I was with him until he said he wouldn't teach a "non-Christian Arab or Muslim."
They have a right to self-defense too, and there is no room for that kind of bigotry in the 2nd amendment community.
He is not denying them that right. Those individuals can exercise their free will to go to another business that chooses to operate his business under a different model of his choosing.
Why should the owner of a private business enterprise be denied to right to conduct a business on his private property the way he believes is best?
Hey... you're not one of those smoking ban guys are you?
and you would have the freedom to do so.If I lived in that area I would boycott his business, and I'd make sure he knew why.
I'M not saying he doesn't have a right to refuse to teach them...he does have that right. As far as I'm concerned he has a right to refuse them any kind of service for any reason that he chooses.
I'm saying that he's morally wrong and is sending a message that I hope everyone here would NOT want sent.
If I lived in that area I would boycott his business, and I'd make sure he knew why.
Well said... as it should be.
How do you feel about government mandated smoking bans in private enterprises?
Whether or not smoking is permitted on private property should be at the sole discretion of the owner.
I was with him until he said he wouldn't teach a "non-Christian Arab or Muslim."
They have a right to self-defense too, and there is no room for that kind of bigotry in the 2nd amendment community.
For those saying that it's his right and that others may exercise theirs by taking the class elsewhere, is it not an infringement on the RKBA and the right of self-defense to refuse to teach the class to someone? Is that not an impediment to them exercising that right lawfully?
Blessings,
Bill
Let's not confuse whom is infringing upon the rigts of others here.
The fact that a class is required at all in order to exercise the RKBA and to defend one's self is where the infringement takes place. The infringement is being perpetrated by the State of Texas.
I've read the Second Amendment several hundred times and cannot find anything in it that says "as long as the individual takes a government mandated course". I do see the "shall not be infringed" each time I read it though.
The State, not the instructor, is the perp here. Constitutional carry would eliminate the concern of infringement.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, and disability.
"His store, his rules" doesn't cut it in this narrow case.
I disagree with you. No matter how much I abhor racism. If someone doesn't want someone who wears purple jeans into their business then that is their right.I'll respectively disagree with you in this matter, and presume that you are invoking property rights as the basis for your argument.
Do you mean such private business assets as a grocery store, water fountain, laundromat, rest room, or a lunch counter, marked "White Only"? Or a black child of a white mother, that cannot ride together on an airplane or bus? Or a apartment building owner that doesn't permit a person in a wheelchair inside their building, much less allowing them to lease an apartment? Or a HOA that doesn't allow Jews in their neighborhood? Or for that matter, how about a privately owned Roman Catholic hospital that may or may not provides the only appropriate emergency care in the area, that mandates a specific religion as a condition for such care?
Plessy v. Ferguson at least stated "Separate, but equal" under the 14A equal protection clause, though we both know that the quality and quantity of such assets never compared. Thankfully, Brown v. Board of Education subsequently ruled that "Separate, but equal" was inherently unequal, albeit 58 years later.
The law that bars discrimination based upon the factors articulated within the 1964 act, while not perfect, is in fact largely correct. If for no other reason than equal protection that is guaranteed under the Constitution.
I'll respectively disagree with you in this matter, and presume that you are invoking property rights as the basis for your argument.
Do you mean such private business assets as a grocery store, water fountain, laundromat, rest room, or a lunch counter, marked "White Only"? Or a black child of a white mother, that cannot ride together on an airplane or bus? Or a apartment building owner that doesn't permit a person in a wheelchair inside their building, much less allowing them to lease an apartment? Or a HOA that doesn't allow Jews in their neighborhood? Or for that matter, how about a privately owned Roman Catholic hospital that may or may not provides the only appropriate emergency care in the area, that mandates a specific religion as a condition for such care?
Plessy v. Ferguson at least stated "Separate, but equal" under the 14A equal protection clause, though we both know that the quality and quantity of such assets never compared. Thankfully, Brown v. Board of Education subsequently ruled that "Separate, but equal" was inherently unequal, albeit 58 years later.
The law that bars discrimination based upon the factors articulated within the 1964 act, while not perfect, is in fact largely correct. If for no other reason than equal protection that is guaranteed under the Constitution.