Arkansas Gun Range Owner Bans Certain People of a Certain Religion

[HeadlessRoland]

Arkansas shooting range declares itself a 'Muslim Free Zone' - Washington Times

Are they?

Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen - you've been a wonderful audience. Goodnight, and good luck.

 

[steveh_131]

 

[Bluejeeper]

Yeah?

 

[hornadylnl]

This is the equivalent of the Britney Pears beaver shot. Got her name in the media and free advertisement.

 

[JetGirl]

Are they?

 

[JetGirl]

This is the equivalent of the Britney Pears beaver shot. Got her name in the media and free advertisement.

 

[femurphy77]

Jimmies?

 

[JetGirl]

Jimmies?

 

[Expat]

IBTL

Private property rights. Guess they can do what they want. If people don't approve then the free market will punish them.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Banning people because of their religion will get this guy sued into poverty. Banning people who can't follow plain English instructions and/or provide the required documentation, perfectly reasonable.

 

[JTScribe]

IBTL

Private property rights. Guess they can do what they want. If people don't approve then the free market will punish them.

I don't know. Depending on whether a shooting range is viewed as a public accommodation he might be on shaky ground under Title II of the '64 CRA.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't know. Depending on whether a shooting range is viewed as a public accommodation he might be on shaky ground under Title II of the '64 CRA.

You're probably right. Though I'd love to see this result in that acts overturn.

 

[Mark 1911]

IBTL

Private property rights. Guess they can do what they want. If people don't approve then the free market will punish them.

Perhaps true in theory. However, a certain bakery in Lakewood, CO puts actual practice in doubt.

 

[Que]

I don't know. Depending on whether a shooting range is viewed as a public accommodation he might be on shaky ground under Title II of the '64 CRA.

You're probably right. Though I'd love to see this result in that acts overturn.

There could be some improvements.

 

[hornadylnl]

Banning people because of their religion will get this guy sued into poverty. Banning people who can't follow plain English instructions and/or provide the required documentation, perfectly reasonable.

To my understanding, it was a woman who made the rule. Maybe a place she frequents should ban women due to the possibility they might be prostitutes and diseased.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Private property - his/her house, his/her rules.

I think, however, that it is a bad day when we see this being done in this fashion. NO MATTER WHAT the religion/group/type of folks being targeted. Today it's members of religion XYZ, tomorrow it may be you.

Does he/she have the right to do it - yup - in all probability they do. Does that make it the right thing to do? Not necessarily.

I would prefer that instead of banning all members of a certain religion - the owner took a more creative route to express his opinion. ISIS is the enemy of our country and has declared itself to be that - the religion as a whole has not. Put ISIS flags on the bottom of the urinals in the Men's Room if you want to make a statement. I don't think that banning all members of any given religion is the best way to proceed.

That said - it is his/her business , and their right to refuse service to whom they choose.

 

[Que]

If she wants to secure the rights of a private property owner, why make the range public? She can simply turn her property into a private club and there would be no problem. She can't have it both ways.

 

[rambone]

If she wants to secure the rights of a private property owner, why make the range public? She can simply turn her property into a private club and there would be no problem. She can't have it both ways.

I would say, just because the place is open for business does not make it "public" in any way. It should be viewed exactly the same as having guests in your house. The association is voluntary, and can be freely ended at any time by the property owner.

I think her rule is stupid but private property rights are of the utmost importance.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I would say, just because the place is open for business does not make it "public" in any way. It should be viewed exactly the same as having guests in your house. The association is voluntary, and can be freely ended at any time by the property owner.

I think her rule is stupid but private property rights are of the utmost importance.

So this is okay?

How about this?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Private property - his/her house, his/her rules.

I think, however, that it is a bad day when we see this being done in this fashion. NO MATTER WHAT the religion/group/type of folks being targeted. Today it's members of religion XYZ, tomorrow it may be you.

Does he/she have the right to do it - yup - in all probability they do. Does that make it the right thing to do? Not necessarily.

I would prefer that instead of banning all members of a certain religion - the owner took a more creative route to express his opinion. ISIS is the enemy of our country and has declared itself to be that - the religion as a whole has not. Put ISIS flags on the bottom of the urinals in the Men's Room if you want to make a statement. I don't think that banning all members of any given religion is the best way to proceed.

That said - it is his/her business , and their right to refuse service to whom they choose.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller