Lawsuit: Missouri shooting range made Muslim woman remove hijab

[Kirk Freeman]

This is the bill that tells private businesses what to do: https://www.indystar.com/story/news...ban-vaccine-status-discrimination/9033808002/

 

[Ziggidy]

If I remember correctly, many conservatives were denied entry into places of business, asked to leave places of business just because of who they were, what they represented.

It becomes more apparent every day that laws only apply to conservatives, those who vote against and do not support the socialistic leaders that are overtaking this country.

 

[KLB]

Really looking forward to hearing INGO's views on SB114 that was just proposed.

Oh, I'll play.

None of the .gov's business if they try to tell the business what to do in this case. Neither telling them they can't or telling them they must.

It's also none of the businesses business if I am. If they ask, I can tell them none of their business. If they insist, I can tell them where they can put their question, just like with the mask nonsense.

I say all of that with one exception. The WuFlu can't be the only one that is treated this way, and we all know that there is already an exception in place for other diseases.

 

[DadSmith]

If I remember correctly, many conservatives were denied entry into places of business, asked to leave places of business just because of who they were, what they represented.

It becomes more apparent every day that laws only apply to conservatives, those who vote against and do not support the socialistic leaders that are overtaking this country.

Legally the only discrimination allowed is political. So you can refuse your type of business to anyone you disagree with politically. It isn't in the law and yes it's been used many times to kick people out that support American ideals over socialist ideals.

If I'm wrong I'm sure our lawyers can provide the law that protects you from political discrimination.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This one?​

​

DIGEST OF SB114 (Updated February 8, 2005 4:26 pm - DI 84)​

Hypnotists. Requires that a hypnotist appointed to the hypnotist committee have a master's or doctorate degree. Allows current members who do not have a master's or doctorate degree to complete their terms on the committee. Provides that a member on the committee serves at the pleasure of the governor. Removes the classroom hours requirement from obtaining a hypnotist certificate and from serving on the hypnotist committee. Requires an applicant for a hypnotist certificate to pass a test.

This is, by far, the most interesting thing to come out of this thread. You win one Internet For The Day point. I will tell stories of you to my people, and they will repeat them for generations to come.

 

[Denny347]

God forbid the shooting range calls 911 and the responding officer gets videoed telling the woman that if she wants to stay, she will have to remove the Hajib or risk being arrested for trespass. Jackboots at it again......

 

[HoughMade]

Public shooting range=public accomodation?

I think that is the Heart of it.

Uh oh, it's just off I-435




Anyhoo, I think we all know what the law is. We can have a healthy debate about whether there should be a federal law that controls what customers a private business must serve. I have a tendency to say "no", at least in the modern era, but the law is what it is.

The question (barring an unlikely and rapid change in the law) is whether there is adequate evidence that the decision to tell her she cannot wear the Hijab is discriminatory based upon religion (or ethnicity). This is where every social media post showing people shooting there with any head covering other than a ball cap facing forward will be in play.

'Course, I'm not sure that this "only ball caps facing forward" was the "official" policy or if there was an "official" headgear policy that was posted or in writing....or whether the whole "shrapnel" thing was the real reason behind it. Bad results often accompany making stuff up as you go along because a spur-of-the-moment explanation that doesn't make sense has a tendency to be the one that gets used even if there is a real policy that makes more sense (though what that could be, I do not know). Those who work at ranges, is any sort of headgear policy common? Have you heard of one?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Uh oh, it's just off I-435


View attachment 174399

Anyhoo, I think we all know what the law is. We can have a healthy debate about whether there should be a federal law that controls what customers a private business must serve. I have a tendency to say "no", at least in the modern era, but the law is what it is.

The question (barring an unlikely and rapid change in the law) is whether there is adequate evidence that the decision to tell her she cannot wear the Hijab is discriminatory based upon religion (or ethnicity). This is where every social media post showing people shooting there with any head covering other than a ball cap facing forward will be in play.

'Course, I'm not sure that this "only ball caps facing forward" was the "official" policy or if there was an "official" headgear policy that was posted or in writing....or whether the whole "shrapnel" thing was the real reason behind it. Bad results often accompany making stuff up as you go along because a spur-of-the-moment explanation that doesn't make sense has a tendency to be the one that gets used even if there is a real policy that makes more sense (though what that could be, I do not know). Those who work at ranges, is any sort of headgear policy common? Have you heard of one?

Fair enough. Agreed.

I am likely letting my personal experiences bias me. My experiences with those of Middle Eastern descent have shown that they are even more pro-2A than my family.

 

[Cameramonkey]

As for a "shrapnel" policy, a ban on exposed cleavage makes more sense than a hijab. If anything the hijab will protect her from getting brass against the skin.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is, by far, the most interesting thing to come out of this thread. You win one Internet For The Day point. I will tell stories of you to my people, and they will repeat them for generations to come.

By a campfire I hope.

 

[Leadeye]

As for a "shrapnel" policy, a ban on exposed cleavage makes more sense than a hijab. If anything the hijab will protect her from getting brass against the skin.

Cleavage=brass catcher, over the years that's been my observation.

 

[rhamersley]

Cleavage=brass catcher, over the years that's been my observation.

 

[klausm]

As for a "shrapnel" policy, a ban on exposed cleavage makes more sense than a hijab.

NNNNOOOOOO!!!!!

 

[kickbacked]

If I remember correctly, many conservatives were denied entry into places of business, asked to leave places of business just because of who they were, what they represented.

It becomes more apparent every day that laws only apply to conservatives, those who vote against and do not support the socialistic leaders that are overtaking this country.

The same happened to democrats.

 

[Ingomike]

Oh, I'll play.

None of the .gov's business if they try to tell the business what to do in this case. Neither telling them they can't or telling them they must.

It's also none of the businesses business if I am. If they ask, I can tell them none of their business. If they insist, I can tell them where they can put their question, just like with the mask nonsense.

I say all of that with one exception. The WuFlu can't be the only one that is treated this way, and we all know that there is already an exception in place for other diseases.

YES. YES. YES. The business should be allowed, completely on their own without any government coercion, ban those without vaccinations for viruses, IF they equally do similar for other viruses. The business should be responsible for explaining why they have a policy for some viruses and not others.

 

[Twangbanger]

YES. YES. YES. The business should be allowed, completely on their own without any government coercion, ban those without vaccinations for viruses, IF they equally do similar for other viruses. The business should be responsible for explaining why they have a policy for some viruses and not others.

It's "their business, their rules"...I thought they didn't owe anybody an explanation?

 

[HoughMade]

It's "their business, their rules"...I thought they didn't owe anybody an explanation?

It all depends upon whose Al is being Gored....

 

[Cameramonkey]

It all depends upon whose Al is being Gored....

Yep. Tell somebody they cant have something because they are a minority, oh lawd! Thats a lawsuit!

Tell somebody they cant have something because they are white and have had too many years of privilege and oppressing others? Thats A-OK.

NYC admits prioritizing race in distributing COVID tests: leaked emails

Leaked emails show that New York City health officials have been using race to decide how to allocate precious coronavirus testing resources.

nypost.com

 

[Ingomike]

It's "their business, their rules"...I thought they didn't owe anybody an explanation?

They should also be allowed to defend themselves in court when they get sued for discrimination…

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I feel like the bill requiring a hypnotist to have an advanced degree is getting insufficient attention, here. Who really gives a **** about the latest balkanization attempt on both the cultural and economic fronts when you have government intrusion in to who can and cannot make you think you're a bunny and/or quit smoking?