Muslim gun nutter BANNED from OK gun range

[Soho gator]

Granted he shouldn't be shooting guns but it's not illegal (yet). Doesn't seem a very Christian to do. Hope this guy gets a financial settlement that closes these nuts down.

Muslim man sues Oklahoma gun range for refusing him service


A sign posted on the business declared the range a "Muslim-free" establishment, and is similar to signs that have been placed at businesses in Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky and New York, said Brady Henderson, legal director for the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit.

 

[Eric7216]

Fortunately, we try to have separation of church and state so not being the "Christian" thing to do is irrelevant. But, sure, everyone should start with legal access to firearms and that right is only reduced under rather extreme cases, after sufficient due process.

 

[Cryptic]

Hope this guy gets a financial settlement that closes these nuts down.

A sign posted on the business declared the range a "Muslim-free" establishment, and is similar to signs that have been placed at businesses in Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky and New York, said Brady Henderson, legal director for the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit.[/I]

My general understanding is that gun shop owners are effectively exempt the civil rights act in that they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, or for no stated reason.

Though "moslem free" signage should not be encouraged, gun shop owners and gun range owners need total discretion as individuals regarding the sale of weapons or the use of firing ranges. If the owner does not feel comfortable for any reason, then he needs the discretion not to sell the weapon or allow the use of a weapon on his property. Sure, some will abuse this discretion, but that does not void their need for discretion.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

While my personal belief is private businesses should be able to discriminate for whatever stupid reason they want, the law disagrees with me. And I have never heard anything to lead me to believe ranges are exempt from such laws.

 

[PoS]

Granted he shouldn't be shooting guns but it's not illegal (yet). Doesn't seem a very Christian to do. Hope this guy gets a financial settlement that closes these nuts down.

Muslim man sues Oklahoma gun range for refusing him service


A sign posted on the business declared the range a "Muslim-free" establishment, and is similar to signs that have been placed at businesses in Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky and New York, said Brady Henderson, legal director for the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit.

If the Muslim guy has been wronged then why did you label him a "nutter"?

 

[cabse5]

If the Muslim guy has been wronged then why did you label him a "nutter"?

The Muslim filing the charge is a board member with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations' Oklahoma chapter). if you don't believe the group that videotaped the Planned Parenthood members talking about the profit from selling fetus baby parts, you've got to be against this type of 'sting' as well. Fatihah said he went to the gun range after learning about the sign. He said the owners of the store were pleasant and welcoming until he told them he was Muslim. "At that point, they started treating me with suspicion," Fatihah said. Could Fatihah have been belligerent to store owners because of the sign?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

And what makes the guy a gun nutter? He is a Reservist so even by the most left wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment he is entitled to bear arms. The fact he goes to the range indicates he wishes to remain proficient with his weapon, which indicates responsible ownership.

I'm not getting the "nutter" part of the OP.

 

[Soho gator]

I think people you visit gun ranges to shoot guns are slightly to mostly nutty. Wasn't meant to be a pejorative.

 

[PoS]

I think people you visit gun ranges to shoot guns are slightly to mostly nutty. Wasn't meant to be a pejorative.

:roll:

 

[Casper]

I think people you visit gun ranges to shoot guns are slightly to mostly nutty. Wasn't meant to be a pejorative.

Your opinion, many have that same opinion about some of the posters here, everyone is allowed their opinion.

 

[Ntharotep]

Yeah. Not so very tricky really.
I think a gun store/range falls under "public accommodation" which is, unless it is a church, legislated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (for the win).
Can't turn away for race or creed, disability, nationality.

 

[Visbek]

My general understanding is that gun shop owners are effectively exempt the civil rights act in that they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, or for no stated reason.

Incorrect.

AFAIK, there are no exemptions from civil rights laws for firearm-related businesses. Like any other business, they can refuse service if there's a problem with the customer. However, if they discriminate against customers on the basis of reasons outlawed in that state (e.g. typically race, creed, gender, and in some states sexual orientation), that's a civil rights violation.

In theory, a gun owner might tell every black customer that "I'm concerned you will use this firearm for criminal purposes" or "I think you're participating in a straw gun sale." In practice, a store that only refuses to sell firearms to black customers runs a half-way decent chance of getting called on it sooner or later.

Thus, a gun shop or firing range cannot put up a sign saying "No Muslims Allowed." That is obvious proof that they are discriminating on the basis of religion.

 

[Visbek]

The Muslim filing the charge is a board member with CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations' Oklahoma chapter). if you don't believe the group that videotaped the Planned Parenthood members talking about the profit from selling fetus baby parts, you've got to be against this type of 'sting' as well.

Or... not

Either the business discriminated against him because of his religion, or it didn't. There is no indication of a setup, or of highly edited videos, or illegal recordings, or of slandering the business. This is a fairly standard civil rights case.

Fatihah said he went to the gun range after learning about the sign. He said the owners of the store were pleasant and welcoming until he told them he was Muslim. "At that point, they started treating me with suspicion," Fatihah said. Could Fatihah have been belligerent to store owners because of the sign?

Maybe. However, the business pretty much set themselves up to lose a civil rights case.

As far as I can tell, neither side is disputing two facts: a) that Raja'ee Fatihah notified the business of his religion, and b) he was subsequently asked to leave.

The business might have a case that they don't actually care about his religion, and they asked him to leave because he was acting belligerent. However, a sign saying "No Muslims" is, well, a *cough* smoking gun that the intent of the refusal was religious discrimination.

I expect the business will have a very tough time making their case.

 

[Diving Mullah]

Granted he shouldn't be shooting guns but it's not illegal (yet). Doesn't seem a very Christian to do. Hope this guy gets a financial settlement that closes these nuts down.

Muslim man sues Oklahoma gun range for refusing him service


A sign posted on the business declared the range a "Muslim-free" establishment, and is similar to signs that have been placed at businesses in Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky and New York, said Brady Henderson, legal director for the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit.

Oh! Another out of work redneck and a bigot and another rich Minority, muslim in this case. Natural Selection at work...Darwinism is a beautiful thing!


Diving Mullah

 

[Cryptic]

AFAIK, there are no exemptions from civil rights laws for firearm-related businesses.

I think you are right, but please note I said "effectively exempt", not "exempt".

In theory, a gun owner might tell every black customer that "I'm concerned you will use this firearm for criminal purposes" or "I think you're participating in a straw gun sale." In practice, a store that only refuses to sell firearms to black customers runs a half-way decent chance of getting called on it sooner or later.

I think this is where the effectively exempt part comes in. Fundamentally, no gun store owner is obligated to make any sale. My bet is this core concept will keep the gun store owner out of trouble unless it can be proven that he stated "I will never, under any circumstances, sell a weapon to any black person".

The fact that the gun store owner has a long string of refusals to black customers as individuals does not over come the core concept that he can refuse any sale that he finds suspiscious or "suspiscious".

Thus, a gun shop or firing range cannot put up a sign saying "No Muslims Allowed." That is obvious proof that they are discriminating on the basis of religion.

Except that the shop displays a "Muslim free Zone" sign. Though the sign has the same intent as a "No Muslims Allowed" sign, it is not the same. Arguably, the sign can be presented as a statement of fact (the store is free of muslims, until one walked in), or a political expression of the owner (store does not affirm Islam).

Though some owners may abuse their freedom of expression (Sure, blacks are welcome here- providing they want to dine under a plethora of CSA battle flags, and dont mind the "impeach Obama" heading on the menu), the fact that a person operates a public accomodation does not void their right to free expression.

 

[Visbek]

I think you are right, but please note I said "effectively exempt", not "exempt".

Yes, people occasionally offer cynical "exceptions" for the people who figure out how to discriminate, without getting caught.

That does happen, but it requires a bit of subtlety. Hanging a visible anti-Muslim sign in your store? Not subtle.

The fact that the gun store owner has a long string of refusals to black customers as individuals does not over come the core concept that he can refuse any sale that he finds suspiscious or "suspiscious".

That's up to the state's CRB and/or a court to decide. However, gun ranges do not get any sort of special exception because their customers use firearms.

Except that the shop displays a "Muslim free Zone" sign. Though the sign has the same intent as a "No Muslims Allowed" sign, it is not the same.

It's the same.

Though some owners may abuse their freedom of expression (Sure, blacks are welcome here- providing they want to dine under a plethora of CSA battle flags, and dont mind the "impeach Obama" heading on the menu), the fact that a person operates a public accomodation does not void their right to free expression.

This is not a freedom of speech issue.

The right to freedom of speech does not absolve you of the responsibilities of your behaviors, and does not license you to violate civil rights laws.

If you post a sign in your establishment that reads "I Hate Catholics," and you serve Catholics with no sign of hatred whatsoever, you might survive a civil rights suit. However, if you refuse to serve a Catholic patron, and they see the sign, you're going to have a tough time explaining it to the judge.

Or, if you don't have a sign, and you refuse to serve a Catholic, and you tell that person verbally "I hate Catholics and I'm refusing you service," you cannot protect yourself against a civil rights lawsuit on the basis that you have the right to speak freely. You made your statement in a public accommodation, in conjunction with a refusal of service, and the person has every right to use your statements against you in a civil rights proceeding.

 

[Cryptic]

That's up to the state's CRB and/or a court to decide. However, gun ranges do not get any sort of special exception because their customers use firearms.

Gun range owners have the same very broad discretion gun store owners do in refusing service. Baring a "I will never, under any circumstances allow a muslim to train here with a weapon" proving discrimination is going to be hard.

If you post a sign in your establishment that reads "I Hate Catholics," and you serve Catholics with no sign of hatred whatsoever, you might survive a civil rights suit. However, if you refuse to serve a Catholic patron, and they see the sign, you're going to have a tough time explaining it to the judge.

Restaraunts are not gun stores or weapons ranges so the owner does not have the same level of discretion in refusing service. Also, the gun store owner in question did not refuse service, he just treated the customer with "suspiscion".

Though one could claim that he did not provide equal service, the fact that range owners seem to be able to refuse service based on mere suspiscion still needs to be overcome.

The right to freedom of speech does not absolve you of the responsibilities of your behaviors, and does not license you to violate civil rights laws.

And those civil rights laws do not require than all customers be made equally comfortable. This allows the "Muslim Free" sign and the Jack Chick phamphlets to be on display.

Sure, the gun store / range owner is abusing his discretion by posting a harassing sign and then getting "suspiscious" about a Muslim customer. But at the end of the day, he still retains his discretion. He can refuse weapons training to any individual (though he cant pre state a refusal to serve an entire class) for any reason, or for no stated reason at all.

My bet is that this makes proving discrimination very difficult.

 

[jamesrage]

I think people you visit gun ranges to shoot guns are slightly to mostly nutty. Wasn't meant to be a pejorative.

Amazing that to anti-2nd amendment lib-tard trash that anyone visiting a gun range to remain proficient in firearm usage or just to shoot a gun is a gun nutter. Anti-2nd amendment lib-tard trash wasn't meant to be a pejorative.

 

[Visbek]

Gun range owners have the same very broad discretion gun store owners do in refusing service. Baring a "I will never, under any circumstances allow a muslim to train here with a weapon" proving discrimination is going to be hard.

First, this case is about a gun range.

Second, proving discrimination gets a lot easier when you refuse service to a Muslim, and have a "Muslim Free" sign on your wall.

FYI, the sign actually reads "This privately owned business is a MUSLIM FREE establishment, we reserve the right to serve anyone. Thanks you." That's a pretty blatant statement that the owner fully intends to discriminate against Muslims.

Restaraunts are not gun stores or weapons ranges so the owner does not have the same level of discretion in refusing service.

I don't know of any state laws that provide any additional latitude to gun stores or gun ranges.

Also, the gun store owner in question did not refuse service, he just treated the customer with "suspiscion".

They subsequently kicked him out. That's a refusal of service.

And those civil rights laws do not require than all customers be made equally comfortable. This allows the "Muslim Free" sign and the Jack Chick phamphlets to be on display.

Again, if they hadn't kicked him out, he probably wouldn't have a case. They did, so he does.

Sure, the gun store / range owner is abusing his discretion by posting a harassing sign and then getting "suspiscious" about a Muslim customer. But at the end of the day, he still retains his discretion.

Not if he booted Fatihah because of his religious beliefs.

My bet is that this makes proving discrimination very difficult.

Posting a sign on the door saying "This business is MUSLIM FREE," and kicking Fatihah out after he told them he's a Muslim, makes it much easier.

 

[Cryptic]

Not if he booted Fatihah because of his religious beliefs.

Posting a sign on the door saying "This business is MUSLIM FREE," and kicking Fatihah out after he told them he's a Muslim, makes it much easier.

Only if he explicitly said they were the sole reason for booting him. Consider the court that dismissed this case:
‘Muslim-Free Zone’: Gun-shop owner wins case

Same sign, but added the CSA battle flag. Claims he wont serve anyone whom he deems to be connected directly or indirectly to terrorism (any bets as to what he considers to constitute "invovlement in terrorism"?). Though the court cited "no harm" in the dimissal, such a dismissal does not bode well.

I don't know of any state laws that provide any additional latitude to gun stores or gun ranges.

My understading is that they have near total discretion. Turtle Dude's input could well be helpful.

 

[TurtleDude]

Granted he shouldn't be shooting guns but it's not illegal (yet). Doesn't seem a very Christian to do. Hope this guy gets a financial settlement that closes these nuts down.

Muslim man sues Oklahoma gun range for refusing him service


A sign posted on the business declared the range a "Muslim-free" establishment, and is similar to signs that have been placed at businesses in Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky and New York, said Brady Henderson, legal director for the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the suit.

clear violation of Title VII

 

[Cryptic]

clear violation of Title VII

What is Title 7?

 

[TurtleDude]

My general understanding is that gun shop owners are effectively exempt the civil rights act in that they can refuse service to anyone for any reason, or for no stated reason.

Though "moslem free" signage should not be encouraged, gun shop owners and gun range owners need total discretion as individuals regarding the sale of weapons or the use of firing ranges. If the owner does not feel comfortable for any reason, then he needs the discretion not to sell the weapon or allow the use of a weapon on his property. Sure, some will abuse this discretion, but that does not void their need for discretion.

He can refuse service for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all but not an ILLEGAL reason. Under title VII a blanket prohibition based on someone being muslim is an illegal reason. . I agree with BrewerBob's comment in post #4

 

[TurtleDude]

And what makes the guy a gun nutter? He is a Reservist so even by the most left wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment he is entitled to bear arms. The fact he goes to the range indicates he wishes to remain proficient with his weapon, which indicates responsible ownership.

I'm not getting the "nutter" part of the OP.

Soho Gator is on record saying he wants to "Stigmatize" gun owners and gun ownership. He thinks people owning guns for whatever reason is something that should be publicly shamed and eliminated. To him, anyone who owns a gun is a "gun nutter" and is acting contrary to "public health"

 

[Grand Mal]

I think people you visit gun ranges to shoot guns are slightly to mostly nutty. Wasn't meant to be a pejorative.

Yes it was. It can't be anything else.
And he went to the range because he heard about the sign and wanted to challenge it. You need to watch your language.