- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 5,146
- Reaction score
- 1,700
- Location
- York, Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Refusing to back a cake for homosexuals violates ZERO civil liberties.
No it isn't. It's a constitutional right. If a private sector business wants to ban guns from their properties, that's their prerogative. It's no different than a store with a 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' rule.
And the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a civil right.
Meanwhile we have poor bakeries that refuse to bake a cake for homosexuals and they're massively under fire - and making someone bake a cake is NOT a civil liberty. If anything it's a basic lack of tolerance for those with religious views that prevent them from partaking in such a "wedding" or ceremony.
Carrying a gun is a civil liberty.
Refusing to back a cake for homosexuals violates ZERO civil liberties.
You can call it a constitutional right or a civil right - it doesn't matter considering BOTH are the same.
BTW it is a CIVIL RIGHT considering it is the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights - hence a CIVIL RIGHT/LIBERTY.
If you want to get into specifics constitutional rights are different than Civil liberties. But I'm in no mood to be giving civics/ US history lectures - especially on ideas that are generally thought of as common knowledge.
And we're back to "No gays = OK," "No guns = not OK." Both private businesses, but you are picking and choosing what you like and what you don't.
It's a logical nonsequitur.
It doesn't matter - forcing Christians to back a cake (which violates their First Amendment religious rights) is the fundamental problem with that issue.
You may as well claim you have the RIGHT to force Muslims to serve you pork...
Constitutional rights and civil rights are not one and the same. You know that. I know you're smarter than that. Civil rights cannot be taken away, constitutional rights can.
Well the Bill of Rights is certainly part of the constitution, yet its a completely separate document.... Constitutional rights CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY. The Constitution is what founded our society. Perhaps under law the constitution could be amended - I have never seen anyone even attempt it, and I'm not sure the process it would take to amend the actual Constitution or even why...
The Bill of Rights on the other hand is a completely different story - there is no way in hell the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution will ever be changed - despite the progressive effort.
I agree that constitutional rights should not be violated, but I don't think you know when and where the constitution is in effect. Target, or any business, making a rule that says you can't open carry inside of their stores violates no constitutional rights. Target can also kick you out of their store for cursing too loudly and it would not be a violation of your constitutional rights.
The idea violates the Second Amendment - it's that simple.
When you walk into a store do you see a sign that says "all civil liberties are left at the door?" Do you have any idea how many businesses are sued for violating individuals civil rights? -- so yes Civil Rights still apply in a business.
Yes, Constitutional rights can be taken away. Convicted felons lose their right to vote and own guns, do they not? Why yes they do.
And the Bill of Rights is NOT a separate document from the Constitution. They are amendments to the constitution. Amendments are part of the Constitution.
No they don't - not for life, just as long as they're on parole hence considered still property of the state.
Once an individual with a "felony" finishes his or her parole they can buy guns and vote because they served their time - they're free citizens.
No it does not violate the second amendment. The second amendment is not a civil liberty, it is a constitutional right. The constitution does not come into play at all if Target decides to ban open carry from their stores. It is akin to a person not allowing open carry in their own home.
You are ignorant on this. No a convicted felon cannot (legally) own guns or vote, even after serving their sentence and being totally free and clear.
I wasn't aware that anyone was talking about OC vs CC at all. I was talking about CC past a sign. Private businesses have every right to require a dress code and no visible arms as part of that dress code, but total disarmament is uncalled for.But still, I consider open carry to be idiotic:
1. If you open carry, you are the first target for a mass shooter. Especially when everyone else who has seen you open carrying look to you to "Do Something!"
2. If the police come looking for a man with a gun, its best to not be one.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Corporations don't control civil liberties..... Now, if a business doesn't want someone open/carrying a gun in their store they have every right to deny them entry - that is their right, but they can't discriminate without a policy.
I have a friend who was convicted of manslaughter and will be able to buy guns in just a couple months.I was convicted of a class 4 felony when I was 18-years-old and I can vote and buy guns...
Once you're out of the system you can vote and buy guns.... Sure it takes 7 years for that felony to go away but you can still vote if you're off parole - it just takes 7 years to clear your name to buy a gun.
I've bought a few.
I was convicted of a class 4 felony when I was 18-years-old and I can vote and buy guns...
Once you're out of the system you can vote and buy guns.... Sure it takes 7 years for that felony to go away but you can still vote if you're off parole - it just takes 7 years to clear your name to buy a gun.
I've bought a few.
I agree that constitutional rights should not be violated, but I don't think you know when and where the constitution is in effect. Target, or any business, making a rule that says you can't open carry inside of their stores violates no constitutional rights. Target can also kick you out of their store for cursing too loudly and it would not be a violation of your constitutional rights.
I know exactly what 'm talking about....
In reality I could sue a store if I was open and carrying and there was no sign posted that said such an act was forbidden.
It's store policies.
Hell, I could open a store and forbid gays from shopping there - they have no more constitutional right than an individual that open/carries.
Should Target take action to prevent people from walking around in their stores with long guns? That answer should come from Target itself, and not from the government, or political talking heads. If it is driving other people away, then it would be a good business practice to disallow carrying long guns inside their stores. And, if the bottom line is unaffected, and people are not leaving because they feel uncomfortable around others who carry long guns inside Target stores, then I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to carry long guns inside Target stores. It's all about the market place, and Target's decision will be based on the impact upon their business, and not based on politics. In short, common sense will rule here.
Damn right it should be store policy and not government policy weather or not a business is willing to accept open carry, and I'm sure in some regions it's more acceptable to open/carry than others.
I'm still not sure why anyone would want to go shopping with a rifle, I could certainly see a sidearm but a rifle is just making a political statement - and there is nothing wrong with that.
Also, who really cares anyways?
In reality you could sue a store for absolutely anything you want to.
You could do that, but you'd be forced to change or shut down very quickly. The two are not the same.
Who on this thread argued that it SHOULDN'T be store policy? Of course it should be store policy, if they want it. Government doesn't come into play in this, and shouldn't.
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?