That's the thing though.
Constitutionally, Business's can't discriminate legally against say....blacks or muslims.
However, constitutionally, you have a right to keep and bear arms as well.
The Constitution applies to the government not to businesses, so constitutionally businesses can do whatever. It is illegal for them to discriminate by race and religion, but that's because of specific laws rather than the Constitution.
Now people do have the right to keep and bear arms, but businesses have no Constitutional obligation to help them do that.
The question comes down to why is it okay for one constitutional right to overrule personal property but not the other.
I was kind of on the side you are coming into this, and still somewhat am...but I think that's a legitimate question. If it's not illegal in your state/city to be carrying in a certain way, why can the business dictate to you that you can't carry your gun into the business with you but can't dictate that you're not allowed to wear a religious item or carry around your Koran?[/quote]As I said, I don't think the right to bear arms really applies to this since businesses are under no obligation to help people practice that right. However, I agree with the nature of your question: Why is it justified to stop businesses from discriminating, but not from preventing customers and employees from carrying weapons.
My answer to the question is that banning guns does not do employees, customers or society any inherent harm while discriminating against employees and customers does. If I walk into a business without a gun, most of the time, it won't matter. Nothing is going to happen that will make me wish I had a gun the vast majority of the time. However, if I walk into a business that discriminates against me, then something harmful will happen every time - they will discriminate against me. Ultimately, the costs of discrimination are higher than the costs of banning guns which is why the former must be outlawed and the latter doesn't have to be.
Put another way, you could ask the question: what is serious enough to warrant telling people what to do on their property? I argue that discrimination is and the potential for a safety issue that might be helped by guns is not.
If I read your later posts correct...your basic argument is they've passed laws restricting private business from discriminating against things like religion and race but not laws restricting them from being able to ban guns? If so, that does make sense and seem's a good counter argument.
Though I do think there's a massive gray area in regards to parking lots. Your car is your property, but it's on their property. At that portion I think I'd side on the line of erring on the side of the property rights of those acting on their second amendment rights rather than the property rights seeking to limit (granted, in a more legal way since it's not the government) the right, if that makes sense.
That's a fair point. With the parking lot, you essentially have two competing property rights. With that, I can sympathize with the argument that guns should be allowed in parking lots. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that though, but I wouldn't actively argue against a law that pushed for that.
