• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Carolina jewelry store turns away deputy picking up ring because he was carrying service weapo

TurtleDude said:
well that raises an interesting point. Clearly, second amendment rights are not in play if a private business tries to ban those packing guns from being on their premises-just like this board doesn't violate free speech rights if it bans you from posting here. However, forcing a baker to essentially participate in a gay marriage, does raise first amendment issues since it is the state that is forcing such participation.
Click to expand...

Selling a product that you already sell to everyone else isn't participating in anything.

Forcing bakers to sell homosexual wedding cakes might be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, but forcing bakers to sell regular wedding cakes to homosexual couples is no different than forcing them to allow blacks to eat at the lunch counter.

And make no ****ing mistake, if these Neoconfederate swine manage to carve out a religious exemption to public accommodation laws, that's what they're going to start fighting next.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Fun

A gay person walks into a store. Owner says "it's my religious right to refuse service to anyone". The religious right cheer.

A man with a gun walks into a store. "It's my right to refuse service to anyone". The Religious right are angry that their right to keep and bear arms is being infringed upon (when it clearly isn't).
Click to expand...

A person sits down to have dinner, the owner says "WE don't serve maga hats" the "liberal left" cheers
 
Renae said:
A person sits down to have dinner, the owner says "WE don't serve maga hats" the "liberal left" cheers
Click to expand...

Yes, there are people like that on both sides of the ridiculous partisan debate.

Just because there are ridiculous people on the left, doesn't mean there aren't ridiculous people on the right.
 
TurtleDude said:
well that raises an interesting point. Clearly, second amendment rights are not in play if a private business tries to ban those packing guns from being on their premises-just like this board doesn't violate free speech rights if it bans you from posting here. However, forcing a baker to essentially participate in a gay marriage, does raise first amendment issues since it is the state that is forcing such participation.
Click to expand...

And how does it look from the other point of view.

An individual wants to live in society as a normal member of society. But they get forced out of certain places because of religious zealots.

The problem is that when people decide to make a business, they also agree to the rules of setting up a business, such as laws that prevent them discriminating.
 
Renae said:
A person sits down to have dinner, the owner says "WE don't serve maga hats" the "liberal left" cheers
Click to expand...

Politics is not a protected class. How stupid.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Rules are rules if a store doesnt allow guns they dont allow guns.
Click to expand...
apparently it wasn't the rule because the dude got fired.

It's always in the jeweler's best interest to invite the police because if there's police that go there that means there's a police presence police presence drastically decreases probability of robbery.

It could be someone pretending to be a cop or maybe the cop himself wants to rob the place. Why does the cops rights usurp the store owners rights?
Click to expand...
that's not how it is the store owners rights Trump the rights of the manager to throw out police for having a firearm on them. That is the way it should be. If the owner of the store didn't want police in there, that's perfectly acceptable. and I'm pretty sure that start would be targeted like crazy.
Well I guess he wasnt the owner and just the manager so he paid the professional price.
Click to expand...
Well he should have thought. do jewelry store robbers Rob jewelry stores in front of police officers? That would say it's much more unlikely that robbers who robbed jewelry stores that don't allow police in them.

All the manager had to do was not be a profound dumb **** for five seconds.
 
TurtleDude said:
plus, if they ran a credit check on him the first time he came in, I bet they damn well knew he was a cop-not someone pretending to be a cop just to rob them
Click to expand...

I would be more suspicious of the manager why does he not want the cop in there is he doing something wrong?
 
TurtleDude said:
who is the religious right you speak of? I just think the manager was a moron and most businesses I know, especially ones that face a heightened threat of robbery, love having uniformed cops in their shops. A friend of mine, who owns a gun shop, has a refrigerator full of gatorade and pop and water and he welcomes officers who walk the beat near his shop to come in for a break in the heat and get something to drink. If I owned a jewelry store, I'd love having cops in the place.
Click to expand...

I think this religious right people speak of is like the westboro Baptist Church.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Selling a product that you already sell to everyone else isn't participating in anything.
Click to expand...
as I understand it in these cake baking incidents the couple wanted a custom wedding cake. that isn't the product you already self that is a piece of performance if you will 4 something you don't believe in.

if the gate people wanted a birthday cake or even a generic wedding cake that was sitting on the shelf that would be one thing. But that's not how this works. When you order a wedding cake it's customized.

For instance if I customized cars, and somebody asked me to pinstripe on an effigy of Muhammad on their car I would have the right to refuse to do that.

Forcing bakers to sell homosexual wedding cakes might be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, but forcing bakers to sell regular wedding cakes to homosexual couples is no different than forcing them to allow blacks to eat at the lunch counter.
Click to expand...
wedding cakes are typically custom ordered. It's not going to be something I'm Baker just has on hand.

And make no ****ing mistake, if these Neoconfederate swine manage to carve out a religious exemption to public accommodation laws, that's what they're going to start fighting next.
Click to expand...
I don't think this is reflective of what happened with the cake shop thing.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
And how does it look from the other point of view.

An individual wants to live in society as a normal member of society. But they get forced out of certain places because of religious zealots.

The problem is that when people decide to make a business, they also agree to the rules of setting up a business, such as laws that prevent them discriminating.
Click to expand...

why did they go into those places in the first place? I oppose government rules that force people to sell to those they don't want to. Do I support such discrimination-NO, but I just don't see the federal government as having that proper power. First amendment.
 
TurtleDude said:
why did they go into those places in the first place? I oppose government rules that force people to sell to those they don't want to. Do I support such discrimination-NO, but I just don't see the federal government as having that proper power. First amendment.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment has limits.

Freedom of religion? Hell, I'm going to make a religion that demands I kill a black person every day.

Do I get my freedom of religion or do I get locked up? Surely it's my religious freedom to do this.
 
Barnacle said:
Places continue pulling that **** on our police and see how long it's gonna take for the police to respond when the place gets robbed.

At least upper management is aware of the reality of life, apologized and fired that nitwit.
Click to expand...

So you admit that the police are corrupt and use life and death situations to control the behavior of otherwise innocent citizens.

And because I know you're going to ask.

I am referring to the police not responding in a timely manner to punish the store manager. In order to teach them a lesson.

You've acknowledged that's behavior the police are apt to take part in.

Now, why are you ok with it? Why do you want your police to be self serving and corrupt?
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The First Amendment has limits.

Freedom of religion? Hell, I'm going to make a religion that demands I kill a black person every day.

Do I get my freedom of religion or do I get locked up? Surely it's my religious freedom to do this.
Click to expand...

It is really stupid to pretend that refusing to associate with someone or not serve them is the same as a religion that justifies you killing someone. I believe the right of assembly trumps congressionally created laws that force such action.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Rules are rules if a store doesnt allow guns they dont allow guns. It could be someone pretending to be a cop or maybe the cop himself wants to rob the place. Why does the cops rights usurp the store owners rights? Well I guess he wasnt the owner and just the manager so he paid the professional price.
Click to expand...

LEO's are allowed to take their weapons just about anywhere

including on flights....so taking one inside a retail establishment is not a major issue

manager should have known better....

a basic customer with an open carry license...ok....tell him/her sorry, but no weapons allowed

LEO's in uniform...make the sane exception to your policy
 
gdgyva said:
LEO's are allowed to take their weapons just about anywhere

including on flights....so taking one inside a retail establishment is not a major issue

manager should have known better....

a basic customer with an open carry license...ok....tell him/her sorry, but no weapons allowed

LEO's in uniform...make the sane exception to your policy
Click to expand...

I had to handle a somewhat equivalent issue about 14 or so years ago-after Ohio had passed a CCW permit law.. The RAC for the DEA called me up and said two of his officers had been cited by the local PD (from the town I live in) for going into an Applebys (a chain like TGIF) because a waiter saw the shoulder holster of one of the agents.

So I called the Chief and identified myself as counsel for the DEA and asked him WTF was going on. He said that these men were in a restaurant that prohibited CCWs and they were cited for trespass. I said, did your officer have a weapon? Yes. Well seems like he was in violation too. Why? he had a gun on him and the policy banned both open and concealed carry-and knowing the cop, he probably had a back up in an ankle holster which was concealed. The chief said-yeah but the policy doesn't include on duty LEOs. I said, I have a declaration from the RAC stating those two guys were on duty and were merely on a lunch break. Want to see it? Chief-no, I will take your word for it and you tell your men we are cancelling the citation.

A week later, the sign on the door noted law enforcement officers were exempt from the policy.
 
TurtleDude said:
It is really stupid to pretend that refusing to associate with someone or not serve them is the same as a religion that justifies you killing someone. I believe the right of assembly trumps congressionally created laws that force such action.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're suggesting that some rights trump other rights?
 
TurtleDude said:
Constitutional rights should trump "rights" created by legislation
Click to expand...

And what is the "Constitution right" for religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What is "free exercise" of religion?

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." Reynolds v. United States (1878)

So, literally freedom of religion can mean that you're allowed to hate gay people for being gay. But you're not allowed to infringe on gay people's rights or privileges.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
And what is the "Constitution right" for religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What is "free exercise" of religion?

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." Reynolds v. United States (1878)

So, literally freedom of religion can mean that you're allowed to hate gay people for being gay. But you're not allowed to infringe on gay people's rights or privileges.
Click to expand...

they don't have a constitutional right to buy from you or to do business with you.
 
TurtleDude said:
they don't have a constitutional right to buy from you or to do business with you.
Click to expand...

In the US there used to be something called segregation. Then it was outlaws. Are you suggesting that outlawing segregation was unconstitutional?

Clearly not.

The Civil Rights act says that you can't discriminate in public accommodation. That'd include bakeries.

Literally if you offer a service, that service has to be open to everyone.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
In the US there used to be something called segregation. Then it was outlaws. Are you suggesting that outlawing segregation was unconstitutional?

Clearly not.

The Civil Rights act says that you can't discriminate in public accommodation. That'd include bakeries.

Literally if you offer a service, that service has to be open to everyone.
Click to expand...

at a federal level yes. I cannot find anything in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to tell a private business owner who he must serve or not serve.

So under the first and tenth amendments, those laws, at a federal level, are yet another instance of unconstitutional nonsense that leftwing judges ratified because they did not place the constitution as primary.
 
TurtleDude said:
at a federal level yes. I cannot find anything in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to tell a private business owner who he must serve or not serve.

So under the first and tenth amendments, those laws, at a federal level, are yet another instance of unconstitutional nonsense that leftwing judges ratified because they did not place the constitution as primary.
Click to expand...

I'd say the 9th Amendment does this.

Firstly individuals have CIVIL RIGHTS. That's what the Civil Rights Act is for. Yes, it's an act and not in the Constitution, but the 9th Amendment is clear that not every right is to be written there.

Secondly they have Equal Protection from the 14th Amendment. Now, if you look at public accommodation laws, companies literally agree to follow the rules set out. The states cannot allow discrimination to happen because of the 14th Amendment.

An individual does not have to start a business. They can choose, and if they do choose, they choose to follow public accommodation laws.

Public accommodations in the United States - Wikipedia

"Under US federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations."

So, if the bakery had set itself up as a bread religion, it'd have been okay.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
I'd say the 9th Amendment does this.

Firstly individuals have CIVIL RIGHTS. That's what the Civil Rights Act is for. Yes, it's an act and not in the Constitution, but the 9th Amendment is clear that not every right is to be written there.

Secondly they have Equal Protection from the 14th Amendment. Now, if you look at public accommodation laws, companies literally agree to follow the rules set out. The states cannot allow discrimination to happen because of the 14th Amendment.

An individual does not have to start a business. They can choose, and if they do choose, they choose to follow public accommodation laws.

Public accommodations in the United States - Wikipedia

"Under US federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the disabled and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations."

So, if the bakery had set itself up as a bread religion, it'd have been okay.
Click to expand...

you confuse government oppression with private discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom