No Firearms Signs

[BehindBlueI's]

And for right now the intellectual "betters" have elected to focus on firearms consumers and companies; what happens when the next great idea for the "betterment" of the benighted, unwashed masses comes up?

Dunno. INGO has assured me that businesses refusing to serve customers who agree to the terms any other customer is allowed to do business at is harmless and you just go to another business. I've also been assured business won't band together to hurt a class of customers.

 

[Trigger Time]

They can put whatever they want on the door. If I have a gun or not will never be discussed or discovered unless it's a life or death need and in that case I guess I'll take my chances either way

 

[Kutnupe14]

Dunno. INGO has assured me that businesses refusing to serve customers who agree to the terms any other customer is allowed to do business at is harmless and you just go to another business. I've also been assured business won't band together to hurt a class of customers.

Now that is the hiccup. I admittedly don't know how to reconcile that with my personal beliefs. If business conspire to discriminate in order to keep a certain type of people away, then that's a problem. And it surely can happen.

 

[Trigger Time]

Now that is the hiccup. I admittedly don't know how to reconcile that with my personal beliefs. If business conspire to discriminate in order to keep a certain type of people away, then that's a problem. And it surely can happen.

I'm ok with discrimination by businesses. If you dont want gun owners clearly say it. If you dont want one race or another clearly say it (and it works both ways, I'm not just meaning people of color). If you dont want gays say it.
I'd rather businesses be perfectly clear and up front. And I think it's their right to do so. Who wants to shop where you arent truly welcome?

In regards to no gun signs, sometimes it's a fashion statement basicly. It's the in thing to do. Other times its because of a false sense of security.

 

[MarkC]

Dunno. INGO has assured me that businesses refusing to serve customers who agree to the terms any other customer is allowed to do business at is harmless and you just go to another business. I've also been assured business won't band together to hurt a class of customers.

Well, golly, they must be right. I guess that's never happened before, businesses banding together to the disadvantage of a disfavored constituency.

 

[KLB]

I have mixed emotions about this. I believe no gun signs violate my rights. I also choose to not spend money where no gun signs are displayed.

I guess you could say I want my cake and to eat it too.

How does someone making rules for the use of their property violate your rights?

This isn't about the government putting restrictions on you. You don't have a right to use their property.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, they should. However, the problem is the govt deems certain groups as protected classes, while others are not. Business owners should be able to serve those they choose and let the market sort it out (turn away enough folks and go out of business, etc) , but that is not how it is.

There is a very large monument downtown Indianapolis to those who died defeating this idea.

This nation has been involved in ensuring businesses are open to all people since the first Civil Rights Act in 1866. (First test case was a hotel in Indianapolis).

 

[Tanfodude]

So if a bakery post signs they don't make wedding related goodies to gays, that holds weight right? Are they safe from civil lawsuits? If not, can these establishments be sued for denying someone exercising their 2A rights?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So if a bakery post signs they don't make wedding related goodies to gays, that holds weight right? Are they safe from civil lawsuits? If not, can these establishments be sued for denying someone exercising their 2A rights?

You can sue for anything.

 

[jamil]

Dunno. INGO has assured me that businesses refusing to serve customers who agree to the terms any other customer is allowed to do business at is harmless and you just go to another business. I've also been assured business won't band together to hurt a class of customers.

Sorry about the ramble. I've marked a few paragraphs as unnecessary but stuff I still wanted to say. But No. I wouldn't say it's harmless, at least I wouldn't say that anymore. I've evolved on my position of that, in part because you made some rational points about that in prior discussions. So thanks for that. Where I think it's still a valid argument, if there are plenty of other businesses eager to serve regardless, I'd still say there's no real harm done. Where I've evolved is when such practices creates a defacto sort of oppression, and those conditions exist, an they're far from zero.

<TLDR>
Maybe in rural areas there's only one bakery in 100 miles. Or maybe there's an association of widget makers which one has a defacto existential requirement to join, and the association has some harmful rules you must follow. Maybe one financial institution has such power and influence over other financial institutions that they can make it nearly impossible for gun related companies to finance their businesses. THOSE circumstances can certainly be real, and not harmless because it presents a defacto kind of oppression for affected people to pursue their lives freely. It's hard to reason that such conditions aren't anti-libertarian.

The rights of the service provider is an ideological principle which says that service providers are one of two parts of a contract, and as such they have veto power over the services provided. That's a good principle, but it can be taken too far. Ideology, even good ones, untempered by pragmatic reality, creates ideologues. And ideologues tend to create inequitably bad solutions. And in this case it doesn't recognize the harm done.

I'd say the debate on it shouldn't be whether or not it's harmful. It's obvious it certainly can be. It should be more about solutions, and the potential for harmful solutions. One side says, just go somewhere else. The other side says, just force the business to serve. I think both of those solutions are harmful. Maybe there's a middle ground which limits the kind of harm businesses can do to individuals, and also isn't harmfully authoritarian.
</TLDR>

In a nutshell, I'm not denying there's a problem. I don't think it's consistent with a live and let live guiding philosophy for defacto oppression to exist. But I don't really know a tenable solution that doesn't just create another type of defacto oppression. Gays have as much right to gay weddings as straight people have for straight ones. But also, people have a right to believe that "gayness" is immoral. Also, large conglomerate social justice warriors have a right to believe that guns are the problem, and that they shouldn't have to help gun manufacturers propagate the evil that they believe are guns. But it's just as oppressive to business owners to force them to comply with something that goes against their conscience. this is the basis for the first amendment.

So there are two parts to the story, and I think the best solution would be one where both sides aren't coerced by the other, especially using the government's guns. What does that look like? I have some ideas but really nothing I'm sure is practical. Both sides engaging in an honest discussion would be a better way to solve it than either side having an authoritarian way to solve it. It doesn't look to me like they're capable of doing this, however.

For example, maybe some bakers could be convinced through honest dialog that they're not going to go to hell if they bake a cake with two dudes on it. Can the other side even engage in honest dialog? Maybe banker SJWs could be convinced that guns aren't the great evil; people are. And there are probably better solutions to the problem of violence than oppressing the people they disagree with. For example, income inequality has the highest correlation with violence by far--much higher than availability of guns. What are the bankers doing to resolve that?

 

[jamil]

Now that is the hiccup. I admittedly don't know how to reconcile that with my personal beliefs. If business conspire to discriminate in order to keep a certain type of people away, then that's a problem. And it surely can happen.

Yes. Businesses can band together to force compliance to lots of stuff. To survive in some industries it's almost a defacto requirement to be a member of the industry's association. Those associations have rules. Probably those associations couldn't create rules which requires member companies to discriminate against race--that's against the law. But they could require discrimination against any other unprotected social grouping.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[HoughMade]

So if a bakery post signs they don't make wedding related goodies to gays, that holds weight right? Are they safe from civil lawsuits? If not, can these establishments be sued for denying someone exercising their 2A rights?

It is not "against the law" to refuse to "bake the cake"....unless there is a law that says you have to.

Does Indiana have such a law?

Does your municipality?

Buehler?....Buehler?...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That city across the river from me mandates that all cakes be Purdue related.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

For example, maybe some bakers could be convinced through honest dialog that they're not going to go to hell if they bake a cake with two dudes on it. Can the other side even engage in honest dialog? Maybe banker SJWs could be convinced that guns aren't the great evil; people are.

And when you stand to lose more business from boycotts than you gain from engaging with a marginalized industry/community?

You think these bank execs just woke up one day and decided guns are bad, m'kay? Or its an economics decision?

Historically, if a group of outraged citizens and business owners decide to not sell to "them" to keep "them" in their place, has there been coercion and retaliation for hold out businesses that continue to deal with "them"?

A bright line law protects both parties. If you open a business that sells widgets, and a widget is $x, everyone who presents you with $x gets a widget. Businesses aren't boycotted for treating "them" equally because they are legally required to and there' s no market pressure to be on the "right" side of whatever the latest front on the culture wars is. Customers get full access to the economy, no more protected classes/industries.

 

[HoughMade]

...except for the part where your personal morality doesn't depend on what the law is and now you're forced out of business. One "marginalized group" has the right to marginalize another group. Seems fair.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This conversation reminds me of the quote that goes something like our system of government was intended for a moral and just people; it is wholly inadequate for a people who are not. When we don't treat one another with respect and depend on the government to come in and referee what should be a private matter, when we turn to the government to raise barriers to competition, to make it unfair to rivals, to be our moral compass, it seems only natural we'll need more government to fix the wrinkles, loop holes, carve outs, subsidies, cronyism, protected classes, etc. to arbitrate what some think is fair.

 

[jamil]

And when you stand to lose more business from boycotts than you gain from engaging with a marginalized industry/community?

You think these bank execs just woke up one day and decided guns are bad, m'kay? Or its an economics decision?

Historically, if a group of outraged citizens and business owners decide to not sell to "them" to keep "them" in their place, has there been coercion and retaliation for hold out businesses that continue to deal with "them"?

A bright line law protects both parties. If you open a business that sells widgets, and a widget is $x, everyone who presents you with $x gets a widget. Businesses aren't boycotted for treating "them" equally because they are legally required to and there' s no market pressure to be on the "right" side of whatever the latest front on the culture wars is. Customers get full access to the economy, no more protected classes/industries.

Your idea has one side protected. What about the other?

What about Dick's? Do you think they hired a gun control lobbyist to head off potential boycotts by anti-gun people? Sure. Some of it is just an economics decision in fear of boycotts. Some of it is people acting out their beliefs. Christian bakers aren't refusing to bake cakes because they think they'll lose the Christian business. The place where you drew the line is bright. But it protects primarily consumers. It protects businesses from fear of boycotts, because they can sit behind the law and "it's the law." Consumers can choose not to do business with anyone they want. Why can't business owners?

I'd rather find a better solution than that.

 

[jamil]

This conversation reminds me of the quote that goes something like our system of government was intended for a moral and just people; it is wholly inadequate for a people who are not. When we don't treat one another with respect and depend on the government to come in and referee what should be a private matter, when we turn to the government to raise barriers to competition, to make it unfair to rivals, to be our moral compass, it seems only natural we'll need more government to fix the wrinkles, loop holes, carve outs, subsidies, cronyism, protected classes, etc. to arbitrate what some think is fair.

I think in cases where businesses can create a defacto oppression for a group of people, that's a problem. It's also a problem when a group of consumers can oppress another group of people through coercing businesses to create a defacto oppression, that's a problem. I don't think government is the solution to all problems. Maybe it's the only solution to some problems. I'm not convinced it's the solution to this problem.

About morality, sure. We can say that liberty is intended for a moral and just people. But unicorns only exist in shopped photos of Churchmouse. I'd say you're right in more relative terms, that liberty is more compatible with moral people than immoral people, and that the more homogeneously moral we are, the fewer societal ill effects liberty causes. But what do you do with that? I'd say we can make a better society by being better citizens ourselves, and influencing everyone we can, to the extent we can, to be better citizens themselves. And then just realize that liberty comes with baggage like this. If you want bakers to be free to not serve gays, you have to put up with businesses not wanting to serve you if you're a gun guy, and Dick's hiring lobbyists to troll congress to take your guns away.

I'd like to think that reason could save both sides, but it doesn't seem all that practical either. And I'll guarantee you that making the bright line law which requires serving everyone is not practical either. No way in hell is that law getting passed in this climate.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Your idea has one side protected. What about the other?

What about Dick's? Do you think they hired a gun control lobbyist to head off potential boycotts by anti-gun people? Sure. Some of it is just an economics decision in fear of boycotts. Some of it is people acting out their beliefs. Christian bakers aren't refusing to bake cakes because they think they'll lose the Christian business. The place where you drew the line is bright. But it protects primarily consumers. It protects businesses from fear of boycotts, because they can sit behind the law and "it's the law." Consumers can choose not to do business with anyone they want. Why can't business owners?

I'd rather find a better solution than that.

You say it protects one side, then list how it protects both sides. Not sure what else to say there.

Dick's isn't an issue. If you don't sell assault widgets to anyone, then you aren't discriminating...you just don't carry that product. I'm not advocating McD's makes you a taco if you order one. I'm advocating anyone with a dollar (and tax) can buy an item off the dollar menu, regardless of politics, race, religion, occupation, etc.

As far as why can't businesses choose like individuals can, businesses aren't people and do not have the same rights (despite creep in that direction). Businesses can't claim freedom of association when merging a forming a monopoly, for example. Why can't banks band together and decide to not lend to firearms companies or process credit card transactions for gun stores?

...except for the part where your personal morality doesn't depend on what the law is and now you're forced out of business. One "marginalized group" has the right to marginalize another group. Seems fair.

Somebody probably shut down their restaurant rather than let everyone sit at the same lunch counter. When you assign a moral component to a commercial transaction based on who the customer is, that's a risk you run.