View Poll Results: Which right holds sway?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2nd Amendment

    17 21.52%
  • Property Rights

    62 78.48%
Page 47 of 54 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast
Results 461 to 470 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #461
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If the policy breaks the law, then the issue still has nothing to do with rights being violated, though.
    It absolutely does, the violation is just going the other direction.

  2. #462
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    It absolutely does, the violation is just going the other direction.
    Do you mean that the state would be violating the store owners rights?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #463
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Do you mean that the state would be violating the store owners rights?
    By enacting an illegal policy, the store is violating the customer's rights. If a customer were found in violation of an illegal policy, asked to leave, and refused, that is not trespassing. It is the business who is in the wrong.


    If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
    Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

    The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

    ~snip~

    Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.

    ******
    If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

    For example:
    South Dakota Code 20-13-23

    20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.


    ***
    Going back to the example of Florida, if a customer were asked to leave just because they were lawfully carrying a concealed firearm, that business could be fined by the state.

  4. #464
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    By enacting an illegal policy, the store is violating the customer's rights.
    NO, they are breaking the law. No rights are violated.

    The 2nd amendment isn't a civil rights issue. you can't try to crowbar it into one simply by citing case which are not relevent to the issue at hand.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #465
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    NO, they are breaking the law. No rights are violated.
    Both occur. The law is protecting the individual's right. An illegal policy violates that right and brakes the law. In addition to a fine by the state, a civil suit could be perused.

  6. #466
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The law is protecting the individual's right.
    You just said that the law is protecting the State's right when you said "The reason behind the law is that only the State has the authority to ban firearms from publicly accessible places."

    It can't be that AND protecting individual rights. Mutually exclusive situations.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #467
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    See I don't accept those terms because the point is to not be a victim in the first place, not receive compensation for damages.

    If the store owner says I "can't" carry in his store, I'm going to carry anyway. You see, despite what any property owner says, I actually can carry. It's his job to catch me.

    I have no obligation to any private property owner.

    My point is that if this liability were spelled out in law, very few business owners would be inclined to post against carry... EVERYTHING is liability and insurance driven these days.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  8. #468
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,625

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Oklahoma state legislature gave the right to ban firearms from stores to local municipalities. Local ordinances allow a business to post the prohibition as long as they follow a few guidelines.

    That worked for awhile and then some employees of a couple of bigger companies here, I want to say one was Kerr-McGee or some such, got into trouble for weapons in their vehicles. Made for a few uncomfortable days for Republicans, some on each side.

    Court decided employees could keep firearms in their vehicles and employers gained extra protection from liability.

    Seemed a rather reasonable solution. I have read several gun forum sites where the advise given is unless you uncover in the store no one will know you are carrying so just go ahead and do it. Most ordinances are misdemeanors and difficult to enforce in a timely fashion.

    Guess it is the easier to ask for forgiveness than permission thing.

  9. #469
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    You just said that the law is protecting the State's right when you said "The reason behind the law is that only the State has the authority to ban firearms from publicly accessible places."
    Uh, no. I don't even see how you could infer that. Only the state has the authority to ban firearms because only the state can execute Due Process, which is required in order to properly infringe.

  10. #470
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Oklahoma state legislature gave the right to ban firearms from stores to local municipalities. Local ordinances allow a business to post the prohibition as long as they follow a few guidelines.

    That worked for awhile and then some employees of a couple of bigger companies here, I want to say one was Kerr-McGee or some such, got into trouble for weapons in their vehicles. Made for a few uncomfortable days for Republicans, some on each side.

    Court decided employees could keep firearms in their vehicles and employers gained extra protection from liability.

    Seemed a rather reasonable solution. I have read several gun forum sites where the advise given is unless you uncover in the store no one will know you are carrying so just go ahead and do it. Most ordinances are misdemeanors and difficult to enforce in a timely fashion.

    Guess it is the easier to ask for forgiveness than permission thing.
    Until more states are like Florida, where businesses are explicitly exempt from liability, gun owners almost need carrying to be taboo so that employers can just look the other way and hide behind a no-gun policy should something happen.

    I carry a self-defense ride-along on a hunting liability policy through the NRA just for this purpose.

Page 47 of 54 FirstFirst ... 374546474849 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •