Hassled by Buffalo Wild Wings for OC at Dupont, Fort Wayne

[littletommy]

And by the way, you missed more than just proof of BWW being anti gun, you missed the entire point of my post.

 

[HDSilvrStreak]

I've pretty much read everything in this post now, and even posted my opinion of BWW (they suck), but one thing has me kinda puzzled. I've seen these things pop up before on INGO, and I just can't wrap my mind around patronizing a business that doesn't want someone to carry guns on their property. Being anti gun is but ONE reason why I will never spend a dime at any BWW, and I'm sure others here have made the same decision with BWW, and other businesses. Why do an OC event there? Why put money in their pockets (assuming they will serve you), and in the big picture of things, who cares! Just go somewhere else. The private property thing has been hashed over in this thread already, it didn't take a manager of the anti gun Clarksville store asking me to cover my gun to make me say "I will never visit this crappy restaurant again", and there are MANY restaurants in Clarksville.

There is not going to be some widespread banning of guns in restaurants because BWW set the precedent, JUST DON'T GO THERE ANYMORE! EVER! I am not anti OC, I don't care how somebody carries, it just gets to me when everybody starts screaming "OC event"! If someone can have a discussion with the manager/owner of the business and actually reach an understanding, then that's great, that's better than great, and it has happened, I just don't see the point of spending money somewhere that doesn't want you there.

Not to repeat everything, but I go to BW3 because I like their food and their atmosphere. That's pretty much what I'm looking for from a food place. Their opinions on guns don't matter to me.

As I said, I don't look at everything and everybody in my life through 2A lenses.

Hell, Long John Silvers could sponsor weekly open carry events and donate 100% of their profits to 2A causes and I still wouldn't eat there. Why? Because they're in the food business and their food sucks.

You guys know that both Bradis and Beech Grove firearms have those same signs, right? Both have a good reputation and are great places and they are in the GUN BUSINESS.

 

[littletommy]

Okay, maybe I didn't word it right, My point is, I don't choose to not go there because they are anti gun...or MAY be, I don't go there because I don't like the food or service, and the world will not end nor will our 2nd amendment rights go away because BWW, or SOME BWW stores have banned guns on their property. If someone is not inclined to go there to begin with, why spend money there by doing an OC event there?

 

[lovemachine]

Here's my question. Let's say the manager had asked you to leave. So, the OP leaves without paying for his meal, as he threatened to do. And the manager gets his license plate number.
He calls the cops, and cops appear at the OP's home. What happens then? Legally, can you be forced to pay for the meal, or even be arrested? Who's legally in the right here?

 

[ryknoll3]

Here's my question. Let's say the manager had asked you to leave. So, the OP leaves without paying for his meal, as he threatened to do. And the manager gets his license plate number.
He calls the cops, and cops appear at the OP's home. What happens then? Legally, can you be forced to pay for the meal, or even be arrested? Who's legally in the right here?

This is me totally talking out of my butt....

I would think that you would have more of a leg to stand on not paying if you were somewhere like a buffet, where you could argue that you were denied something (all you can eat food) by being asked to leave. If they boxed up your food for you and sent you on your way, couldn't it be argued that your contract was completed on their end (they gave you the food)? You pay the same amount for the food if you were carrying it out as you would for dining in, so you're not paying for any extra service when you dine in. You could argue that your service was interrupted, but you pay for that through the gratuity, which you aren't obligated to pay anyways. Only thing I could see that you were denied would possibly finishing a drink, or getting a few more refills on your soft drink.

 

[jsharmon7]

I'm not sure if this has been asked and answered already, but I'll ask anyway: what did your friend, and his friend think of the argument from the manager and the possible threat of law enforcement involvement with their casual dining experience? If I had just met you the night before and such a scene was caused over a handgun I think that'd be the last time I hung out with you. Nothing personal, I just don't get along too well with folks who cause a scene over something so minor. It was a simple and understandable request on private property, not a chance to re-fight the Revolutionary War on behalf of OC'ers everywhere. What exactly were you trying to prove anyway? Did you think it was going to change anyone's mind, or did it just hurt your pride to have to cover it up? You have every right to disagree with his request, but I would have covered it up or left immediately rather than getting into a verbal dispute and possibly another one when the police arrived. You can call it weakness, I call it prudence.

 

[mk2ja]

I've pretty much read everything in this post now, and even posted my opinion of BWW (they suck), but one thing has me kinda puzzled. I've seen these things pop up before on INGO, and I just can't wrap my mind around patronizing a business that doesn't want someone to carry guns on their property. Being anti gun is but ONE reason why I will never spend a dime at any BWW, and I'm sure others here have made the same decision with BWW, and other businesses. Why do an OC event there? Why put money in their pockets (assuming they will serve you), and in the big picture of things, who cares! Just go somewhere else. The private property thing has been hashed over in this thread already, it didn't take a manager of the anti gun Clarksville store asking me to cover my gun to make me say "I will never visit this crappy restaurant again", and there are MANY restaurants in Clarksville.

There is not going to be some widespread banning of guns in restaurants because BWW set the precedent, JUST DON'T GO THERE ANYMORE! EVER! I am not anti OC, I don't care how somebody carries, it just gets to me when everybody starts screaming "OC event"! If someone can have a discussion with the manager/owner of the business and actually reach an understanding, then that's great, that's better than great, and it has happened, I just don't see the point of spending money somewhere that doesn't want you there.

That's kinda what I was saying in this post here (quoted below).

Perhaps instead of having an OC lunch at BWW, we should have an OC lunch at one of the other places where we Fort Waynians have had lunches before, but make the first activity of the gathering be that all of us walk in to BWW, each of us hand them one of those "no guns -> no business" cards and then walk out. Otherwise, wouldn't we be rewarding them for harassing OCers? (This would apply to any post-encounter OC gathering, not just this one.)

If we are displeased with the service at an establishment of any sort, be it a restaurant or WalMart, why should we have a big OC even that includes us giving money to said establishment? We'd probably be more effective if we, en masse, stopped by and each left a card explaining they had lost our business and then moving on to a place where we would be welcomed —such as the one T-rav mentioned in his post.

Ok folks I haver a little bit of info that may or may not help.

I used to work for the Mike Jones Group. He is the man that owns all of the stores here it is a franchise. There are NO signs on any of the stores that he owns.

The GM of the Auburn is a pretty good guy I know him personally, however he is from Ohio and I think he assumes Ohio law is the same here as to some of the comments he has made to me about firearms. The GM of the 37 store is a pretty laid back guy, when Im there they know I have a firearm and nothing is ever said to me. It may help that I worked there for side cash for about a year.

Good job on the way you handled the situation, knowing you a little bit Im not surprised one bit. Did you get a look at his name tag if so PM me his name. If its who IM guessing it is he is a bit of a ego-maniac and a power tripper. I went up there one night to help out and he chewed me out for being 5 minutes late, when I was actually leaving my primary store to bail them out. I informed him I was not forced by anyone to be there and was helping them out and I could leave if he didnt really want my help. Thats what makes me think it's the same manager.

Oh and FYI I have a ok foot in the door at the Tilted Kilt and if we wanted to have a weekend OC lunch meet Im sure I could arrange that. It is a franchise as well and they dont play by corporate rules.

Thanks for the insider info. I really have no idea what the guys name was. He had light hair and wore a light blue shirt instead of the black shirts that all the servers wear. Light-colored slacks, too.

I think I missed somewhere in 18 pages where it was proven that BW3 was anti-gun? Could you cite that for me? Like I said in my prior post, I've received nothing but positive experiences and conversations at my BW3, and I OC there very frequently.

Apparently at the corporate level they do not want guns in their stores "for the comfort, safety, and enjoyment of [their] guests". See quoted post below from melensdad.

Uh, yes it is. It is corporate policy.

Buffalo Wild Wings respects the right of individuals to carry firearms but we do not believe they are appropriate inside of a public restaurant. We are focused on the comfort, safety and enjoyment of all of our guests and have elected to exercise our right to restrict the carrying of firearms in our restaurants. We regret any inconvenience this may cause but believe that this policy is in the best interest of all of our guests and our Team Members.


Kind Regards,

Vanessa Leonetti
Guest Relations
Buffalo Wild Wings
5500 Wayzata Blvd.
Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55416
800-499-9586

Vanessa used the words, "exercise our right to restrict ... in our restaurants." I agree whole-heartedly that they have that right. You won't hear me disputing the rights of property owners to set policy in/on land/buildings they own. But I'd never seen a no-guns sign at a BWWs, and apparently I'd missed others discussing it on INGO before, so enforcement would need to have been enacted by the supposed manager by informing me of that policy—which was not done—and/or by instructing me to vacate the premises—which was also not done.

You have heard it said, "A right not exercised is a right lost."
I tell you also, "A rule not enforced is a rule void and without purpose."

And by the way, you missed more than just proof of BWW being anti gun, you missed the entire point of my post.

That made me chuckle Just saying…

Not to repeat everything, but I go to BW3 because I like their food and their atmosphere. That's pretty much what I'm looking for from a food place. Their opinions on guns don't matter to me.

As I said, I don't look at everything and everybody in my life through 2A lenses.

Hell, Long John Silvers could sponsor weekly open carry events and donate 100% of their profits to 2A causes and I still wouldn't eat there. Why? Because they're in the food business and their food sucks.

You guys know that both Bradis and Beech Grove firearms have those same signs, right? Both have a good reputation and are great places and they are in the GUN BUSINESS.

Yeah, the first time I went there, it really through me off. "Whoa, what? Really? At a gun shop?" I asked about it when I went inside and they said it was really just for noobs and for insurance. I asked, and they not only allowed me to go ahead and load my sidearm right there in the store but also told me not to worry about the sign next time I show up.

 

[mk2ja]

I'm not sure if this has been asked and answered already, but I'll ask anyway: what did your friend, and his friend think of the argument from the manager and the possible threat of law enforcement involvement with their casual dining experience? If I had just met you the night before and such a scene was caused over a handgun I think that'd be the last time I hung out with you. Nothing personal, I just don't get along too well with folks who cause a scene over something so minor. It was a simple and understandable request on private property, not a chance to re-fight the Revolutionary War on behalf of OC'ers everywhere. What exactly were you trying to prove anyway? Did you think it was going to change anyone's mind, or did it just hurt your pride to have to cover it up? You have every right to disagree with his request, but I would have covered it up or left immediately rather than getting into a verbal dispute and possibly another one when the police arrived. You can call it weakness, I call it prudence.

No, this had not been asked yet.

I'm only 23 and my friend is 25, but his friend is a freshman in college, maybe 19 or so. My friend is a former Navy corpsman who was medically discharged and is trying to get back in; we work out together three times a week at least. His friend was a kid he (my friend) had worked with while he (my friend) was still in high school and his friend was in either junior high or maybe even elementary school. He (his friend) has an interest in possible military service but isn't sure yet.

Neither of them made any sort of remarks to me about whether they approved or disapproved of my handling of the situation, but when I posted a link to this thread on Facebook, my corpsman friend commented "Sir, would you please stop shooting our patrons? It makes them uncomfortable." So I kinda figure he wasn't upset by how I responded. And I think the other guy was just too new to the whole arena that he was more just soaking it up.

(Yes, I know that might get a little hairy with all the my-friend/his-friend stuff, but I'm not planning on using their names on here... because I try to do the right thing even if they didn't ask me to. )


I guess I've never really taken too kindly to people telling me to do something which they do not have authority to tell me to do. I've got a long history of that. I wasn't trying to "cause a scene," but I wasn't going to be told what to do by somebody without authority to tell me to do it just to make some stranger "feel better." If you ask me, the scene would have been a lot less dramatic if the manager would not have kept asking me the same question when he'd already received his answer.

And I know this will arise from somebody, so I'll try to pre-empt it. Yes, the manager has the authority to expel me from his restaurant. That is a request I would have honored—and I informed him of this—but he chose not to exercise that authority when I suggested it.

 

[jsharmon7]

No, this had not been asked yet.

I'm only 23 and my friend is 25, but his friend is a freshman in college, maybe 19 or so. My friend is a former Navy corpsman who was medically discharged and is trying to get back in; we work out together three times a week at least. His friend was a kid he (my friend) had worked with while he (my friend) was still in high school and his friend was in either junior high or maybe even elementary school. He (his friend) has an interest in possible military service but isn't sure yet.

Neither of them made any sort of remarks to me about whether they approved or disapproved of my handling of the situation, but when I posted a link to this thread on Facebook, my corpsman friend commented "Sir, would you please stop shooting our patrons? It makes them uncomfortable." So I kinda figure he wasn't upset by how I responded. And I think the other guy was just too new to the whole arena that he was more just soaking it up.

(Yes, I know that might get a little hairy with all the my-friend/his-friend stuff, but I'm not planning on using their names on here... because I try to do the right thing even if they didn't ask me to. )


I guess I've never really taken too kindly to people telling me to do something which they do not have authority to tell me to do. I've got a long history of that. I wasn't trying to "cause a scene," but I wasn't going to be told what to do by somebody without authority to tell me to do it just to make some stranger "feel better." If you ask me, the scene would have been a lot less dramatic if the manager would not have kept asking me the same question when he'd already received his answer.

And I know this will arise from somebody, so I'll try to pre-empt it. Yes, the manager has the authority to expel me from his restaurant. That is a request I would have honored—and I informed him of this—but he chose not to exercise that authority when I suggested it.

Thanks for the polite reply. I have another question if you'd be so kind. Let's say you go into a restaurant and order your food. The manager approaches you and informs you that the restaurant has a dress code (as some restaurants do) and that you'll need to cover up your Rose Hulman polo with one of their loaner shirt and ties. Would you have handled the situation the same as the BW3 situation? Would you have informed him that you had a right to wear your RH shirt and that you didn't care if it made his other patrons feel better to have you in proper attire? Would you have offered to leave the restaurant rather than put on their shirt and tie? Would you have informed him that he had no right to ask you to "cover it up?" I guess the point I'm driving is whether your reaction to a business agent's request is dependant upon the subject of the inquiry. I think sometimes (and this may not be the case with your situation) that people get emotionally involved when it involves a firearm because they think it's an attack on their rights or that the person is just trying to control them. Without making this into an OC vs. CC debate, if you choose to OC and a business agent asks you to conceal it on their property, I think it's polite and prudent to either leave the premises or comply with the request.

 

[rmabrey]

Here's my question. Let's say the manager had asked you to leave. So, the OP leaves without paying for his meal, as he threatened to do. And the manager gets his license plate number.
He calls the cops, and cops appear at the OP's home. What happens then? Legally, can you be forced to pay for the meal, or even be arrested? Who's legally in the right here?

Thats a tough call, and could really end badly, especially if there is not an officer there to witness whats being said.

Likely, if the manager asked him to leave, no he would not. If he were to leave on his own yes he would. I would almost bet thats why the manager never directly asked him to leave. Again, you really would need a police officer to witness this scenario else you will be in trouble if they come later

 

[bglaze]

It was a simple and understandable request...

To say that the manager made an understandable request, in this case, is subjective. There are certain things that mean a lot to certain people and very little to others.

If a manager of a restaurant came to you and said, "Sir, we have a requirement that all men between ages 35 and 37 place a square piece of duct tape over each of their nipples and sit in their seat backwards while eating at our establishment. If you refuse, I am not going to ask you to leave, but I implore you to comply with my request. It is our policy after all."

That request isn't hard for you to accommodate. It's simple and understandable.

Will you comply, or are you afraid your pride will be hurt if you abide by this rule? Would you get up and leave, or would you just politely refuse and finish your dinner?

Anyone can ask you to do anything. It is up to you whether or not the request is reasonable. If it is not, you have options. You can decline and possibly be asked to leave. In this case the OP declined and was not asked to leave. It worked out well for all parties.

The OP was acting lawfully and peacefully. He responded graciously, and said if he was asked to leave he would leave. To him the request was not understandable, and he was not willing to abide it. The manager obviously didn't think it was important enough to ask him to leave, and that was that.

Kudos again OP. The more I read these ridiculous opposition posts the more I side with him.

 

[sloughfoot]

I agree.

The OP "WON".

YAY.

 

[bglaze]

if you choose to OC and a business agent asks you to conceal it on their property, I think it's polite and prudent to either leave the premises or comply with the request.

Do you OC? If not, then your advice means nothing. Who are you to tell us what is prudent if you are not even a participator?

I am not OCing for comfort. This is not some choice I have made lightly due to warm weather and the lack of a proper cover garment. My OCing is a socio-political statement that is intended to educate and enlighten. It serves a purpose far greater than I believe you are acknowledging. Do you think it's stupid? Probably. Do I care? Absolutely not. I have had so many positive experiences OCing that I have, as far as I'm concerned, been proven right in my assumption that it does indeed educate the non-gun-owning public in a peaceable and positive manner.

If I am approached by anyone, especially a manager of a facility, about my gun, I am ALWAYS as polite as I can be. I am prepared for those moments. If I am asked to cover up, I politely refuse. If the manager/person is willing to listen, I will also explain to them precisely why I have chosen to display my firearm openly. He may or may not give a damn. If he doesn't, he may ask me to leave. At that point I will graciously leave and apologize that our business relationship has turned out to be incompatible. If he does not ask me to leave, then I thank him for understanding and continue spending my money in his establishment.

It's worked for me perfectly thus far, and most of the people I talk to in public seem much more open to the idea than many do here on a supposedly pro-gun forum.

 

[jsharmon7]

To say that the manager made an understandable request, in this case, is subjective. There are certain things that mean a lot to certain people and very little to others.

If a manager of a restaurant came to you and said, "Sir, we have a requirement that all men between ages 35 and 37 place a square piece of duct tape over each of their nipples and sit in their seat backwards while eating at our establishment. If you refuse, I am not going to ask you to leave, but I implore you to comply with my request. It is our policy after all."

That request isn't hard for you to accommodate. It's simple and understandable.

Will you comply, or are you afraid your pride will be hurt if you abide by this rule? Would you get up and leave, or would you just politely refuse and finish your dinner possibly never to return.

They can ask anything of you.

The OP was acting lawfully and peacefully. He responded graciously, and said if asked to leave he would not make a scene and would leave. However, to him the request was not understandable, and he was not willing to abide it. The manager obviously didn't think it was important enough to ask him to leave, and that was that.

Kudos again OP. The more I read these ridiculous opposition posts the more I side with him.

Sure it's subjective, but most people can agree on what "reasonable" means. The difference between being asked to wear duct tape on your nipples and face the rear of your seat compared to being asked to slide a jacket over a visible handgun is so absurd that it doesn't even bear consideration. If you want to argue a point, at leat be realistic. Given the current social climate in the U.S., being asked to cover up a firearm is much more reasonable than being asked to wear duct tape on your nipples. I mean, they COULD demand that you wear rainbow clothing and jog in place while you eat your food. Is that a real possibility though?

 

[jsharmon7]

Do you OC? If not, then your advice means nothing. Who are you to tell us what is prudent if you are not even a participator?

I am not OCing for comfort. This is not some choice I have made lightly due to warm weather and the lack of a proper cover garment. My OCing is a socio-political statement that is intended to educate and enlighten. It serves a purpose far greater than I believe you are acknowledging. Do you think it's stupid? Probably. Do I care? Absolutely not. I have had so many positive experiences OCing that I have, as far as I'm concerned, been proven right in my assumption that it does indeed educate the non-gun-owning public in a peaceable and positive manner.

If I am approached by anyone, especially a manager of a facility, about my gun, I am ALWAYS as polite as I can be. I am prepared for those moments. If I am asked to cover up, I politely refuse. If the manager/person is willing to listen, I will also explain to them precisely why I have chosen to display my firearm openly. He may or may not give a damn. If he doesn't, he may ask me to leave. At that point I will graciously leave and apologize that our business relationship has turned out to be incompatible. If he does not ask me to leave, then I thank him for understanding and continue spending my money in his establishment.

It's worked for me perfectly thus far, and most of the people I talk to in public seem much more open to the idea than many do here on a supposedly pro-gun forum.

You're getting emotionally wrapped up in the fact that a handgun is involved. You're ignoring the fact that even as a customer you're still a guest in another man's "house." Forget I said that if they ask you to cover up a handgun you should comply or simply leave the restaurant. Let's say instead that they ask you not to wear profane clothing in their restaurant. It's a reasonable request and it's polite and prudent to either leave the premises or comply with the request.

As far as my opinion or advice, it matters as much or as little as anyone else's. The scenario was put out on a public forum, I assume the OP expected that positive and negative comments would be made. As far as "participating" in what you apparently feel is a battle for freedom, I guess you're right that I haven't joined it. As it stands, I'm perfectly free to carry my handgun and to do all of the things I'd like to be able to do. If I want to carry openly, I can. If I want to carry concealed, I can. I guess I fail to see why we need to nominate ourselves as educators and liberators of the "sheeple" as so many like to call them. In fact, feeling that it's my duty to "enlighten" people as you put it seems to me to be as overbearing as those who seek to control OC'ers by asking them to cover it up. If you feel that you need to do that, then go right ahead, I won't try to stop you. Just don't expect me to join you. It has absolutely nothing to do with being "pro-gun" or "anti-gun," I just carry for a different reason than you do apparently. And before anyone gets offended, my statements aren't blanket statements regarding all who OC. I'm specifically referring to bglaze and the reasons he gave as to why he carries the way he does.

 

[mk2ja]

I'm not looking at this thread as an OC vs. CC argument. I'm just trying to look at the OP, as written: OPer walked into an establishment, was asked to cover up his weapon, at which point the OP became argumentative. Whether the OP was in the right, morally or legally, the BW3 manager was not the one who escalated the situation.

Who knows what was going on from the manager's point of view. For all we know, he went over to the table thinking, "Jeez, that creepy old lady at table six is all freaked out because this guy has a gun. I know and respect that he can legally carry, and I don't want to ask him to leave because he's not doing anything wrong. Good thing people with a LTCH are generally polite, level headed folks. I'll just ask him to cover it up, the lady will probably forget it's even there. "

...And walked away thinking, "Jeez, I just can't win today. I'll just tell the lady at table six he's a cop so she'll shut up. Guess I was wrong about LTCH holders. Maybe there's something to that corporate policy they keep telling me to enforce..."

Yes, it's a completely hypothetical situation, but not all battles are won by fighting. Just my

I read this post several hours ago and just remembered I hadn't replied. You made a good point.

 

[bglaze]

You're getting emotionally wrapped up in the fact that a handgun is involved. You're ignoring the fact that even as a customer you're still a guest in another man's "house." Forget I said that if they ask you to cover up a handgun you should comply or simply leave the restaurant. Let's say instead that they ask you not to wear profane clothing in their restaurant. It's a reasonable request and it's polite and prudent to either leave the premises or comply with the request.

As far as my opinion or advice, it matters as much or as little as anyone else's. The scenario was put out on a public forum, I assume the OP expected that positive and negative comments would be made. As far as "participating" in what you apparently feel is a battle for freedom, I guess you're right that I haven't joined it. As it stands, I'm perfectly free to carry my handgun and to do all of the things I'd like to be able to do. If I want to carry openly, I can. If I want to carry concealed, I can. I guess I fail to see why we need to nominate ourselves as educators and liberators of the "sheeple" as so many like to call them. In fact, feeling that it's my duty to "enlighten" people as you put it seems to me to be as overbearing as those who seek to control OC'ers by asking them to cover it up. If you feel that you need to do that, then go right ahead, I won't try to stop you. Just don't expect me to join you. It has absolutely nothing to do with being "pro-gun" or "anti-gun," I just carry for a different reason than you do apparently. And before anyone gets offended, my statements aren't blanket statements regarding all who OC. I'm specifically referring to bglaze and the reasons he gave as to why he carries the way he does.

I guess there are just some things that some of us are not willing to compromise on. If I was wearing a cross necklace in a restaurant, and I was asked to remove it, I would also refuse. If the owner didn't like it, they can ask me to leave the premises, and I would oblige them.

If a proprietor doesn't want my business, he will ask me to leave, plain and simple. When I refuse to 'cover up', the owner has to weigh what is more important to him. Is it more important to him that I comply with the request, or is my money more important?

We are NOT talking about a man's "house"... We are talking about a publicly accessible place of business where contractual agreements are made and money changes hands. If he thinks it is more profitable for me to leave, he will ask me to leave. Who wants people in their business that will cause them to lose money? Not me. But if he really doesn't think it's a fight worth having, he'll take my money and accept that I wasn't willing to compromise on that issue. There are all kinds of people in the world, and I promise that to a business, I am one of their favorite kinds. Yeah, my open carrying may shock some of them (this isn't the intention), but I am a phenomenal and loyal customer to the businesses that I frequent.

Not all things are as important to me as this. I am not going to argue with a proprietor in some other cases. If I was asked to abide by a dress code, or to spit out my gum, I would. These things are not an important tenant of my value system.

But to me, there are definitely some things that are just too important to compromise on, period. And they are also worth being asked to leave over.

It's obvious we disagree about this, and neither of us is changing the others mind. You are willing to compromise in this area; I am not.

One day there may be something you are not willing to compromise on, and then you will see where I am coming from. It's simply a difference in values, and that's that really. We ALL have differing values, and to all of us 'common sense' means something different...

When we reduce an argument to the basic level of differing values, there is really no place else to go from there.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

All you have to do is get a bigger group to agree with you than agrees with me & you would have your way.

Finity I have to disagree with you on this, what you are talking about is tyranny by the majority.

Whether it is corporate owned or a mom & pop, it's still private property. You have to follow their rules (outside of the aforementioned protected classes) or leave. That's it.

Otherwise the business could discriminate at will with impunity...like it was before those laws were passed in the 60's.

Finity, do you think I should have the right to discriminate based on any reason I choose, who comes in my house? If so why should I not have the right to do so if I own a business?

Argumentative is not even close to the correct word, Ive met the OP and his Father and I can assure you, he was nothing but polite, regardless of how people take his post.

He may have been polite, but imo he was still being argumentative.

Hell, Long John Silvers could sponsor weekly open carry events and donate 100% of their profits to 2A causes and I still wouldn't eat there. Why? Because they're in the food business and their food sucks.

Blasphemy.

because I try to do the right thing even if they didn't ask me to.

And I know this will arise from somebody, so I'll try to pre-empt it. Yes, the manager has the authority to expel me from his restaurant. That is a request I would have honored—and I informed him of this—but he chose not to exercise that authority when I suggested it.

I disagree with the sentence I left. Yes the manager has the authority to expel you, but after being informed of the fact that he didn't wan't you OCing at the time, you should of complied or left on your own.

I have a family member who doesn't like guns, I don't carry in her house. She has never had to ask me not to, I know her position and while I don't agree with it, I follow it in her house. When she is at my house I carry and she hasn't asked me not to, because while she may not like it, she understand same as I do, my house my rules.

Will you comply, or are you afraid your pride will be hurt if you abide by this rule? Would you get up and leave, or would you just politely refuse and finish your dinner?

The OP was acting lawfully and peacefully. He responded graciously, and said if he was asked to leave he would leave.

Would I comply? No. But after making my objection known, if they still insisted, I would leave. It's their house, their rules. I have two choices, either follow their rules or willingly remove myself from their premesise. Anything else is being an ass.

He may have been acting lawfully and peacefully, but he was not acting graciously. Being gracious would have meant after being asked the second time to remove himself without being told to.

Do you OC?

Yes.

 

[trillobite]

These "No guns allowed" signs, wouldn't they also apply to law enforcement officers?
They don't say "except for LEO", do they?

 

[finity]

My OCing is a socio-political statement that is intended to educate and enlighten. It serves a purpose far greater than I believe you are acknowledging.

Go ahead & make your statement in a public area as long & loud as you want. I have no problem with that & I commend you for it...

BUT...

your "right" to make your statement ends where the Rights of others begin.

Sure it's subjective, but most people can agree on what "reasonable" means.

I certainly hope so as that is one of the basic tenets of our entire legal system.

The difference between being asked to wear duct tape on your nipples and face the rear of your seat compared to being asked to slide a jacket over a visible handgun is so absurd that it doesn't even bear consideration. If you want to argue a point, at leat be realistic.

Agreed.

bglaze, you should take your own advice lest you drive any fence sitters to our side.

The more I read these ridiculous opposition posts the more I side with him.

Finity I have to disagree with you on this, what you are talking about is tyranny by the majority.

I see what you're saying but that IS the way our government works.

It can be no other way & still provide for the best outcome for the largest number of people.

That DOESN'T mean, however that the minority is completely at the will of the majority. THAT is exactly why we have a Coinstitution with a Bill of Rights included. Any law that can be passed by the majority of people that they think will provide a means to the end of ensuring their tranquility (borrowed loosely) is fine AS LONG AS that law falls within the restrictions imposed by the Constitution & it doesn't trample on the basic human Rights of others.

Finity, do you think I should have the right to discriminate based on any reason I choose, who comes in my house?

Absolutely.

If so why should I not have the right to do so if I own a business?

It's balancing the Rights of business owners against the Rights of others.

We have, as a society, decided that providing "rights" to certain minorities that have historically been discriminated against is good for our society (IOW, best for the greatest number of people) while minimizing the impact on the Rights of business owners. At worst the business owner is prevented from openly expressing his bigotry in his business dealings toward those he feels are "undersireable". He can still continue to be as big of a bigot as he wants in his private life (limited in scope & narrowly tailored).

The next question will surely be "why can't the market decide?"

We tried that.

The "market" is one of THE MOST tyrannical concepts that has ever existed. Left unchecked, it allows the majority to run roughshod COMPLETELY over the Rights of the "undesireable" minority.

Blacks, women & other minorities have been systematically held at a economic disadvantage by the opposing majority's (whites, men, etc) control over the "market".

The civil rights laws didn't start predominantly being passed until the 60's. That means we had almost 100 years for the "market" to correct the injustice. It didn't work.

Women have been discriminated against since...well...forever. The "market" wasn't EVER going to correct for that injustice.

The bigotry was too entrenched. It still is to a degree (on all sides) but at least we have a framework for society that allows us to function at a reasonable level. Therein lies the HUGE benefit to society. I guess we could always move to a society like many others in the world that have constant civil wars over silly things like color, race, ethnicity & religion but I, for one, don't think I'd like that.

It's inevitable that sometimes Rights clash. At those times I have no problem deciding how as a society we are going to handle the clash AS LONG AS the impact on the Rights of the "loser" is maintained to the greatest extent possible.

No Right is absolute.

Generally, I think the SCOTUS agrees with me (OK, I agree with them )

It's their house, their rules. I have two choices, either follow their rules or willingly remove myself from their premesise. Anything else is being an ass.

+1

Let's see...

Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah...

He may have been acting lawfully and peacefully, but he was not acting graciously. Being gracious would have meant after being asked the second time to remove himself without being told to.

+1 Again