So a sign denying service to Muslims, gays, trannys, etc. is fine? Really need to get rid of the "we don't take kindly to your kind around here" mindset.
"Business owners should have an obligation to protect," lol wow.
No. Business owners should think before assuming liability. Business owners should utilize reasonable and available safety precautions or allow their patrons to do so. That's i. No more, no less.
So a sign denying service to Muslims, gays, trannys, etc. is fine? Really need to get rid of the "we don't take kindly to your kind around here" mindset.
No. Business owners should think before assuming liability. Business owners should utilize reasonable and available safety precautions or allow their patrons to do so. That's i. No more, no less.
No, it's not fine. Those are protected groups under U.S. laws...SDA permit holders are not a "protected group".
I agree in part...my point is where does the patron's responsibility begin and end in a free-will environment? If you approach an establishment and see a "no guns" sign and then choose to go back to your vehicle, disarm, and enter the establishment anyway, why should the business owner be liable for a situation that you willingly put yourself into?
While the business owner may have limited your options to respond to a threat (limited, not removed entirely), the business owner did not create the situation that resulted in the criminal act taking place...unless you have some statistics that prove crime is more likely to happen in a business that prohibits concealed carry (real statistics, not anecdotes).
We need less laws and regulation of business. Not more.
It seems that permit holders (all gun owners) would be protected by the 2nd Ammendment if other groups are protected by laws. Can't have it both ways, either a business owner gets to decide who comes in their business or not.
I guess it comes down to what your definition of "reasonable" is. About 70% of the US think it's reasonable"to rely on the police for their safety (as misguided as that is). If you and the business owner are in disagreement about something being unreasonable (gun policy, safety, prices, bathroom cleanliness, selection of cat food, or whatever) it's probably reasonable to find a business owner that agrees with you.
Intentionally patronizing unsafe places is just reckless.
No, it's not fine. Those are protected groups under U.S. laws...SDA permit holders are not a "protected group".
I agree in part...my point is where does the patron's responsibility begin and end in a free-will environment? If you approach an establishment and see a "no guns" sign and then choose to go back to your vehicle, disarm, and enter the establishment anyway, why should the business owner be liable for a situation that they didn't create (the criminal act) but you willingly exposed yourself to?
While the business owner may have limited your options to respond to a threat (limited, not removed entirely), the business owner did not create the situation that resulted in the criminal act taking place...unless you have some statistics that prove crime is more likely to happen in a business that prohibits concealed carry (real statistics, not anecdotes).
We need less laws and regulation of business. Not more.
No, it's not fine. Those are protected groups under U.S. laws...SDA permit holders are not a "protected group".
We need less laws and regulation of business. Not more.
Apples and oranges. You can put shoes/shirt on, put out a cigarette, or take a gun off to come into a store...a black man can't change the color of his skin or a Muslim can't change his religion at the door.
But I see your point...drop it all. Let the market sort it out. I'd love to see just how successful a business would be in this day and age if they were free to discriminate based on sex, race, religion etc...they would go down faster than a store that hung a No Guns sign.
Face it, gun owners are a small group. Concealed permit holders who actively carry are even smaller. We don't even pop up on the scale when it comes to driving business decisions....asking the government to force those decisions for us is antithetical to liberty and free-will.
Enter your email address to join: