I never claimed they couldn't - but if they can ban guns (which is something ironically they sold) they can ban gays if they want.
It's a two-way street here.
Do you really recommend stepping over that line? because it's only asking for trouble.
Let people do what they do and live free until they actually physically hurt someone.
not if there is a law against it.
no not even in the same city
over the line of businesses deciding what is best for their business?
Target is free to ban guns.
who have they hurt?
Really? show me an Amendment that upholds homosexual marriage. And don't even attempt to show laws that legalized interracial marriage because gays are NOT interracial, and quite frankly I'm getting upset at gays comparing themselves to slaves or even interracial couples.
Lets say I ignore the ban: who have I hurt?Target is free to ban guns.
who have they hurt?
anti-discrimination laws in some place require businesses open to the public to not discriminate against gay people. So....a bakery that sells cakes cannot discriminate against a gay couple wanting one for their wedding. As for you getting upset about something I didn't do well great. But I think you are just upset that there are gay people in the world and that Target has a right to ban open carry in their store. You should relax.
Sex and bare feet aren't constitutional issues.
Frankly, since they are a privately owned business, they probably have the right to restrict just about anything that isn't constitutionally protected.
Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores? | Today's Question | Minnesota Public Radio News
So there's pressure on Target to restrict gun carrying. Now my own opinion is that open carry like this is more harmful to gun rights. If guns are OK, what else should openly allowed? Should we openly allow gay sex in the frozen foods aisle? You have that right too, right? It's my right to go barefoot, but they won't let me do that.
True, but their intent was not to die other wise they would just have killed them selves like most of the nut jobs. Their intention was to do harm. neither attack would have happened if they knew that most of their intended victims were packing
Should Target take action to keep rifles out of their stores? | Today's Question | Minnesota Public Radio News
So there's pressure on Target to restrict gun carrying. Now my own opinion is that open carry like this is more harmful to gun rights. If guns are OK, what else should openly allowed? Should we openly allow gay sex in the frozen foods aisle? You have that right too, right? It's my right to go barefoot, but they won't let me do that.
Most mass shooters kill themselves and the ones that don't often admit that "suicide by cop" was their goal. Just like control laws have no impact on criminals, the presence of armed people has no impact on those who aren't thinking rationally.
I thought it was the theater policy, not city ordnance.That's an interesting thought. The guy who shot up the theater in Aurora Colorado, for example, walked up an aisle firing as he went, across, and then down, firing as he went, completely unimpeded and unopposed because the city didn't let folks carry guns, tossed his weaponry as it jammed, and then went around to his vehicle which he had parked out back and hung around waiting to be arrested; and was so non-violently.
That's an interesting thought. The guy who shot up the theater in Aurora Colorado, for example, walked up an aisle firing as he went, across, and then down, firing as he went, completely unimpeded and unopposed because the city didn't let folks carry guns, tossed his weaponry as it jammed, and then went around to his vehicle which he had parked out back and hung around waiting to be arrested; and was so non-violently.
Residence isnt open to the public, public accommodation doesn't apply.I should be able to carry a gun into your home against your will in case you try to kill me.
Residence isnt open to the public, public accommodation doesn't apply.
Seeing as how more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats, and the champion of the Act was a Conservative Republican who also strongly supported gun rights, who came from a state which opposed slavory before the civil war...yeah.You think a lot of the Republicans in this thread are going to back public accommodation laws?
I thought it was the theater policy, not city ordnance.
And whatever happened, the point is that the presence of armed people wouldn't be something that would be likely to give him pause. He was going to do what he was going to do and no gun control laws or lack of them was going to change his mind.
.Most mass shooters kill themselves and the ones that don't often admit that "suicide by cop" was their goal. Just like control laws have no impact on criminals, the presence of armed people has no impact on those who aren't thinking rationally.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?