Arkansas Gun Range Owner Bans Certain People of a Certain Religion

[Trigger Time]

So this is okay?

How about this?

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to.

 

[AA&E]

Yeah, just like the free market punished the "whites only" businesses in the south. If you open your business to the public, don't discriminate.

Is there a difference between discriminating against a person for what they were born (white/black), as opposed to what they believe? Which in this case is a book on that instructs them to kill those that do not believe as they do. Personally, I think the mindset that they are instructed by their religion to kill those that do not believe as they do is the greater evil (as well as discriminatory) and would grant a pass to the gun range ban.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Is there a difference between discriminating against a person for what they were born (white/black), as opposed to what they believe? Which in this case is a book on that instructs them to kill those that do not believe as they do. Personally, I think the mindset that they are instructed by their religion to kill those that do not believe as they do is the greater evil (as well as discriminatory) and would grant a pass to the gun range ban.

At the risk of the banhammer... I will point out that no two groups of adherents to ANY of the major religions (or even atheists for that matter) are the same. There is ALWAYS a spectrum. Some are more militant in their beliefs than others. If you lined up a million "martians" (for a quick example), there will be a militant group at one end and a peaceful group at the other end of the spectrum. Where one falls on that spectrum is arguably going to place you in the "greater vs lesser" threat category, as opposed to which major religion you are from. Some major religions/belief systems have more issues than others, but there is a militant/in-your-face bunch in all of them. And a peaceful, pretty cool, live and let live bunch at the other end of their specific spectrum. Based on that - I choose not to discriminate based on the major religion that one might (or might not) belong to , and evaluate folks on an individual basis.

I have met people of all major religions (atheist included), whose sense of honor and decency would do any of us proud. And I have met some of all stripes who would I would be ashamed to be around any longer than I absolutely was required to.

 

[Expat]

Yes. No one should be forced to do business with anyone they don't want to.

I agree. There is no way I would do business with people that discriminated against blacks. But this conversation is getting way too close to the line on the ban on racial discussions. So I am out. But I am disappointed that it sounds like many people need to the government to prevent them from being a bigot.

 

[Trigger Time]

I agree. There is no way I would do business with people that discriminated against blacks. But this conversation is getting way too close to the line on the ban on racial discussions. So I am out. But I am disappointed that it sounds like many people need to the government to prevent them from being a bigot.

No I wasn't going anywhere near that conversation. He chose those images. I don't care if the sign said "no people with purple hair allowed" or "no piercings allowed".
i or anyone else should not be discriminated against for not liking a group or an individual and choosing not to associate or do business with. I only wish I could pick and choose who my child went to school with or what she learns. The govt has done that, so why shouldn't I be able to?

 

[CathyInBlue]

No one is forced to do business with anyone, because no one is forced to do business, period. The govt doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head and tell them, "You're gonna run this hardware store." or "You're gonna run this motel." or "You're gonna run this carpet cleaner." The proprietors of those establishments sense a need in their community for a hardware store, motel, or clean carpets, and establish their own businesses accordingly. If they find the business climate not to their liking, they are entirely free to liquidate their businesses (or not go into business in the first place), and do something else, establish a different business, live off the proceeds of the sale, move their business elsewhere, or reenter the free market as an employee rather than an employer. That said, once you make the free choice to operate a business (which caters to the general public), you have chosen to subject yourself, and your business to the generally applicable laws of that market. One is, no being a bigotted douchebag to your customer base. It's not about stamping out the bigotry and douchebaggery from you. You can rest easy in knowing that you can hold onto your bigotted douchebag beliefs all you want, celebrate them proudly, publicly or privately. You just can't act on them when dealing with members of the public who come to you with their money to patronize your business.

That said, this story is not about bigotry or douchebaggery. The woman has legitimate safety concerns within her business. It would be irresponsible of her to ignore the fact that these people did not have legitimate ID, nor could they understand and follow simple, basic English language instructions, written or spoken. She lost business for the time that she did actually rent a gun and range time to them because she had to evacuate the rest of the range of other paying customers for the time they were shooting. She has the right to judge a person's potential for mayhem on the firing line too great for her and her business to tolerate and to refuse service to them for that reason.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

. She has the right to judge a person's potential for mayhem on the firing line too great for her and her business to tolerate and to refuse service to them for that reason.

This right here ^!!!!!!

 

[Henry]

"Somebody doesn't like me and has decided they don't want to do business with me.
I'm going to tell big brother on them!"

**** ant whiner stomps foot and marches of with a pouty lip.

 

[Que]

"Somebody doesn't like me and has decided they don't want to do business with me.
I'm going to tell big brother on them!"

**** ant whiner stomps foot and marches of with a pouty lip.

Do you CC in establishments with "No Gun" signs or do you respect their wishes and stay out as long as you are carrying a gun? If it's the latter, would this be a good move for all business owners on the side of unconstitutional gun control? What if ALL stores/businesses decided to make this a national movement? You couldn't just move to another town to get away from it. After all, they have the right to determine that you are a danger to their customers and refuse service. Would you finally just accept it and leave your gun at home? Would you go with "concealed means concealed" and not respect their right to refuse service? Or would you do something else?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Do you CC in establishments with "No Gun" signs or do you respect their wishes and stay out as long as you are carrying a gun? If it's the latter, would this be a good move for all business owners on the side of unconstitutional gun control? What if ALL stores/businesses decided to make this a national movement? You couldn't just move to another town to get away from it. After all, they have the right to determine that you are a danger to their customers and refuse service. Would you finally just accept it and leave your gun at home? Would you go with "concealed means concealed" and not respect their right to refuse service? Or would you do something else?

A solid and well thought out question, sir. I would point out that in most all situations SOMEONE will arise to serve most any population that is discriminated against. It very seldom will get to the point where NO ONE will serve a given community. Given your example above, there will be places arise with "Concealed Carry Welcome" signs. We are seeing examples of that today... I personally would vote with my $ every chance I get. And I do. Places like Starbucks have the right to discriminate in who they sell to, and we all have the right to discriminate in who we buy from. It doesn't protect them (or us) from the consequences of those actions.

I would suggest that the only time for the heavy hand of gubbamint to become involved is in a "National Movement" type of situation like you describe above. Such things have happened, to be sure... but I suspect that they are less common today, due to the rapid communication infrastructure.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you CC in establishments with "No Gun" signs or do you respect their wishes and stay out as long as you are carrying a gun? If it's the latter, would this be a good move for all business owners on the side of unconstitutional gun control? What if ALL stores/businesses decided to make this a national movement? You couldn't just move to another town to get away from it. After all, they have the right to determine that you are a danger to their customers and refuse service. Would you finally just accept it and leave your gun at home? Would you go with "concealed means concealed" and not respect their right to refuse service? Or would you do something else?

My rights to carry a gun on your property does not supersede your right to manage your property how you see fit. Why should I expect the federal government to come in and overrule your rights in favor of mine? How is that just? We should be avoiding this wherever we possibly can.

 

[Que]

A solid and well thought out question, sir. I would point out that in most all situations SOMEONE will arise to serve most any population that is discriminated against. It very seldom will get to the point where NO ONE will serve a given community. Given your example above, there will be places arise with "Concealed Carry Welcome" signs. We are seeing examples of that today... I personally would vote with my $ every chance I get. And I do. Places like Starbucks have the right to discriminate in who they sell to, and we all have the right to discriminate in who we buy from. It doesn't protect them (or us) from the consequences of those actions.

I would suggest that the only time for the heavy hand of gubbamint to become involved is in a "National Movement" type of situation like you describe above. Such things have happened, to be sure... but I suspect that they are less common today, due to the rapid communication infrastructure.

Well, the gist of my question was about a national movement. It's less common today, probably because there was no need. However, now that the public has become frightened and believe gun control is the answer, would you respect the right and ability of the business owners or would you choose to do somethign about it?

It's obvious that I'm juxtapositioning my scenario with this issue, but I believe the comparison is valid. Either you respect the right of the business owners to choose to refuse to serve gun-carrying customers or you don't. It should not matter if it's only one store or EVERY store. It doesn't change just because on one hand you would not be banned from the range, but on the other you are the one negatively affected. I know you didn't say this, but this is the mindset that I see.

If Walmart, banks, grocery stores, etc., all banned together and would not allow anyone carrying a gun into their stores, we would see many threads about open carry protests and writing to the legislators. But, what about the right of the business owners to serve whom they choose?

 

[Que]

My rights to carry a gun on your property does not supersede your right to manage your property how you see fit. Why should I expect the federal government to come in and overrule your rights in favor of mine? How is that just? We should be avoiding this wherever we possibly can.

Okay, so that means you would never be able to carry your gun into a business, because you would respect the wishes of the owner. I have no problem with that. So, maybe this is the plausible direction for gun control?

 

[HoughMade]

I absolutely agree that to be consistent about private property rights, we need to respect even the wrongheaded decisions of property owners.

However, protesting is not ignoring a right and, is it self a right. Notice I said "protesting", not ignoring. I would respect their private property rights, though I may protest and certainly would exercise my right to go elsewhere....and this being America, at this point in time, there is always an "elsewhere".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Okay, so that means you would never be able to carry your gun into a business, because you would respect the wishes of the owner. I have no problem with that. So, maybe this is the plausible direction for gun control?

It's obviously the way MDA is going. The more businesses they get to change their policies, the harder it will be for others to not go along with the crowd. They have that right. They have the right to work with business owners/management to align with their POV. We have the same right. I hope, with the ever increasing number of people buying guns and CCW's/LTCH's/etc, even this tactic will ultimately fail as more people become comfortable around guns and people that carry them.

 

[JetGirl]

Blah-dy blah blah... geez... It's not like anyone would ever LIE to get what they wanted, right??

Here...Put these on.

 

[HoughMade]

It's obviously the way MDA is going. The more businesses they get to change their policies, the harder it will be for others to not go along with the crowd...

The key is a reasonable, rational response that emphasizes freedom and safety without alienating the business or people who have no opinion.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The key is a reasonable, rational response that emphasizes freedom and safety without alienating the business or people who have no opinion.

I agree. That, along with being a good representative of the gun owning community. Some will disagree but I'm of the persuasion that believes being polite, responsible, and respectful while carrying will sway more people than it offends. (I do OC on occasion.)

 

[rambone]

No one is forced to do business with anyone, because no one is forced to do business, period. The govt doesn't hold a gun to anyone's head and tell them, "You're gonna run this hardware store." or "You're gonna run this motel." or "You're gonna run this carpet cleaner." The proprietors of those establishments sense a need in their community for a hardware store, motel, or clean carpets, and establish their own businesses accordingly. If they find the business climate not to their liking, they are entirely free to liquidate their businesses (or not go into business in the first place), and do something else, establish a different business, live off the proceeds of the sale, move their business elsewhere, or reenter the free market as an employee rather than an employer. That said, once you make the free choice to operate a business (which caters to the general public), you have chosen to subject yourself, and your business to the generally applicable laws of that market. One is, no being a bigotted douchebag to your customer base. It's not about stamping out the bigotry and douchebaggery from you. You can rest easy in knowing that you can hold onto your bigotted douchebag beliefs all you want, celebrate them proudly, publicly or privately. You just can't act on them when dealing with members of the public who come to you with their money to patronize your business.

With this kind of rationale, you could justify any and all forms of government coercion and control over all aspects of business.

Mandated hours. Mandated wages. Mandated prices. Mandated products. Mandated anything. "If you don't like it, go away and do business elsewhere..."

Its a system based on coercion and force -- the antithesis of a free market.

 

[HoughMade]

With this kind of rationale, you could justify any and all forms of government coercion and control over all aspects of business.

Mandated hours. Mandated wages. Mandated prices. Mandated products. Mandated anything. "If you don't like it, go away and do business elsewhere..."

Its a system based on coercion and force -- the antithesis of a free market.

Agreed. The "free market" is not: "if you do everything the government thinks you should, you get to run a business." That is the very definition of a centrally controlled "statist" government.

Having the "right" to close your business if the government requires something you don't like is kind of like having the freedom of speech to praise the government all you want and the right to shut up when you disagree. It is not a right. It is the absence ​of a right.