Jan Morgan bans Muslims from her range

[5.56blaster]

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

Yes Ive seen it self imposed. Like the members of my academy class that refused to eat with the other members of my class. He was a Nation of Islam member. But who am I to judge.

 

[44man]

Yes Ive seen it self imposed. Like the members of my academy class that refused to eat with the other members of my class. He was a Nation of Islam member. But who am I to judge.

well I know of several places down here that are just the way they were when I was a boy. one door for whites and another for everyone else. I also know of one place owned by colored folks that don't allow whites in to eat or drink. these places are few and far between as compared to how it used to be and when the old ones that own and run these places die that era will be gone and good riddance. but heh, I am sure there are far more all over. some people don't want to eat or drink or associate with others. that's just the way it is, now and I would say forever. just human nature.

 

[traveller]

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

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) (b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

To consider her range a 'place of public accomodation' would require a judge to expand the definition. Maybe he could cram it in under 'place of entertainment', not sure whether that would fly. If the feds considered her operation a 'place of public accomodation', they wouldn't 'monitor' her but they would have already served her with an injunction. The feds 'monitoring' something means that they have nothing, just an intimidation tactic.

She claims that she is a private club and therefore exempted from any civil rights legislation (that is how some country clubs until recently kept out blacks, jews and catholics, often prompting the opening of competing clubs for their respective religion/ethnicity).

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

I am sure there has been litigation around what is considered a 'private club', just signing a piece of paper at registration that you are now a 'member' probably doesn't cut it.

So, I dont know whether what she is doing is actually illegal. It would be illegal in some states (e.g. California), but it may not be illegal in her state.

 

[EL1227]

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) (b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

To consider her range a 'place of public accomodation' would require a judge to expand the definition. Maybe he could cram it in under 'place of entertainment', not sure whether that would fly. If the feds considered her operation a 'place of public accomodation', they wouldn't 'monitor' her but they would have already served her with an injunction. The feds 'monitoring' something means that they have nothing, just an intimidation tactic.

She claims that she is a private club and therefore exempted from any civil rights legislation (that is how some country clubs until recently kept out blacks, jews and catholics, often prompting the opening of competing clubs for their respective religion/ethnicity).

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

I am sure there has been litigation around what is considered a 'private club', just signing a piece of paper at registration that you are now a 'member' probably doesn't cut it.

So, I dont know whether what she is doing is actually illegal. It would be illegal in some states (e.g. California), but it may not be illegal in her state.

Good research !!!

Side comment ... Not too many places of public entertainment allow you to fire lethal weapons.

Besides ... If she were REALLY violating any applicable discrimination law, wouldn't she have been cited by now ? So, the back-and-forth discussion here has been an exercise in futility and TOTALLY missing the reason it has even been brought up again.

You're being duped into political infighting over a non-issue. Divide and conquer has finally made it's mark on 2A. It hasn't worked before, but I think that the DoJ has finally struck a nerve by simply 'monitoring' Morgan's range. What else do they expect to observe, except our own self-destruction ?

WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!

 

[Vile Shadow]

That's pretty dumb. I'm likely more conservative than most here, especially considering what I do for a living. I just don't like bigotry.

A lawsuit is not for hurt feelings. It's for real damage such as being subject to illegal discrimination. No true conservative who believes in the constitution and Declaration of Independence will ever condone illegal discrimination.

"Real damage" my ass.

Who do you think you're kidding? You would most definitely being in that case because you're indignant and you wanna cash in on it somehow.

Furthermore, as self defeating as bigotry may be, it's still a form of what is supposed to be protected free speech.

 

[Vile Shadow]

I think people that spout off "sue" really cant handle life, they were the "tattle tails" of grade school..boo hoo hoo so and so picked on me, Im telling teacher. ..a private business has some rules...dont like them go somewhere else..

Everything I need to know about Muslims and their peaceful religion I learned from 9/11..

Even if you didn't want to go that far, the undeniable truth still remains. The majority of muslims may not be terrorists, but the majority of terrorists are muslims.

 

[kcbrown]

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.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you're fully independent of other people, that everything you've done for yourself and your family was done from scratch with your own two hands, and that you've not ever used, for the purpose of improving your own life or the lives of your family, anything built by others who specialized in what they did.

Good for you.

Meanwhile, the rest of us mere mortals will have to make do with specializing in what we do best so as to make ends meet, and sacrifice the independence you claim to have in the process. You know, the same thing that people throughout civilization have been doing for hundreds of years.


I've got news for you: very nearly everything you ever used was built by people who spent their lives learning to do it well at the sacrifice of being able to do other things that would have made them truly independent. The number of man-hours that went into figuring out what works and what doesn't and that ultimately led to those things you have used (and still use) coming into existence is in the billions. Nobody is truly an island unto themselves. Delude yourself into thinking that you are if you wish, but the very fact that you're using a computing device to post messages here puts the lie to that notion. I know you couldn't have designed and built that from scratch yourself.

 

[outrider58]

Well, I'm glad to hear that you're fully independent of other people, that everything you've done for yourself and your family was done from scratch with your own two hands, and that you've not ever used, for the purpose of improving your own life or the lives of your family, anything built by others who specialized in what they did.

Good for you.

Meanwhile, the rest of us mere mortals will have to make do with specializing in what we do best so as to make ends meet, and sacrifice the independence you claim to have in the process. You know, the same thing that people throughout civilization have been doing for hundreds of years.


I've got news for you: very nearly everything you ever used was built by people who spent their lives learning to do it well at the sacrifice of being able to do other things that would have made them truly independent. The number of man-hours that went into figuring out what works and what doesn't and that ultimately led to those things you have used (and still use) coming into existence is in the billions. Nobody is truly an island unto themselves. Delude yourself into thinking that you are if you wish, but the very fact that you're using a computing device to post messages here puts the lie to that notion. I know you couldn't have designed and built that from scratch yourself.

Is this another version of "...you didn't build that!" Pa-lease.

 

[kcbrown]

Even if you didn't want to go that far, the undeniable truth still remains. The majority of muslims may not be terrorists, but the majority of terrorists are muslims.

That could easily be the case. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

So the question, then, is: what does that tell us, and how can we use it?

You can't simply invert the condition. That would be a logical fallacy. And that means you can't determine that someone is, or is even likely to be, a terrorist on the basis of whether or not they subscribe to Islam, at least not on the basis of that logic alone.

Islam accounts for about 21% of the population (per Wikipedia). To put that number in some context, Christianity accounts for about 33% of it (also per Wikipedia).


Before going further, maybe we should get the lay of the land first. So, to start with, just how many terrorists do you think are out there? How big is the terrorist population?

 

[Vile Shadow]

Is it your belief, then, that there should be no limits on the basis upon which a public-facing business can legitimately deny business to prospective customers?

Yes. That business would then be free to prosper or suffer based on that decision.

If so, then it follows that you believe such businesses should be able to deny service on the basis of race, political affiliation, support for the right to arms, religion, or anything else, right?

Yes, and?

We get discriminated against for the part you italicized on a regular basis. I then choose not to patronize said business. I'll give my money to someone who wants it.

Better think that through carefully, because you cannot presume that you'll be able to get past such policies yourself just because you think the business in question doesn't know anything about you. Personal information is much more widely available today than it ever has been. And we're talking about all businesses, including the really large ones. How would you like it if all the gas stations in your region refused to sell to you because you support the right to arms, and they were forced to impose that policy because the cartel of oil companies they receive gasoline from imposed that policy on them? After all, those oil companies have just as much a "right" to impose constraints on their customers as the business we speak of, right? You did agree to "their business, their rules", right?? And you do live in an anti-RKBA state, you know.

I know what I theoretically "agreed" to, but where I live is beside the point.

Money is a powerful motivator, and any business exists to make money. The bigger ones didn't get where they are by turning away money. The question is how much one wants to shoot one's self in one's foot.

Indeed, why stop there? Why shouldn't businesses be able to interact with their customers any way they like, including lying about their products, refusing to fix defects, etc.?

Apples and oranges. What you're describing here is beyond a political statement. Misrepresentation of one's product is criminal behavior.

After all, the market fixes all things, right?

It does. Word of mouth does get around, and the shysters do get exposed. I can think of a few gun shops that no longer exist because of the way they ran their operations.

In an ideal world, the market would fix all such problems. But such ideals presume fully rational actors on all sides of the equation. There ain't no such thing in the real world. In the real world, motivations are largely irrational in nature, and that taints the market in a way that makes it impossible for it to operate in the way you apparently envision.

I don't buy that for a minute. I think it's simply never been tried, because of the ever present tendency of people to use the gooberment as a crutch.

Everything's fine from the point of view of those who are in a majority group, like whites in the south were. Such is clearly what you presume yourself to be in with respect to this (as you're not Muslim, are you?). But few people are in majority groups for everything. You yourself are in a minority in your own state, for you support the right to arms in opposition to the majority of people there, and I guarantee that if the majority had its way with respect to the ability for public businesses to discriminate in the way you obviously support, then you would be unable to transact any business with the majority of businesses in your state because of your support for the right to arms.

I don't buy that either. The BGOS is too strong here, and I would love to know exactly how many gun owners are hiding in the proverbial closet out of fear of being branded as right wing extremist knuckle dragging neanderthals. To think our little communitfy here comprises most of MD's gun owners is naive at best.

People are perfectly fine with discrimination against others until they're the ones being discriminated against in such a way that it has a major impact on them. Then, and only then, do they realize the burden that discrimination imposes. Don't be so shortsighted as that.

Define "major impact".

I think there is a point you get to where cross the line into committing a criminal act, such as a doctor refusing to treat someone who's skin is darker than his/hers. The statement of banning those who practice a religion that has a world history of waging war on innocents hardly rises to that level.

ETA: For the record, you'll find that I'm opposed to very nearly all restrictions on action, so long as the action in question does not violate the rights of another.

Fair enough. But muslims do not have any "right" to shoot at this particular range.

I'm also of the belief that modern restrictions on businesses are far too numerous and suffocating.

But when it comes to the fundamentals of the market, there is at least one truth: the market cannot operate at peak efficiency unless the number of participants is maximized. Discrimination reduces the number of people who can participate and, therefore, artificially reduces the efficiency of the market.

True, but you're changing the argument by expanding it. Businesses that make such political statements are few and far between.

Also, the ones denied present an opportunity for others, a segment of the market demand waiting to be supplied.

It always baffles me how some self identified civil libertarians who feel the gooberment needs to butt out as much as I do suddenly get all bent out of shape when someone decides to stand up for one's principles, even if that decision will negatively affect their bottom line.

 

[outrider58]

That could easily be the case. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

So the question, then, is: what does that tell us, and how can we use it?

You can't simply invert the condition. That would be a logical fallacy. And that means you can't determine that someone is, or is even likely to be, a terrorist on the basis of whether or not they subscribe to Islam, at least not on the basis of that logic alone.

Islam accounts for about 21% of the population (per Wikipedia). To put that number in some context, Christianity accounts for about 33% of it (also per Wikipedia).


Before going further, maybe we should get the lay of the land first. So, to start with, just how many terrorists do you think are out there? How big is the terrorist population?

The answer is: Always one more than is tolerable.

 

[kcbrown]

Is this another version of "...you didn't build that!" Pa-lease.

No. This isn't about credit. It's about interdependence.

One can have an independent mindset, and one may even be able to survive by himself on the land if one were required to. But we are not where we are today because of our independence from one another, we are there because of our interdependence, because we specialized, and because we trade with one another. We provide the goods and services that we have gotten really good at making and in exchange for the goods and services that others have gotten really good at making and providing. And as time goes on, those goods and services continue to get better because during all that time, we invest our time and energy in making those things better, and by doing so become more specialized at what we do.


This whole thing has been about the consequences of discrimination in the marketplace, the very environment in which the specialization I speak of is most powerful. And the best some of you guys can do is to say that people who have specialized in that manner are somehow inferior if they cannot flourish in an environment of discrimination? Really?

 

[kcbrown]

Yes. That business would then be free to prosper or suffer based on that decision.

Yes. And if all of the competitors of that business do exactly the same thing, then the competition you envision will not exist with respect to that decision, and the end result will be that said decision will not have the detrimental effect you seem to think it would.

Yes, and?

We get discriminated against for the part you italicized on a regular basis. I then choose not to patronize said business. I'll give my money to someone who wants it.

And if there's nobody in your area who wants it? Then what?

I know what I theoretically "agreed" to, but where I live is beside the point.

No, it's not beside the point at all, it's actually critical to it. Discrimination doesn't happen in a vacuum, it happens in an environment.

Money is a powerful motivator, and any business exists to make money. The bigger ones didn't get where they are by turning away money. The question is how much one wants to shoot one's self in one's foot.

Really? Then explain how all of those businesses that discriminated against blacks back before/during the civil rights movement didn't magically go out of business. Explain how and why monopolies arise. Explain how and why collusion occurs.

You appear to be operating under the assumption that the market is simpler than it is, and (again) that it's wholly rational. It is only as rational as those who participate in it. Discrimination is, generally, irrational.

Apples and oranges. What you're describing here is beyond a political statement. Misrepresentation of one's product is criminal behavior.

That is a circular argument. It is criminal behavior because we have deemed it such. Similarly, we have deemed discrimination on the part of certain businesses to also be criminal behavior despite the fact that you disagree with that.

What we believe to be "criminal behavior" is not the question. The question is whether or not it is justifiable to deem it criminal behavior. Your apparent belief is that it is not justifiable to deem discrimination of any form to be criminal behavior.

It does. Word of mouth does get around, and the shysters do get exposed. I can think of a few gun shops that no longer exist because of the way they ran their operations.

Then why didn't the market fix things in the south prior to the civil rights movement?

I don't buy that for a minute. I think it's simply never been tried, because of the ever present tendency of people to use the gooberment as a crutch.

Really? So you think that most people buy things strictly on a rational basis? If not, then that knocks out up to half of the available rationality in the market automatically.

I'm not arguing that market forces aren't present. I'm arguing that they aren't always sufficient to cause the corrective action you envision happening, and the necessity of the civil rights movement proved it.

I don't buy that either. The BGOS is too strong here, and I would love to know exactly how many gun owners are hiding in the proverbial closet out of fear of being branded as right wing extremist knuckle dragging neanderthals. To think our little communitfy here comprises most of MD's gun owners is naive at best.

But they're not the MAJORITY. If they were, then they'd be able to vote the bastards out, right?

Define "major impact".

How about not being able to get electricity, for one?

I think there is a point you get to where cross the line into committing a criminal act, such as a doctor refusing to treat someone who's skin is darker than his/hers. The statement of banning those who practice a religion that has a world history of waging war on innocents hardly rises to that level.

Well, to use your own argument against you, why would a doctor in the above situation be committing a criminal act? Can't the person simply go to someone who values his business?

Fair enough. But muslims do not have any "right" to shoot at this particular range.

Nor am I arguing such. I'm arguing that the necessities of the market demand that discrimination be minimized. The market cannot function properly otherwise.

True, but you're changing the argument by expanding it. Businesses that make such political statements are few and far between.

That's true right now. That can change. It did change. "Political statements" are precisely what many businesses made against blacks before the civil rights movement.

But sauce for the goose, etc. We're talking about rules that apply to all businesses, not just this one. We demand fairness from the government, do we not? How can we get that if we insist that the government treat some businesses differently than others?

Also, the ones denied present an opportunity for others, a segment of the market demand waiting to be supplied.

Which is necessary, but not sufficient in and of itself. Every area of business has some barrier to entry. Some have barriers to entry that are so large that essentially nobody can break through them. I used the example of gasoline for a reason. While the barrier to entry of setting up a gas station may be small, the barrier to entry of manufacturing gasoline is enormous. If the few entities who are capable of manufacturing gasoline decided to impose a requirement on all of their buyers that those buyers could not sell to people who support the right to arms, and that those buyers must impose the same requirement on their buyers, the end result would be that people that can be identified as supporting the right to arms would be unable to buy gasoline. By your own argument, that kind of arrangement is perfectly fine.

It always baffles me how some self identified civil libertarians who feel the gooberment needs to butt out as much as I do suddenly get all bent out of shape when someone decides to stand up for one's principles, even if that decision will negatively affect their bottom line.

There are certain legitimate functions of government. One is to ensure that the market runs as correctly as possible. That function requires it to prevent monopolies, among other things. Monopolies are a natural consequence of a market left to its own devices, because of the existence of a positive acquisition feedback loop (put simply, the more you have, the more you can make). Discrimination is fundamentally a social issue, but it is precisely because it is social that it can exist in the marketplace in such a way as to remain unchecked. Such is precisely what happened prior to the civil rights movement.

In this specific case that we're talking about here, I completely agree that this range's decision will have no real effect. But that such is the case does not mean that you can legitimately extend that arbitrarily.

 

[traveller]

Wow, off on a tangent we are!

 

[wilcam47]

Even if you didn't want to go that far, the undeniable truth still remains. The majority of muslims may not be terrorists, but the majority of terrorists are muslims.

That could easily be the case. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

So the question, then, is: what does that tell us, and how can we use it?

You can't simply invert the condition. That would be a logical fallacy. And that means you can't determine that someone is, or is even likely to be, a terrorist on the basis of whether or not they subscribe to Islam, at least not on the basis of that logic alone.

Islam accounts for about 21% of the population (per Wikipedia). To put that number in some context, Christianity accounts for about 33% of it (also per Wikipedia).


Before going further, maybe we should get the lay of the land first. So, to start with, just how many terrorists do you think are out there? How big is the terrorist population?

21%

 

[kcbrown]

21%

The answer is: Always one more than is tolerable.

LOL! You guys are awesome. Crack me up.

(Totally agree with outrider58, as much of a non-answer as that might otherwise have been)


I really wish there were some easy way to identify a terrorist ahead of time, but there isn't.

I will say this, however: terrorists don't scare me. The right answer to terrorists is a well-armed and well-trained population, i.e. a well-regulated militia. I guarantee 9/11 wouldn't have happened if people had been allowed to carry firearms onto the airplane. Yeah, the flights that crashed into the twin towers might have crashed and burned anyway, but they wouldn't have killed thousands in the process.

As much as I've been arguing against public-facing businesses being able to discriminate against people, ensuring the proper function of the free market is one of the very few legitimate functions of government. This whole terrorist nonsense would be a non-issue if the government weren't interfering with the right of the people to be armed wherever and whenever they wished.


Oh, one more thing, and you guys might want to consider this carefully: if the government did not in any way interfere with the right to arms, but the airlines refused to allow people to carry firearms onto the airplane and were allowed to handle security themselves (so, no reinforced cockpit doors or any of that because such is expensive and the airlines wouldn't go for it), then 9/11 would have happened just the way it did. There is good reason to force businesses to respect the individual right to arms.

 

[44man]

Well, I'm glad to hear that you're fully independent of other people, that everything you've done for yourself and your family was done from scratch with your own two hands, and that you've not ever used, for the purpose of improving your own life or the lives of your family, anything built by others who specialized in what they did.

Good for you.

Meanwhile, the rest of us mere mortals will have to make do with specializing in what we do best so as to make ends meet, and sacrifice the independence you claim to have in the process. You know, the same thing that people throughout civilization have been doing for hundreds of years.


I've got news for you: very nearly everything you ever used was built by people who spent their lives learning to do it well at the sacrifice of being able to do other things that would have made them truly independent. The number of man-hours that went into figuring out what works and what doesn't and that ultimately led to those things you have used (and still use) coming into existence is in the billions. Nobody is truly an island unto themselves. Delude yourself into thinking that you are if you wish, but the very fact that you're using a computing device to post messages here puts the lie to that notion. I know you couldn't have designed and built that from scratch yourself.

all I can hear while reading this is obozo hollarin "you didn't build that".

what I rekon is you are young enough to have never really know what real independence is and what it felt like and what it is to build your own home or barn or roads or dig your own well ect. I now am less independent than I once was but if push came to shove I can make it without others for me and mine. I have the knowledge and the ability, although I am old now and cant do what I once did but I can teach others younger than me to do these things easily. I have worked with my hands and back my whole life and everything I have I got from the sweat of my brow. many others can say the same but many more can not.

you keep relying on others, I wont, but you go right ahead.

you also keep worrying about people wanting to keep with their own, I wont, but you go right ahead.

liberals always rub me the wrong way.

 

[5.56blaster]

Even if you didn't want to go that far, the undeniable truth still remains. The majority of muslims may not be terrorists, but the majority of terrorists are muslims.

And I have the hearing loss, limp and pictures to prove it. All you need to do is look at the news EVERYDAY! Anyone else see the pictures of the Nation of Islam folks hanging out with the gangs in Bodymore? Flashing gang signs with their bow ties on. Better wake up out there!

 

[pitpawten]

To consider her range a 'place of public accomodation' would require a judge to expand the definition. Maybe he could cram it in under 'place of entertainment', not sure whether that would fly. If the feds considered her operation a 'place of public accomodation', they wouldn't 'monitor' her but they would have already served her with an injunction. The feds 'monitoring' something means that they have nothing, just an intimidation tactic.

She claims that she is a private club and therefore exempted from any civil rights legislation (that is how some country clubs until recently kept out blacks, jews and catholics, often prompting the opening of competing clubs for their respective religion/ethnicity).

42 U.S.C. § 2000a(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

I am sure there has been litigation around what is considered a 'private club', just signing a piece of paper at registration that you are now a 'member' probably doesn't cut it.

Good research here, again I was not making a specific statement about how valid or appropriate this instance is but more-so on what criteria we have to use when talking about whether or not something is legal.

WRT Public vs Private there is some SCOTUS precedent for the court deeming an otherwise "Private" organization as "Public" in order to cause it to observe anti-discrimination statutes.

In Roberts v Jaycees the court deemed the Jaycees a "Public Accommodation" in order to allow women into membership (link).

 

[eruby]

Ugly, but the way it should be for private business.