Pass a law please.....

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

WessonOil

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Location
Norman
Yes, it's fine. The property owner should be free to choose who he allows on his property, period.

By the same token, those he offends can "vote with their wallets", and do business elsewhere, denying him the profits he would have made.

It's called "freedom of association".

And it would be legal to forbid "negroes" and "Messicans?"

Sounds like someone is condoning doing away with an amendment or two in the Bill of Rights, which is the same thing we accuse anti-gunners of.

Scary stuff.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,438
Reaction score
13,857
Location
Norman
Sounds like someone is condoning doing away with an amendment or two in the Bill of Rights, which is the same thing we accuse anti-gunners of.
Which Amendment guarantees the right to forcible association?

If a business owner wants to refuse service to anyone, he should be able to do so. I would not choose to do business with someone who refuses service to someone on the basis of skin color, religion, gender, etc, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. Hell, if the owner of a store tells me to leave because he refuses service to middle-aged white boys, I'm perfectly happy to take my business elsewhere. (That, IMHO, is a different topic than the assumption of liability.)
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Enid, OK
Agreed on the laws. No new laws needed. The current laws will work just fine. All we really need is some good caselaw on the subject. A perfect example would be the Luby's massacre in Killeen, TX law made carry on posted property illegal. Luby's posted against carry. Hupp elected to disarm in order to have a meal with her parents there. She lost her parents despite having a permit and a gun in her car.

This, good and noble sir is not correct. Texas law at the time of the Luby's massacre made concealed carry illegal in general. She did leave her gun in her truck, but Luby's policy had nothing to do with it; she was simply complying with Texas law.

At the time of the Luby's massacre, Texas did not have a CCW law. Hupp did not have a license at the time--no one in Texas did. The Luby's massacre was the thing that inspired Hupp to run for office so she could introduce a RTC bill in the Texas legislature. The first RTC bill passed by the legislature was vetoed by then-governor Ann Richards and a bill was finally signed into law by George W Bush, but like I say, this occurred after the Lub'ys massacre.
 

WessonOil

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Location
Norman
Which Amendment guarantees the right to forcible association?

If a business owner wants to refuse service to anyone, he should be able to do so. I would not choose to do business with someone who refuses service to someone on the basis of skin color, religion, gender, etc, but that doesn't mean I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. Hell, if the owner of a store tells me to leave because he refuses service to middle-aged white boys, I'm perfectly happy to take my business elsewhere. (That, IMHO, is a different topic than the assumption of liability.)

So you want it to be legal for Wal-Mart to post a sign that says "No Negroes Allowed?"
 

Arin Morris

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
656
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma City
www.dimensionsinfo.com_wp_content_uploads_2009_10_Mouse_Trap.jpg
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,300
Reaction score
4,223
Location
OKC area
So you want it to be legal for Wal-Mart to post a sign that says "No Negroes Allowed?"

Sure..if they have the balls to do it.

I also want it to be legal, well it is already, for such a place to be run out of business by the consumers, not the government, for doing so.
 

WessonOil

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
934
Reaction score
0
Location
Norman
Sure..if they have the balls to do it.

I also want it to be legal, well it is already, for such a place to be run out of business by the consumers, not the government, for doing so.

Religion and race are covered under the Bill of Rights, just as the right to arm ourselves is.
In the case of race, one doesn't even get to choose that.

I'd very much like to be a fly on the wall when you tell a "negro" or a "Jew" who is a highy decorated war veteran that they can't shop at your store.
 

SoonerP226

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
13,438
Reaction score
13,857
Location
Norman
Religion and race are covered under the Bill of Rights, just as the right to arm ourselves is.
In the case of race, one doesn't even get to choose that.
I think you need to go re-read the Bill of Rights. Race is not mentioned in there at all, and religion is only mentioned insofar as it prevents Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It says nothing about being able to force people to associate with anyone else.

As for your question about WaMart, being able to do something and actually doing it are two entirely different things. They would not post a sign like that not because it is illegal but because it's bad business--ignoring the certain protests, artificially limiting your business is a mistake when you're trying to sell as much as possible.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom