Denver Bakery Refuses Service to Gay couple, sued and lost in court....

[traderdan]

As a capitalist, I want your money for whatever goods/services I may provide. This is just good business, however I reserve the right not to provide my goods/services to whomever I choose for whatever reason. My property, my rules. If I don't want weapons on my property then no weapons. The inside of your vehicle is NOT my property, therefore it is not my decision as to whether or not you have a weapon in your vehicle. If you come into my business armed, I have the right to deny you service. You as a consumer have a choice, where to do business, if my rights violate your rights go somewhere else.

I am sick and tired of people thinking that their rights out weigh my rights. The first amendment gives me the right to say whatever I want to say, when I want to say it. It does not give you the right not to be offended by what I say.

THAT...I agree with. The State of Indiana does not...You do not have the right to allow people to smoke in your business.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

THAT...I agree with. The State of Indiana does not...You do not have the right to allow people to smoke in your business.

Double standards have run amok. Political correctness is one of the biggest issues here.

 

[TRWXXA]

As a capitalist, I want your money for whatever goods/services I may provide. This is just good business, however I reserve the right not to provide my goods/services to whomever I choose for whatever reason. My property, my rules. If I don't want weapons on my property then no weapons. The inside of your vehicle is NOT my property, therefore it is not my decision as to whether or not you have a weapon in your vehicle. If you come into my business armed, I have the right to deny you service. You as a consumer have a choice, where to do business, if my rights violate your rights go somewhere else.

I am sick and tired of people thinking that their rights out weigh my rights. The first amendment gives me the right to say whatever I want to say, when I want to say it. It does not give you the right not to be offended by what I say.

To be clear, the decision affirming employees' rights to have firearms in their vehicles in company parking lots went beyond property rights. The courts recognized that an employer's prohibition of firearms on all workplace property was, in effect, disarming the employees on their way to and from work too -- an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[traderdan]

Had not paid enough attention to that issue to know that..it makes sense. Where are you Hornady?? Not a property rights issue after all!Thanks...
Sometimes I do not follow these things very closely..it would not affect me anyway..I will carry if I want to..

 

[TRWXXA]

Had not paid enough attention to that issue to know that..it makes sense. Where are you Hornady?? Not a property rights issue after all!Thanks...
Sometimes I do not follow these things very closely..it would not affect me anyway..I will carry if I want to..

Remember... The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. The courts determined that the tip of both parties' noses was the employee's vehicle.

 

[dross]

To be clear, the decision affirming employees' rights to have firearms in their vehicles in company parking lots went beyond property rights. The courts recognized that an employer's prohibition of firearms on all workplace property was, in effect, disarming the employees on their way to and from work too -- an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights.

A business is just a piece of property. I invite people in. Some of the people I invite are customers. Some of the people I invite are employees. Since it is MINE and not theirs, I should be able to make the rules. If the customers or the employees don't want to follow my rules, they have the full and complete CHOICE to not enter my property. I'm not disarming anyone by not allowing guns on my property. You are disarming yourself if you would rather visit my property than be armed. It's not hard, it's simple. It only becomes hard if you try to twist it to fit a personal agenda.

What is a violation of rights is when you petition to the government to make me run my private property to suit you. If you believe in freedom, you would just leave me alone and not be my customer or my employee. That solution violates nobody's rights.

 

[hornadylnl]

To be clear, the decision affirming employees' rights to have firearms in their vehicles in company parking lots went beyond property rights. The courts recognized that an employer's prohibition of firearms on all workplace property was, in effect, disarming the employees on their way to and from work too -- an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Funny that that reasoning doesn't apply to school or federal property.

 

[hornadylnl]

Had not paid enough attention to that issue to know that..it makes sense. Where are you Hornady?? Not a property rights issue after all!Thanks...
Sometimes I do not follow these things very closely..it would not affect me anyway..I will carry if I want to..

You can always choose a different employer just like that couple can choose a different bakery.

 

[dross]

Funny that that reasoning doesn't apply to school or federal property.

Ain't it though? The rights argument would make sense in a government setting. The government has never had a problem holding private citizens to a higher standard than it holds itself, though.

 

[hornadylnl]

Ain't it though? The rights argument would make sense in a government setting. The government has never had a problem holding private citizens to a higher standard than it holds itself, though.

Can't wait til an aethiest or satanist paints messages all over their vehicle and parks it in trader dans church parking lot. The vehicle is the property of the driver. The church is open to the public. The driver has freedom of speech and religion. Therefore trader dan cannot force him to remove it.

 

[TRWXXA]

Can't wait til an aethiest or satanist paints messages all over their vehicle and parks it in trader dans church parking lot. The vehicle is the property of the driver. The church is open to the public. The driver has freedom of speech and religion. Therefore trader dan cannot force him to remove it.

1st Amendment: "CONGRESS shall make no law..." The implication being, that the federal government can not infringe upon these rights.
2nd Amendment: "... shall not be infringed." -- period (and not President F***stick's kind of "period", which is apparently more like an asterisk). No mention of congress. The implication is that NO ONE can infringe upon this right.

 

[TRWXXA]

Funny that that reasoning doesn't apply to school or federal property.

Same war. Different battle.

 

[dross]

1st Amendment: "CONGRESS shall make no law..." The implication being, that the federal government can not infringe upon these rights.
2nd Amendment: "... shall not be infringed." -- period (and not President F***stick's kind of "period", which is apparently more like an asterisk). No mention of congress. The implication is that NO ONE can infringe upon this right.

A right may only be infringed upon by using force. Asking for someone to follow your rules and them choosing to comply is not an infringement of a right.

 

[TRWXXA]

A business is just a piece of property. I invite people in. Some of the people I invite are customers. Some of the people I invite are employees. Since it is MINE and not theirs, I should be able to make the rules. If the customers or the employees don't want to follow my rules, they have the full and complete CHOICE to not enter my property. I'm not disarming anyone by not allowing guns on my property. You are disarming yourself if you would rather visit my property than be armed. It's not hard, it's simple. It only becomes hard if you try to twist it to fit a personal agenda.

What is a violation of rights is when you petition to the government to make me run my private property to suit you. If you believe in freedom, you would just leave me alone and not be my customer or my employee. That solution violates nobody's rights.

Nice try. The employer/employee relationship is a contractual agreement. It is not, as you say, "an invitation". In exchange for payment, the employee is compelled to be there.

Don't agree? Try and get rid of an employee once you have hired them. It's not that easy, even in an "at will" state.

A rule that says employees can not have a firearm in their vehicle, in a company parking lot, DOES have the effect of disarming them when they are on their way to and from work. That IS an infringement of the employees' 2nd Amendment rights when they ARE NOT on company property.

You could try a, "Gun owners need not apply." sign on your business, and see how that goes. Alaska Airlines does it with tobacco users (as in, "no tobacco on the job, OR OFF). Then again, smoking is not a right expressly protected by the Constitution of the United States, is it?

 

[hornadylnl]

A right may only be infringed upon by using force. Asking for someone to follow your rules and them choosing to comply is not an infringement of a right.

Your state government can outlaw Christianity and enact sharia law.

Up thread, it was argued that the bakery owner had the freedom of religion, thus had the right to deny a gay couple. So wasn't it a state level court that said the bakery owner must serve the couple?

So can a business refuse service on religious grounds or not? Can an Amish businessman refuse service to a veteran on religious grounds?

 

[hornadylnl]

Nice try. The employer/employee relationship is a contractual agreement. It is not, as you say, "an invitation". In exchange for payment, the employee is compelled to be there.

Don't agree? Try and get rid of an employee once you have hired them. It's not that easy, even in an "at will" state.

A rule that says employees can not have a firearm in their vehicle, in a company parking lot, DOES have the effect of disarming them when they are on their way to and from work. That IS an infringement of the employees' 2nd Amendment rights when they ARE NOT on company property.

You could try a, "Gun owners need not apply." sign on your business, and see how that goes. Alaska Airlines does it with tobacco users (as in, "no tobacco on the job, OR OFF). Then again, smoking is not a right expressly protected by the Constitution of the United States, is it?

Park your car off property.

 

[dross]

Nice try. The employer/employee relationship is a contractual agreement. It is not, as you say, "an invitation". In exchange for payment, the employee is compelled to be there.

Don't agree? Try and get rid of an employee once you have hired them. It's not that easy, even in an "at will" state.

A rule that says employees can not have a firearm in their vehicle, in a company parking lot, DOES have the effect of disarming them when they are on their way to and from work. That IS an infringement of the employees' 2nd Amendment rights when they ARE NOT on company property.

You could try a, "Gun owners need not apply." sign on your business, and see how that goes. Alaska Airlines does it with tobacco users (as in, "no tobacco on the job, OR OFF). Then again, smoking is not a right expressly protected by the Constitution of the United States, is it?

Your thinking is muddled. Part of what muddles you is that other rights have been infringed in the past and you're building your argument on the backs of previous injustice.

I'm not disarming you by saying you can't be armed on MY property. You may disarm yourself, or you may not visit my property. No one is being forced into anything under that arrangement. You get to remain armed, I get to be in charge of my own property.

The government has infringed on my rights when they dictate to me why I may or may not terminate my relationship with an employee. After all, an employee may terminate his relationship with me whenever he wants for whatever reason he wants. Shouldn't I enjoy the same freedom?

The Constitution is a document that tells the government what it may and may not do. It does not tell citizens what they must do with their own property.

Am I allowed to come to your house and stand on your porch and give speeches? No. And you're not restricting my freedom of speech if you tell me to leave.

 

[dross]

As a larger picture, why are people comfortable with getting the government to use force to make a business act the way they want, but they're not comfortable doing the same in someone's house. To me, they're the same.

 

[TRWXXA]

A right may only be infringed upon by using force.

Wow... Are you serious? Do you just make s*** like that up all the time?

in·fringe \*Pronunciation:*\in-ˈfrinj\Function:*verbInflected Form(s):*in·fringed;*in·fring·ingEtymology: Medieval Latin*infringere,*from Latin, to break, crush, from*in-*+*frangere*to break — more at*breakDate: 1513transitive verb - 1*:*to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another -- Merriam-Webster

I don't see the word "force" in there, anywhere. Perhaps you are not as smart as you think you are. Thank you for playing

 

[TRWXXA]

Am I allowed to come to your house and stand on your porch and give speeches? No. And you're not restricting my freedom of speech if you tell me to leave.

But nor can I or the government compell you to STFU on your way home either.

Besides, your anaology is flawed. Again, we go to Constitution 101...

1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law..."
2nd Amendment: "... shall not be infringed." Congess is not mentioned.