Anti-Muslim gun shop brilliance!

[Chaotic0ne]

Store owners should be able to choose who they will and will not do business with. If a Black person wants to open up a gun store, grocery, restaurant and say "No Whites" that's fine too. I don't understand why some people like to impose themselves in establishments they know they aren't welcome unless they're hoping for grounds for a lawsuit.

 

[ivwshane]

I draw the line at public places discriminating. Other than that, private companies are free to make as many poor decisions as their budget allows.

And the segregationists from the 50's would absolutely agree with you, unfortunately no one, including the Supreme Court agrees with you and your fellow racists

 

[ivwshane]

Store owners should be able to choose who they will and will not do business with. If a Black person wants to open up a gun store, grocery, restaurant and say "No Whites" that's fine too. I don't understand why some people like to impose themselves in establishments they know they aren't welcome unless they're hoping for grounds for a lawsuit.

And I fully support the right of people to be completely ignorant of history! I just don't understand why those idiots get mad when others point out their stupidity.

 

[Smoblikat]

And the segregationists from the 50's would absolutely agree with you, unfortunately no one, including the Supreme Court agrees with you and your fellow racists

Ah yes, allowing a private buisness to choose how they want to operate. The only people who like that idea are definitely racists

And I fully support the right of people to be completely ignorant of history! I just don't understand why those idiots get mad when others point out their stupidity.

The problem with your little theory is that currently there are enough public businesses and stores that even if every private one decided to not server people who have 10 toes, everybody would still be able to get everything they ever needed and wanted. I do NOT support public places and publicly traded companies to discriminate against people based on appearance. Im sure in the 50's there were less publicly traded companies, and in case you havent noticed, this isnt the 50's....

 

[nickqt]

GoFundMe clickbait.

Grifter subtype conservatives have learned that you can make a lot of money by getting the useful idiots to send you free money for being a bigot.

 

[lopri]

It is like "Get the government out of my social security!," that is, an oxymoron.

 

[ivwshane]

Ah yes, allowing a private buisness to choose how they want to operate. The only people who like that idea are definitely racists

We aren't talking about operating we are talking about discriminating, which last time I checked was against the law.

The problem with your little theory is that currently there are enough public businesses and stores that even if every private one decided to not server people who have 10 toes, everybody would still be able to get everything they ever needed and wanted. I do NOT support public places and publicly traded companies to discriminate against people based on appearance. Im sure in the 50's there were less publicly traded companies, and in case you havent noticed, this isnt the 50's....

No I haven't noticed but I do notice the increasing passage of laws and policies that restrict women's rights, a rise in police force and the targeting and killing of black men, I also notice government officials invoking religious beliefs into their policies and a demonization of people of a different faith (specifically Muslims)), and I've noticed the rise in fervor of American patriotism and the resurgence of the red scare, pardon me, I mean the fight against the great evil that is socialism.

So pardon me mister segregationist if I don't buy into your business rights bullshit!

 

[lopri]

Ah yes, allowing a private buisness to choose how they want to operate. The only people who like that idea are definitely racists

Pretty much, yes.

The problem with your little theory is that currently there are enough public businesses and stores that even if every private one decided to not server people who have 10 toes, everybody would still be able to get everything they ever needed and wanted. I do NOT support public places and publicly traded companies to discriminate against people based on appearance. Im sure in the 50's there were less publicly traded companies, and in case you havent noticed, this isnt the 50's....

I am not sure of the line you are drawing, but a gun store with a sign on a street is "public" in any sense of the world just as a lunch counter segregated on a street is "public" even if you personally are not hungry or you eat privately elsewhere.

 

[feralkid]

nm

 

[Chaotic0ne]

And I fully support the right of people to be completely ignorant of history! I just don't understand why those idiots get mad when others point out their stupidity.

Who's getting mad? I must have missed that.

 

[shira]

And Jesus. I mean if Jesus comes in and wants to pick up a few weapons, who is this guy to say no to him. I mean, well, Jesus is white, right?

Jesus was an amazing freak of nature: Born in the Middle East of 100% Middle Eastern ancestry, but looked like a fair-skinned, gentile European.

If you doubt this genetic miracle, just take a look at all of the physically-accurate Jesus sculptures and paintings throughout history.

 

[Venix]

And the segregationists from the 50's would absolutely agree with you, unfortunately no one, including the Supreme Court agrees with you and your fellow racists

Actually, the Supreme Court explicitly agreed with him in the Civil Rights Cases, in which the Court ruled that businesses can freely discriminate against anyone for any reason. This is standing precedent that was recently reaffirmed in US v. Morrison.

The prohibition against religious/racial/etc. discrimination by businesses is the work of Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's only relation to the topic is that it upheld civil rights legislation as a legitimate use of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[michal1980]

ahh so now breitbart is legit.

 

[lopri]

Actually, the Supreme Court explicitly agreed with him in the Civil Rights Cases, in which the Court ruled that businesses can freely discriminate against anyone for any reason. This is standing precedent that was recently reaffirmed in US v. Morrison.

The prohibition against religious/racial/etc. discrimination by businesses is the work of Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's only relation to the topic is that it upheld civil rights legislation as a legitimate use of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

You have the cases wrong and mixed up. Morrison case you cite is a Commerce Clause case which limited the reach of Congress' power, because the law in question - Violence against Women Act - had nothing to do with interstate commerce.

The court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the Commerce Clause because the Commerce Clause was what the Congress relied on to enact the law. (Heart of Atlanta motel v. U.S.) In other words, the court had no occasion to render judgment on federal power to prohibit discrimination on any other ground (Edit: There is another area - voting rights, which are explicitly provided by the Constitution).

On State level, the SCOTUS generally does not get involved in anti-discrimination laws because all the states have boiler-plate anti-discrimination laws that are enforced by State governments. But when State laws discriminate against individuals/groups on prohibited grounds (race, sex, national origin, etc.) the SCOTUS itself gets involved, quite actively. What do you think Brown v. Board of Education was about?

 

[ivwshane]

Actually, the Supreme Court explicitly agreed with him in the Civil Rights Cases, in which the Court ruled that businesses can freely discriminate against anyone for any reason. This is standing precedent that was recently reaffirmed in US v. Morrison.

The prohibition against religious/racial/etc. discrimination by businesses is the work of Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's only relation to the topic is that it upheld civil rights legislation as a legitimate use of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

I stand, sadly, corrected

 

[ivwshane]

You have the cases wrong and mixed up. Morrison case you cite is a Commerce Clause case which limited the reach of Congress' power, because the law in question had nothing to do with interstate commerce.

The court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the Commerce Clause because the Commerce Clause was what the Congress relied on to enact the law. (Heart of Atlanta motel v. U.S.) In other words, the court had no occasion to render judgment on federal power to prohibit discrimination on any other ground (Edit: There is another area - voting rights, which are explicitly provided by the Constitution).

On State level, the SCOTUS generally does not get involved in anti-discrimination laws because all the states have boiler-plate anti-discrimination laws that are enforced by State governments. But when State laws discriminate against individuals/groups on prohibited grounds (race, sex, national origin, etc.) the SCOTUS itself gets involved, quite actively. What do you think Brown v. Board of Education was about?

The issue is private vs public entities. The Supreme Court ruled that government cannot discriminate based on race. There are a few other items (right to property), that also prohibit racial discrimination for private entities but the Supreme Court has not ruled on a blanket anti racial discrimination laws that affect private businesses.
Congress has passed laws and presidents have also signed executive order prohibiting racial discrimination but the Supreme Court, that I specifically mentioned in the post the other poster responded to, has not made any such ruling.

 

[lopri]

Private entities as in entities outside of laws' reach, including churches. Yes. I did not say otherwise. Obviously the government cannot prohibit discrimination on who you befriend or marry, for example. Such law would not only infringe on the freedom of association but would be totally unenforceable and absurd.

However, the court stated in many occasions the following principle;

The Constitution cannot control such prejudices but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. (Palmore v. Sidoti, 1984)

Thus, the court upheld the IRS' decision to revoke tax-exempt status from a racist university (Bob Jones University v. U.S.) and also upheld a public law school's non-discrimination policy (CLS v. Martinez).

 

[JEDIYoda]

He should stop selling guns to white people too, if he really cared about mass shootings.

You know as a fact that the weapons he sells were used for mass shootings? Please tell us how you know....

 

[lopri]

The issue is private vs public entities. The Supreme Court ruled that government cannot discriminate based on race. There are a few other items (right to property), that also prohibit racial discrimination for private entities but the Supreme Court has not ruled on a blanket anti racial discrimination laws that affect private businesses.
Congress has passed laws and presidents have also signed executive order prohibiting racial discrimination but the Supreme Court, that I specifically mentioned in the post the other poster responded to, has not made any such ruling.

OK, now I understand what you are saying, especially the bolded part. The reason is rather simple, however. In our system of government, the court has only jurisdiction over "case or controversy." That is, the court can only render judgment when there are parties advancing adverse claims over concrete injuries (injury-in-fact). The court does not have power to "make law" or announce national policy.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You know as a fact that the weapons he sells were used for mass shootings? Please tell us how you know....

Seven years military intelligence

 

[ivwshane]

OK, now I understand what you are saying, especially the bolded part. The reason is rather simple, however. In our system of government, the court has only jurisdiction over "case or controversy." That is, the court can only render judgment when there are parties advancing adverse claims over concrete injuries (injury-in-fact). The court does not have power to "make law" or announce national policy.

While that may be true, the other poster corrected my point and he was right. If I would have said that the law disagrees with segregationist then I would have been correct but instead I stated that the Supreme Court didn't agree with them and that is incorrect.

 

[Venix]

You have the cases wrong and mixed up. Morrison case you cite is a Commerce Clause case which limited the reach of Congress' power, because the law in question - Violence against Women Act - had nothing to do with interstate commerce.

The court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under the Commerce Clause because the Commerce Clause was what the Congress relied on to enact the law. (Heart of Atlanta motel v. U.S.) In other words, the court had no occasion to render judgment on federal power to prohibit discrimination on any other ground (Edit: There is another area - voting rights, which are explicitly provided by the Constitution).

On State level, the SCOTUS generally does not get involved in anti-discrimination laws because all the states have boiler-plate anti-discrimination laws that are enforced by State governments. But when State laws discriminate against individuals/groups on prohibited grounds (race, sex, national origin, etc.) the SCOTUS itself gets involved, quite actively. What do you think Brown v. Board of Education was about?

I don't have the cases wrong or mixed up. In case my point was unclear, I'll restate it: The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that businesses are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment. Discrimination by businesses is only illegal today because of laws passed by Congress; if those laws were repealed, victims of discrimination would have no recourse in the courts. There is no Constitutional protection against discrimination by a business.

In 1875, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that was very similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The key difference is that Congress defended the 1875 law with the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause rather than the Commerce Clause. In the Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state actors and cannot be enforced against businesses, and declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 Unconstitutional. This allowed businesses to openly discriminate against blacks for the next 80 years.

US v. Morrison is directly related to that decision, as Congress defended the Violence Against Women Act with both Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause arguments. In section 3 of the opinion, the Court explicitly reaffirms the Civil Rights Cases and again concludes that "Congress' power under §5 [of the Fourteenth Amendment] does not extend to the enactment of §13981 [VAWA]." Brown v. Board of Education further reinforces the point; it only integrated government-run schools, and private "segregation academies" became popular in areas opposed to desegregation.

 

[DrPizza]

ahh so now breitbart is legit.

You've got to be the dumbest poster in P&N. I even said in the OP, the contents of the article don't matter, except to illustrate that two gun shop owners have publicly declared that they won't sell guns to Muslims.

 

[lopri]

I don't have the cases wrong or mixed up. In case my point was unclear, I'll restate it: The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that businesses are not bound by the Fourteenth Amendment. Discrimination by businesses is only illegal today because of laws passed by Congress; if those laws were repealed, victims of discrimination would have no recourse in the courts. There is no Constitutional protection against discrimination by a business.

That is correct and your earlier post was indeed unclear to me. What you wrote was,

Actually, the Supreme Court explicitly agreed with him in the Civil Rights Cases, in which the Court ruled that businesses can freely discriminate against anyone for any reason. This is standing precedent that was recently reaffirmed in US v. Morrison

That is a far cry from the 14th Amendment not providing for private cause of action (see my post #42), and frankly, misleading. Morrison did not invalidate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and nowhere in the decision* could I find a holding "business can discriminate against anyone for any reason." Moreover, I have no idea what Civil Rights Cases have anything to do with your point that the 14th Amendment itself does not provide for self-executing anti-discrimination laws, since what the court dealt with in the Civil Rights cases was the Civil Rights Act of 1875, an act of Congress.

*Thanks to the link I had a chance to read the Morrison decision and I am reminded how bad that decision was. (just as the Civil Rights Cases were) Nevertheless, the most damage it did was Congress overreached in Violence against Women Act. Whatever dicta Rehnquest wrote are his wishful thinking.

 

[dank69]

You've got to be the dumbest poster in P&N. ...

I've been saying it for years.