If you were to apply that test to PUBLIC property ie goverment owned, then you would be absolutely correct. You are however applying that scutiny to PRIVATE property thats whole nother ball of wax. Thats a place I cant and wont go. Business is nopublic, employers are not public.
You are making claims without providing your source material. I am providing my source material. Even if I'm wrong, I'm still arguing better than anyone else on this thread, and that alone is enough to win in court.
If you fire an
employee just because they have brown eyes, 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.
I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "
Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.
***
If you remove a
customer just because they have brown eyes, you will be cited by the city for braking Public Accommodation codes.
For example:
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.
South Dakota Code 20-13-23
The typical customer has a need to carry, whereas the typical bushiness does not have a need to ban.
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. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.
I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' to these classes because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.
I don't carry for preference, I've actually had to use my gun. No bushiness can demonstrate a streak of lawful CCW carriers committing crimes, that the business would need to ban otherwise lawfull carry.
***
The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "
Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.
