genetic reasons, reasons of nurturing, psychiatric reasons, whatever....... he or she IS gay. Let's use religion instead of sexual attractions. A store owner can ask me to leave my Bible at the door, but he has no way to make me leave my christianity at the door. He can bar me from proselytizing on his premises, but he can't stop me from BEING a Christian.

Ditto a gay person. Whatever the possible origins of homosexuality, a business owner has no way to stop a person from being what they are. He can only control their behavior in the store, not who they are internally. That is why comparing 30.06 to gayness is an invalid comparison......which puts us back on topic.

Very clearly stated.

[ScottDLS]

The gay person does not have that option of leaving their gayness at the door.

This is one of the parts of the "gay rights" narrative that bothers me the most. Of course a gay person can leave their gayness at the door. Any person that goes into a business to conduct normal transactions, does not need to reveal their sexual practices during the course of that transaction.

I think you misunderstood my intent. Of course they can leave their practices at the door, but not their preferences. Look, I'm a guy that takes the genetics argument with a huge grain of salt. But for the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter if a person is gay for genetic reasons, reasons of nurturing, psychiatric reasons, whatever....... he or she IS gay. Let's use religion instead of sexual attractions. A store owner can ask me to leave my Bible at the door, but he has no way to make me leave my christianity at the door. He can bar me from proselytizing on his premises, but he can't stop me from BEING a Christian.

Ditto a gay person. Whatever the possible origins of homosexuality, a business owner has no way to stop a person from being what they are. He can only control their behavior in the store, not who they are internally. That is why comparing 30.06 to gayness is an invalid comparison......which puts us back on topic.

Very clearly stated.

The part I have a problem with, as I stated earlier, is that the anti-gun folks get the criminal power of the State via 30.06, to enforce their private prejudice against concealed carry. You can do more than just refuse to serve them, you can have them forcibly removed from your store and taken to jail by the police. If you're concealed, why does it have any affect on the shop owner?

So, if someone is gay why is the criminal power of the State then turned around and invoked to force me to serve them? Actually, you could make the case based on TXPC 30.05 that you could post a No Gays sign (circle slash rainbow ) and get said individuals arrested for walking past it. We must respect private property rights....correct?

[RoyGBiv]

The gay person does not have that option of leaving their gayness at the door.

This is one of the parts of the "gay rights" narrative that bothers me the most. Of course a gay person can leave their gayness at the door. Any person that goes into a business to conduct normal transactions, does not need to reveal their sexual practices during the course of that transaction.

I think you misunderstood my intent. Of course they can leave their practices at the door, but not their preferences. Look, I'm a guy that takes the genetics argument with a huge grain of salt. But for the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter if a person is gay for genetic reasons, reasons of nurturing, psychiatric reasons, whatever....... he or she IS gay. Let's use religion instead of sexual attractions. A store owner can ask me to leave my Bible at the door, but he has no way to make me leave my christianity at the door. He can bar me from proselytizing on his premises, but he can't stop me from BEING a Christian.

Ditto a gay person. Whatever the possible origins of homosexuality, a business owner has no way to stop a person from being what they are. He can only control their behavior in the store, not who they are internally. That is why comparing 30.06 to gayness is an invalid comparison......which puts us back on topic.

Very clearly stated.

The part I have a problem with, as I stated earlier, is that the anti-gun folks get the criminal power of the State via 30.06, to enforce their private prejudice against concealed carry. You can do more than just refuse to serve them, you can have them forcibly removed from your store and taken to jail by the police. If you're concealed, why does it have any affect on the shop owner?

So, if someone is gay why is the criminal power of the State then turned around and invoked to force me to serve them? Actually, you could make the case based on TXPC 30.05 that you could post a No Gays sign (circle slash rainbow ) and get said individuals arrested for walking past it. We must respect private property rights....correct?

Let me try another example.... Let's say I'm a Black Belt. There's no way of separating that knowledge from my person, similar to how being Gay cannot be separated from a persons physical being. You can ban the black belt from bringing a gun, but you'll never see a sign that says "No Martial Artists Allowed".

Hopefully I didn't make that worse?

Net... I think TAM's explanation still holds. Not saying I like it, but, I do see there being a difference between prohibiting homosexuals and prohibiting guns. It's not apples-apples.

[The Annoyed Man]

The part I have a problem with, as I stated earlier, is that the anti-gun folks get the criminal power of the State via 30.06, to enforce their private prejudice against concealed carry. You can do more than just refuse to serve them, you can have them forcibly removed from your store and taken to jail by the police. If you're concealed, why does it have any affect on the shop owner?

So, if someone is gay why is the criminal power of the State then turned around and invoked to force me to serve them? Actually, you could make the case based on TXPC 30.05 that you could post a No Gays sign (circle slash rainbow ) and get said individuals arrested for walking past it. We must respect private property rights....correct?

Scott, for the record, I do agree that there should be no power of the state to punish someone for walking past a sign while privately exercising a constitutional right. Where that argument falls flat is when it is compared to punishing someone for what they are internally when they walk past the same sign. One is punishment for an action - that of carrying a firearm past a proscriptive sign, which for better or for worse, is law of the land. The other is punishment for a state of being, against which there is no law.

Net... I think TAM's explanation still holds. Not saying I like it, but, I do see there being a difference between prohibiting homosexuals and prohibiting guns. It's not apples-apples.

Roy has hit the nail on the head..... it's not an apples to apples comparison. Something which is a state of being - religion, sexual preference, skin color, political philosophy, etc., in and of themselves are not reasons to keep someone from entering your business. However, the actions of those very same people might be perfectly valid reasons to expel someone from your business. Being someone who supports the 2nd Amendment in all of its aspects is likened to a state of being. Carrying a firearm into a business is an action.

For the record, I don't think that a business owner ought to post a 30.06 sign, and I certainly agree that a CHL is the last person they need to fear. But I accept that there are business owners who do not hold to a correct understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and I also accept that they have a bigger picture to consider - namely the comfort of their entire customer base. All I care about is that my gun is being barred from entry. But the store owner (even someone who doesn't bear any particular animus against CHL) might be worried about what the sight of my gun might do to the repeat traffic coming through his door - especially with open carry on the horizon.

Charles has pointed out that 30.06 has saved CHL. We now have a budding problem on the horizon......NOT because OC is wrong, but because people who don't like guns will react more strongly to guns they can see, than they do to guns they cannot see. That's just human nature, and it does no service to anyone to deny it. Be prepared to start seeing 30.07 signs popping up. I don't like it, but it is the law. But in the end 30.07s will go up for the same reason as 30.06s, and in both cases, they STILL are a bulwark against a behavior, not a state of being.

[Taypo]

The part I have a problem with, as I stated earlier, is that the anti-gun folks get the criminal power of the State via 30.06, to enforce their private prejudice against concealed carry. You can do more than just refuse to serve them, you can have them forcibly removed from your store and taken to jail by the police. If you're concealed, why does it have any affect on the shop owner?

So, if someone is gay why is the criminal power of the State then turned around and invoked to force me to serve them? Actually, you could make the case based on TXPC 30.05 that you could post a No Gays sign (circle slash rainbow ) and get said individuals arrested for walking past it. We must respect private property rights....correct?

Scott, for the record, I do agree that there should be no power of the state to punish someone for walking past a sign while privately exercising a constitutional right. Where that argument falls flat is when it is compared to punishing someone for what they are internally when they walk past the same sign. One is punishment for an action - that of carrying a firearm past a proscriptive sign, which for better or for worse, is law of the land. The other is punishment for a state of being, against which there is no law.

Net... I think TAM's explanation still holds. Not saying I like it, but, I do see there being a difference between prohibiting homosexuals and prohibiting guns. It's not apples-apples.

Roy has hit the nail on the head..... it's not an apples to apples comparison. Something which is a state of being - religion, sexual preference, skin color, political philosophy, etc., in and of themselves are not reasons to keep someone from entering your business. However, the actions of those very same people might be perfectly valid reasons to expel someone from your business. Being someone who supports the 2nd Amendment in all of its aspects is likened to a state of being. Carrying a firearm into a business is an action.

For the record, I don't think that a business owner ought to post a 30.06 sign, and I certainly agree that a CHL is the last person they need to fear. But I accept that there are business owners who do not hold to a correct understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and I also accept that they have a bigger picture to consider - namely the comfort of their entire customer base. All I care about is that my gun is being barred from entry. But the store owner (even someone who doesn't bear any particular animus against CHL) might be worried about what the sight of my gun might do to the repeat traffic coming through his door - especially with open carry on the horizon.

Charles has pointed out that 30.06 has saved CHL. We now have a budding problem on the horizon......NOT because OC is wrong, but because people who don't like guns will react more strongly to guns they can see, than they do to guns they cannot see. That's just human nature, and it does no service to anyone to deny it. Be prepared to start seeing 30.07 signs popping up. I don't like it, but it is the law. But in the end 30.07s will go up for the same reason as 30.06s, and in both cases, they STILL are a bulwark against a behavior, not a state of being.

Probably the smartest thing I've read in quite some time. Well said, sir.

[ScottDLS]

Playing devil's advocate, there is no Constitutional right to enter my publicly available premises. Theoretically, I can put up a 30.05 sign saying "No bald people" or "No conservatives" and if you walk past it while being bald or conservative you are committing a class B misdemeanor, at least as interpreted by the Texas AG in 1996, before 30.06 "saved" us in 1997. There is no Texas or Federal law (yet) prohibiting private discrimination against baldies or gays, or LTC holders. And there IS one allowing me to use the criminal power of the state to prosecute them for walking past my sign while being something "non-protected" that I don't like.

[Javier730]

So, if someone is gay why is the criminal power of the State then turned around and invoked to force me to serve them? Actually, you could make the case based on TXPC 30.05 that you could post a No Gays sign (circle slash rainbow ) and get said individuals arrested for walking past it. We must respect private property rights....correct?

How would this work? Would 30.05 signs ban those openly gay, 30.06 signs ban those concealing the fact that their gay and gay buster signs (circle slashed hand on limp wrist) would have no authority?

[ScottDLS]

So, if someone is gay why is the criminal power of the State then turned around and invoked to force me to serve them? Actually, you could make the case based on TXPC 30.05 that you could post a No Gays sign (circle slash rainbow ) and get said individuals arrested for walking past it. We must respect private property rights....correct?

How would this work? Would 30.05 signs ban those openly gay, 30.06 signs ban those concealing the fact that their gay and gay buster signs (circle slashed hand on limp wrist) would not have no authority.

OK OK I surrender. No more posting on this. You win!!!!!!!!!!!!