Property Rights vs. Liberty Rights, Who SHOULD win?

[jve153]

starbucks has been brought under media fire a few times for their "controversial" firearms policy. they allow them within the letter of the law in the state that they are operating in.

 

[danimal]

Does running a business from your home automatically invalidate your rights as an individual property owner, forcing you to serve people you don't want to? Or allowing people onto your property you don't want?

If you ran a business, like a landscaping service, from your house, could you deny service to a "protected class", since you don't provide those services on your own property?

I just read over title II of the civil rights act of '64, and my legal fu is weak, so bear with me. It is saying that "places of public accommodation" (PoPA) cannot deny service to the "protected class"es, but what if the property owner (who is not affiliated with the business/PoPA) denies them permission to access their property? Would the business get in trouble for not servicing them? Could the owner of the property be compelled/forced to allow people onto their property against their will by the government?

Turn Mrs. Pincraft's question around, "should a business be allowed to deny service based upon you not carrying a firearm?"

What about hoplophobia? Would a hoplophobe be able to sue a business because the owner has firearms on premise, or allows patrons to have them? People with disabilities are protected classes, aren't they?

My personal view is that a business should be allowed to deny service to anybody for any reason, protected "class" or not. It is not mine, nor anyone else's right to dictate to a business who they are to serve.

 

[CX1]

My personal view is that a business should be allowed to deny service to anybody for any reason, protected "class" or not. It is not mine, nor anyone else's right to dictate to a business who they are to serve.

You are welcome to your personal view. You could be violating the law if you attempt to enforce that view on business property that your own that falls under the Civil Rights Act though.

I don't think your 'my landlord won't allow me to service those particular customers even though they are a protected class' would go very far. Because as a landlord they would be bound to the Civil Rights Act as well. (I''m sure 88GT can correct me if I am wrong on that but I don't think a landlord can require that their renters not to allow a protected class into their rented property.).

Turn Mrs. Pincraft's question around, "should a business be allowed to deny service based upon you not carrying a firearm?"

Why not?
Granted not having a firearm might be a tenet of a particular religion and they might be able to show that requiring to have a firearm on their person is a violation of their religious freedom. However I don't think that would work since they are not forced to enter the store.

What about hoplophobia? Would a hoplophobe be able to sue a business because the owner has firearms on premise, or allows patrons to have them? People with disabilities are protected classes, aren't they?

You seem to be confusing the issue of allowing entry of a protected class and completely following all beliefs of that same class.
Example: Denny's has to allow Muslims to enter into their restaurants. However said Muslim can not sue Denny's for having bacon on the menu or serving other customers bacon.

 

[actaeon277]

Surprised no one has mentioned this, unless I missed it.
The 2nd Amendment (and the others) are limitations on the government. Originally, limitations on the Feds only, then later expanded so that some cover all govt entities.
It wasn't recently that the right to plead the 5th applied to everyone, because it wasn't in all States Constitutions.

Therefore, how can a limitation on the govt apply to a business.
If you don't like the rules of a business, do not patronize it.

 

[hornadylnl]

If you don't like the rules of a business, do not patronize it.

But I want to go to that bar and I don't want to smell smoke.

 

[actaeon277]

But I want to go to that bar and I don't want to smell smoke.

I'm a non- smoker, and I don't like that law either.
There were restaurants I didn't go to because of the smoke.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm a non- smoker, and I don't like that law either.
There were restaurants I didn't go to because of the smoke.

He's just joshin' you...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Surprised no one has mentioned this, unless I missed it.
The 2nd Amendment (and the others) are limitations on the government. Originally, limitations on the Feds only, then later expanded so that some cover all govt entities.
It wasn't recently that the right to plead the 5th applied to everyone, because it wasn't in all States Constitutions.

Therefore, how can a limitation on the govt apply to a business.
If you don't like the rules of a business, do not patronize it.

I'm saying that, in other threads, til I was purple in the face...
You get it.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm a non- smoker, and I don't like that law either.
There were restaurants I didn't go to because of the smoke.

He's just joshin' you...

Yep. Just pointing out the double standards of the mann. They like government control when it benefits them but scream bloody murder when it doesn't.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I answered "Yes" because I want the law to respect property rights. However, at a personal level, I care more about my property (my body) than I care about their property rules. If they invite my property (me) to visit their property, I personally don't give a flying !@#$ about their wishes regarding one of the tools I carry with me. I CC, but if they catch me & request that I leave, I'll walk straight for the door with nary a word.

Given the opportunity, I'll direct my business to a more friendly competitor...but too many business sectors don't offer alternatives.

 

[hrearden]

Yep, they can refuse service for any reason, it is their choice to lose customers permanently. The real issue is if they can press charges, and the answer should always be only for tress passing if the carrier will not leave. Unfortunately, in many states, just walking into a store with a no guns sign is a prosecutable crime, that usually results in revocation of the carry permit, and this is so far from honoring the 2A that it should not be allowed in any state, because shopping becomes like walking a legal minefield, therefore the burden on the carrier is too onerous.

Couldnt have said it better myself. Peoples property is their property. If its illegal to deny carry of handguns to people at private businesses, why not make it illegal to do so at peoples homes? Would you like a law dictating what you want on your property and what you dont? I love our second amendment rights, but private property takes precedent. Im not saying it "trumps" second amendment (it wouldnt be legal to physically force someone to remove their weapon, but it would be legal to order them to leave). Ordering people to allow carry on their private property is akin to banning smoking in businesses. Dont like the rules? Dont support the business.

The fact that wearing a gun in a "prohibited area" is a prosecutable offense is a problem in that it means you are not really "free" to do a damn thing. If you were, you could carry anywhere, and it would be personal choice by the property owner whether or not they wanted concealed weapons. Honestly, this could be applied to the whole smoking controversy as well.

 

[Ted]

Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
One can choose to carry a gun or choose not to carry one.
One cannot choose their race.

Religious affiliation is also a protected class, but people can choose their religion.

 

[88GT]

Thank you all for responding! I hope you will continue to respond. In thinking about what we refer to as "rights," JimmyR is correct, we have to define them. This, of course, is the deeper point to my query. I think its a question we all have a "knee-jerk" response to because of how we have been socialized to view the 2nd Amend.

The post by Netsecurity shapes up the point better than I framed the question. Many people who are simply exercising their right to carry are met with an intrusive inquiry from the government regarding those rights.

For those of you who feel a business can post such a policy, what is the difference then between posting a no guns sign and a whites only sign? Should a business owner be taken seriously by the police with such "trespass" complaints? Does the fact that (1) gun carry in 1791 was hardly limited; or (2) gun control laws began their ascent based upon discrimination against blacks?

See below.

The public doesn't have rights. And I will direct you to ATM's response for the rest of it. You voluntarily abdicate your claim to the exercise of certain behaviors upon acceptance of the invitation to step onto someone else's property. That said property is a business or private residence is absolutely 100% irrelevant.

Current bogus federal regulations mandating protection of whiners and crybabies to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.

There is no difference save what the .gov creates. And if that's all you've got, I'll have none of it. Thank you.

What's wrong with me telling someone of a different race/skin color/country of origin that he can't patronize my business or that I won't serve him?

I'm entitled the use of your property on my terms. Hell, I even get to dictate how YOU use your own property. I can't have you using your property as a weapon against me.

Pretty much what it boils down to. When do you think they'll let us start burning the crosses on their front lawns because our free speech can't be trumped by their property rights.

Gun owners are not a protected class of people.
One can choose to carry a gun or choose not to carry one.
One cannot choose their race.

Absolute straw man.

Basically because it is the law. Business property owners have a somewhat different set of rules they must abide by in order to be allowed to conduct business from their property compared to the owner of non-commercial property.

If you want to bar a certain race from your residence then other then for legally allowed exceptions you could. A business is not allowed to do that.

So what happens when it's a law that firearms are prohibited?

 

[Ted]

The public doesn't have rights. And I will direct you to ATM's response for the rest of it. You voluntarily abdicate your claim to the exercise of certain behaviors upon acceptance of the invitation to step onto someone else's property. That said property is a business or private residence is absolutely 100% irrelevant.

Current bogus federal regulations mandating protection of whiners and crybabies to the contrary notwithstanding, of course.

The public....a/k/a people.....do have rights. Both as a collective, as well as individually. And while I conditionally agree with you that the abdication of stated behaviors as a condition of treading upon one's physical property is justified, some behaviors are, in fact, protected by law.

 

[Iroquois]

They have a right to refuse service...you have a right to disseminate that info so your
Fellow INGO-ites know not to drive over there and then have to argue with the wife
over not going in after making that special trip all the way over there....
NAME NAMES...GIVE ADRESSES!!!

 

[CX1]

What's wrong with me telling someone of a different race/skin color/country of origin that he can't patronize my business or that I won't serve him?

Lets not forget gender is one of those particular protected classes.
Would you be fine with the gun store owners telling you "Sorry little lady but you need to bring your man down here if you are wanting a gun"?
Or how about we go back to the time when women couldn't own property but were rather the property of their father or husband.

Pretty much what it boils down to. When do you think they'll let us start burning the crosses on their front lawns because our free speech can't be trumped by their property rights.

Pretty much never since your right to free speech does not trump another person's rights. But burn as many as you want on your own property (as long as there is not a burn ban or similar in your area)

So what happens when it's a law that firearms are prohibited?

In some places crime goes down and in others it goes up? At least that is what the murder rates seem to show.

 

[actaeon277]

Lets not forget gender is one of those particular protected classes.
Would you be fine with the gun store owners telling you "Sorry little lady but you need to bring your man down here if you are wanting a gun"?
Or how about we go back to the time when women couldn't own property but were rather the property of their father or husband.
...
:

Maybe you haven't read any of her posts before.
I think (and I could be wrong), that she would not like a business that would not serve her. BUT it would be their right.

AND it would be her right to post the injustice, get people to stop going, and NOT INVOLVE BIG BROTHER.

Bit I could be wrong. She might just punch them herself, she seems pretty direct.

 

[actaeon277]

He's just joshin' you...

Ummmmm.
I do know his style.
And I was agreeing with him.
I am just more verbose.

How would the people that want 2nd Amend to trump react if they were trying to have romantic dinner with significant other, and people were allowed to stage a pro-vegan protest.
Same rules mean that the paying customers leave, and the vegans run someone out of business.

 

[Ted]

Okay, before we go any further....

There is a difference between "patronizing" and "patronage".

 

[CX1]

Maybe you haven't read any of her posts before.
I think (and I could be wrong), that she would not like a business that would not serve her. BUT it would be their right.

Well from the other parts of her post I quoted I am taking it that she feels that she as an owner should be allowed to refuse service regardless of protected class status.She seems to want to be that business that refuses service for whatever reason.
Example

Originally Posted by 88GT

What's wrong with me telling someone of a different race/skin color/country of origin that he can't patronize my business or that I won't serve him?

And really there is nothing wrong with it as long as the protected status is not the reason for the denial of service. It just gets difficult to defend if a pattern is evident.