Jan Morgan bans Muslims from her range

[Traveler]

I've never witnessed anyone of power or record stand up in public and refer to the left as libtards, pussies, or any other derogatory aspersions.

I have heard the left hurl similar comments about us, From the President on down. I know what hypocrite means. I see and hear it every day on MSM.

Well said.

 

[kcbrown]

[/B]


there will always be someone who will take your money for whatever it is that you want or need.

Is that so?

Wanna tell me what business you'll interact with in the event your power company refuses to do business with you because you support the right to arms? What about if your water company does the same?

There are businesses in which the barrier to entry is so high that the number of players is very small. The laissez-faire approach you're advocating here would make it possible for those players to deliberately act in concert. In case you haven't noticed, the ultra-wealthy, who tend to be the people that control those businesses in which the barrier to entry is extremely high, appear to generally be against the right to arms when they speak of it at all.

and if every business discriminated against those who owned guns it would be such a wide spectrum of society that they wouldn't be able to do it. if I remember something I heard on tv last night correctly they said there are as many if not more guns in America than people. shyt, maybe a company would try something that stupid but that would work itself out just like this ladies idea will.

So your argument against this is, essentially, that "gun owners aren't enough of a minority" and "the market will act rationally"?

That's not an argument against mine. That's avoiding the question, along with asserting a condition that is demonstrably false. For if such were not the case then the civil rights movement would not have been necessary in the first place.

 

[Traveler]

Is that so?

Wanna tell me what business you'll interact with in the event your power company refuses to do business with you because you support the right to arms? What about if your water company does the same?

There are businesses in which the barrier to entry is so high that the number of players is very small. The laissez-faire approach you're advocating here would make it possible for those players to deliberately act in concert. In case you haven't noticed, the ultra-wealthy, who tend to be the people that control those businesses in which the barrier to entry is extremely high, appear to generally be against the right to arms when they speak of it at all.


So your argument against this is, essentially, that "gun owners aren't enough of a minority" and "the market will act rationally"?

That's not an argument against mine. That's avoiding the question, along with asserting a condition that is demonstrably false. For if such were not the case then the civil rights movement would not have been necessary in the first place.

Are you that much in need of a crusade? Take a look back at the OP. THIS IS ABOUT A GUN RANGE.

 

[kcbrown]

Are you that much in need of a crusade? Take a look back at the OP. THIS IS ABOUT A GUN RANGE.

But it's in the context of rules that apply to all public-facing businesses. Sauce for the goose, in other words.


Prior to the Civil Rights movement, we had an environment in which businesses could literally discriminate on whatever basis they felt like. The Civil Rights movement is the end result of that. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the market does not act rationally or provide alternatives in the way some here are insisting. No, the market is a reflection of those that are in it. Its rationality exists only to the degree to which the players in it are rational, and experience proves that players are largely irrational.

Do you really need another Civil Rights crisis to re-learn the lessons of the past?

 

[beretta_maven]

I've never witnessed anyone of power or record stand up in public and refer to the left as libtards, pussies, or any other derogatory aspersions.

I have heard the left hurl similar comments about us, From the President on down. I know what hypocrite means. I see and hear it every day on MSM.

The original statement was in regards to people on this forum, not to "anyone in power". The two words that I used for an example (pussies, libtards) are just a sample of the derogatory words that are thrown around on this thread and on this forum constantly, and directed at anyone who does not agree with some of the extreme rightwing viewpoints that are typically found here. And regardless of how you turned the statement, you are absolutely incorrect in what you said - I have never heard any Democrat "in power" make any of those type of statements as you suggest, nor have I heard any Republicans "in power" say those words either. So you still need to look up the word hypocrite because it still applies to the original statement that I was commenting upon.

 

[Traveler]

But it's in the context of rules that apply to all public-facing businesses. Sauce for the goose, in other words.

Nope, just making this more dramatic than it is. Don't let me get in the way. Carry on.

 

[beretta_maven]

That's not an argument against mine. That's avoiding the question, along with asserting a condition that is demonstrably false. For if such were not the case then the civil rights movement would not have been necessary in the first place.

Sadly, you are wasting your breath with this bunch.

 

[outrider58]

The original statement was in regards to people on this forum, not to "anyone in power".

Regardless of how you turned the statement, you are absolutely incorrect in what you said - there have been tons of insults and derogatory statements by Republicans "in power", just no necessarily the two (pussies, libtards) that I picked up on this particular thread, which were made by people on this thread regarding people that they perceive to be "lefties" (correctly or not).

Gratuitous and I am not going to tit for tat with you because you know you are wrong.

The people on this forum speak freely about things they believe. You can disagree with there opinions but, the moment you start picking adjectives YOU approve of and discard others you don't, you infringe on ones freedom of expression/speech. This is like TV or radio. If you don't like what you see or hear, change the channel or turn it off

 

[beretta_maven]

Gratuitous and I am not going to tit for tat with you because you know you are wrong.

No, I am completely correct in what I said, and you don't want to go "tit for tat" because you can't.

[The people on this forum speak freely about things they believe. You can disagree with there opinions but, the moment you start picking adjectives YOU approve of and discard others you don't, you infringe on ones freedom of expression/speech. This is like TV or radio. If you don't like what you see or hear, change the channel or turn it off

Additionally, you still fail to recognize that my original statement was in regards to insults made on this forum, not by politicians "in power".

I, like you, are practicing free speech on this forum. If you don't like what I say, may I suggest that YOU go elsewhere.

 

[traveller]

Am I still banned from any country clubs?

Of course I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.

Today, very few. 30 years ago it was routine.

Just because its not your geoup that is being thrown out today doesn't make the discrimination any less wrong.

 

[pitpawten]

You mean the method country clubs used to keep blacks, jews and catholics out? *in reference to invite only clubs*

I'm a visual guy, lets lay this out visually. The following shows the confluence between the two legal considerations: Is the place a Place of Public Accommodation, is the group a Protected Class?

OK = "Your place, your rules" (as people keep saying)
X = Not so much

To lay out a couple of scenarios:

1. Church refusing to perform gay marriages: OK (doubly): Religious organization and not a protected class.
2. Church refusing hire female priest: OK - Religious organization
3. Privately owned restaurant refusing to serve gays: OK - Not a protected class.
4. Privately owned restaurant refusing to serve Blacks: Not OK - a protected class.
5. Privately owned mechanic shop refusing Muslims: Not OK - a protected class.


Now to be specific about this scenario, if an otherwise Public Accommodation attempts to circumvent its discrimination responsibilities by becoming a "Private Club" it is potentially subject to judicial oversight and an administrative determination that it actually public after-all.

A couple of things on the above matrix:

1. This purely covers legal obligation, not necessarily sound business principals or whether or not your business is likely to be firebombed by angry mobs.
2. The "Free Market" cannot be the only check on discrimination (we sadly don't live in that moral utopia). Hence protected classes.
3. "Privately owned" is not what determines Public Accommodation status.
4. Some places have local ordinances deeming Sexual preference as a "Protected Class" (link).

IANAL

 

[beretta_maven]

I'm a visual guy, lets lay this out visually. The following shows the confluence between the two legal considerations: Is the place a Place of Public Accommodation, is the group a Protected Class?

OK = "Your place, your rules" (as people keep saying)
X = Not so much

To lay out a couple of scenarios:

1. Church refusing to perform gay marriages: OK (doubly): Religious organization and not a protected class.
2. Church refusing hire female priest: OK - Religious organization
3. Privately owned restaurant refusing to serve gays: OK - Not a protected class.
4. Privately owned restaurant refusing to serve Blacks: Not OK - a protected class.
5. Privately owned mechanic shop refusing Muslims: Not OK - a protected class.


Now to be specific about this scenario, if an otherwise Public Accommodation attempts to circumvent its discrimination responsibilities by becoming a "Private Club" it is potentially subject to judicial oversight and an administrative determination that it actually public after-all.

A couple of things on the above matrix:

1. This purely covers legal obligation, not necessarily sound business principals or whether or not your business is likely to be firebombed by angry mobs.
2. The "Free Market" cannot be the only check on discrimination (we sadly don't live in that moral utopia). Hence protected classes.
3. "Privately owned" is not what determines Public Accommodation status.
4. Some places have local ordinances deeming Sexual preference as a "Protected Class" (link).

IANAL

Nice clarification.

 

[BlackBart]

When it's muslims, it's "all muslims are bad."

When it's gun owners, "it was just two nuts."

Got it.

Doubt it. muslms are what % of this country or FREE Europe for that matter?

 

[outrider58]

No, I am completely correct in what I said, and you don't want to go "tit for tat" because you can't.



Additionally, you still fail to recognize that my original statement was in regards to insults made on this forum, not by politicians "in power".

I, like you, are practicing free speech on this forum. If you don't like what I say, may I suggest that YOU go elsewhere.

I've got no problem with your stating your opinion. As wrong as I might feel it is, it wouldn't be a forum without it.

I'm having a hard time remembering hearing any Republican(heathen) elected or self appointed leader referring to a certain racial 'group as ni##er or boy or any other derogatory label but, you don't have to dig too deep to find people such as Sheila Jackson Lee or Al Sharpton or half the Black Caucus referring to a give class of citizens as crackers, rednecks, or white devils both publicly and overheard in private conversations.

 

[BlackBart]

Am I still banned from any country clubs?

Of course I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.

Frggin dickhead......... you now OWN the country clubs! That's the only reason I'm nice to you! Thanks for the free membership!

 

[kcbrown]

Nope, just making this more dramatic than it is. Don't let me get in the way. Carry on.

I agree that in this specific case, it's almost certain that the policy in question will have no real effect on anything. That's not what's at issue. What's at issue is whether or not the policy itself is consistent with the principles upon which a market can function properly. And that is most certainly not the case here, though it may be that the way this specific range is set up is such that it avoids that problem.

So there's this specific case, and then there's the general case. The justification people are using ("their business, their rules") in support of this specific case is unrelated to the specifics of this case and, therefore, is fodder for debate on general principle. Such is the approach I've taken here.

 

[44man]

I do in fact. I live in NJ and I lived in NYC on 9/11.

Doesn't really matter to me, they're both dead.

I also knew a person who was beaten by a gang post 9/11. He was a sikh who wore a turban. Of course the people who beat him up knew he was a terrorist. Just like you know all about islam.

when did I say I knew all about islam. but I will say all I need to know happened 9/11.

 

[44man]

Is that so?

Wanna tell me what business you'll interact with in the event your power company refuses to do business with you because you support the right to arms? What about if your water company does the same?

There are businesses in which the barrier to entry is so high that the number of players is very small. The laissez-faire approach you're advocating here would make it possible for those players to deliberately act in concert. In case you haven't noticed, the ultra-wealthy, who tend to be the people that control those businesses in which the barrier to entry is extremely high, appear to generally be against the right to arms when they speak of it at all.


So your argument against this is, essentially, that "gun owners aren't enough of a minority" and "the market will act rationally"?

That's not an argument against mine. That's avoiding the question, along with asserting a condition that is demonstrably false. For if such were not the case then the civil rights movement would not have been necessary in the first place.

well we grew up without electric and drawing water from a well so I wont be worrying about such things. I grew up during the civil rights era and yep, the market took care of itself then as if necessary it will now. my people have been taking care of ourselves in this country for just over 375 years. I don't worry about what any one or any business says or does. if others cant take care of themselves and have become dependent on others for their own welfare well too bad for them.

 

[44man]

But it's in the context of rules that apply to all public-facing businesses. Sauce for the goose, in other words.


Prior to the Civil Rights movement, we had an environment in which businesses could literally discriminate on whatever basis they felt like. The Civil Rights movement is the end result of that. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the market does not act rationally or provide alternatives in the way some here are insisting. No, the market is a reflection of those that are in it. Its rationality exists only to the degree to which the players in it are rational, and experience proves that players are largely irrational.

Do you really need another Civil Rights crisis to re-learn the lessons of the past?

do you really think segregation is no longer practiced? you should get out more.

 

[5.56blaster]

A business is a private entity that formally interacts with the public. That's why the property is private but the business is "open to the public".

Again, in a perfect world and a perfect market, a discriminatory business would fail due to such policies due to competition with other businesses that were not discriminatory, since the latter would avail itself of more customers than the former. But the real market has irrational players on all sides of the equation, and that results in discrimination being something that can literally ruin people.

How would you like it if you were unable to buy gasoline anywhere in the state because businesses chose to discriminate against those who support the right to arms? Would you really simply shrug and say "oh, well. Their business, their rules"? I call BS. My bet is that you'd do something to address the situation, probably through the legal system, because your livelihood would be on the line.

The consequences of widespread discrimination are real and they are bad. It is only because you are not in a minority that is systematically discriminated against that you cling to the belief that a public-facing business should be able to discriminate on whatever grounds it pleases. As someone who supports the right to arms, you'd better be careful in what you wish for here, because if you get it, then you will not be able to do much in the place you live. Because if any business can discriminate against you, then they all can, and simultaneously. And you need them more than you think. I wager your very survival depends on those businesses doing business with you.

My survival? Are you on dope? My livelihood? Hell I'm retired. Are you kidding. Discriminated against, I guess you never heard of affirmative action. What a F^&kin joke that is. I served in the military and worked for a liberal county. Ive seen the results of discrimination both ways. And as far as suing someone, not me. And yeah Im one of those folks that CLINGS to my guns and Bible as referred to by the A$$ Hat in Chief. Funny you should use that word.