Target Slams The Door

[Ole Cowboy]

Yes, it should be. Maybe 4 or 5 years ago, I wouldn't even consider any other position.

But, I gotta admit, every time I read about a bakery or florist somewhere being forced to participate in a gay wedding against the baker or florists' wishes, and every time I read about a business or organization being forced by Obamacare to provide services to employees that the owner or manager of the organization finds morally reprehensible*, and every time I read about some hideously ridiculous regulation that businesses have to comply with because a particularly idiotic city council suddenly deemed it so (plastic bag ban, anyone?), I have to wonder why I'm holding up my end of the deal when the left never relents in pushing the other way, and wins.

This is not a defense of the idiots carrying rifles into Target or Chipotle - that's stupid and needs to stop yesterday. I guess I'm just wondering out loud why, in the face of all the things the left is forcing businesses to otherwise accommodate lately, we shouldn't stand up and force them to accommodate at least licensed concealed carry?


*the Hobby Lobby ruling, as I understand it, only allows certain "closely held" corporations to avoid providing abortion-type coverages if they have a religious objection. It would still, as I understand it, force a business owner who was pro-life by reasons other than religious convictions, or a non-closely held corporation, to provide those things. And as I understand it, the jury is still out on non-profits, such as the group of nuns in California, I believe, who run a Meals on Wheels type program and don't want to pay for a health plan that provides birth control.

1) Gays have more rights than gun owners and or ALL other people*

2) Very NARROW ruling: HL has to provide funding for 16 other birth control meds and is exempt from only 4 which are abortion pills.

* FACT: YES, LGBT does have special rights and privileges over and above other American citizens, but then so do Blacks and other so called minorities all have special considerations over and above the "majority" (better known as 'whitey' who "clings to his gun and bible")

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Muddying the waters is the civil rights act. While segregation and discrimination are abhorrent to me; we created this slippery slope long ago.

Property/business owners should be able to serve or turn someone away based on any criteria they want. No one is forced to shop anywhere.

 

[London]

We were doing pretty good up until the point OCT showed up and started scaring the bejeeberz out of regular people.

Don't give into MDA's divide and conquer tactics. OCT requested all its members stop OCing into private businesses about a month ago. Anyone still doing so is doing it on their own. Pictures have been floating around for several months of people open carrying in Target; the company's response until recently was to hold the line as long as OC is being done legally.

What changed? An anti-freedom group called Moms Demand Action got involved. Until they got vociferous Target didn't care much about guns. So, yeah, this is an MDA victory. The exact same tactic has played out in Starbucks, Chipotle, etc. Don't blame OCT. They have changed their tactics to a more winning game plan. Blame Shannon Watts and her gaggle of loud-mouthed, divorced from reality, "Fears trump rights" cronies with nothing better to do than getting involved in flaky "Concerned" political movements as an alternative to cleaning the house and watching soap operas all day.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Muddying the waters is the civil rights act. While segregation and discrimination are abhorrent to me; we created this slippery slope long ago.

Property/business owners should be able to serve or turn someone away based on any criteria they want. No one is forced to shop anywhere.

Again, I strongly believe this in principle. But as you say, we seem to be well on the way down that slippery slope and I am having an increasingly hard time accepting that my side has to sit back and enjoy it, while the other side is getting pretty much everything they want. The Constitution SAYS I have the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution DOESN'T say businesses have to provide free birth control to their employees. I'm certainly happy to cede my carry rights to someone else's private property rights, but I want that working equally both ways and right now it's not and frankly, hasn't for a long time. It's just gotten much worse and blatant in the past 5 years or so.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Muddying the waters is the civil rights act. While segregation and discrimination are abhorrent to me; we created this slippery slope long ago.

Property/business owners should be able to serve or turn someone away based on any criteria they want. No one is forced to shop anywhere.

Just simply not true, we ALL practice this everyday. I don't eat at McD's as their burgers give me heartburn, I did not date ugly girls, don't buy Dodge diesel trucks as they make too much noise, refuse to buy Firestones tires and I can go on and on and on...

FACT is there is nothing wrong with not liking, not shopping, not buying and associating with people whom I don't feel are good or meet my criteria to be a friend or what ever. If you are of a certain religion I look at you with a jaundiced eye until proven otherwise and even then I am cautious, I avoid folks that have certain tattoos and the list is quite long. We are all people with personal views and there is nothing wrong with that UNLESS you covertly or overtly act out like burning a cross in someone's front yard, deny someone a job based upon criteria outside of and solely upon a trait based upon skin color or something else that has no effect on them doing the job...like the guy rides a Harley or the guy is a Vietnam veteran.

We practice and face these issues every day. I have been denied the right to eat in a restaurant because "we don't serve scooter trash" and I was told them by the Sheriff right before he and a deputy escorted to the county line. I did get hired because I was told "we don't hire Vietnam veterans" (this was a Fortune 100 corp in 1997! Were these incidents wrong?

 

[AustinN4]

As to the rest, forcing businesses to honor local gun laws, two wrongs don't make a right. My hope is that we eventually get these Dems out of office and reduce the government overreach into private business. I certainly don't want to add to it.

Amen, brother.

 

[AustinN4]

Gays have more rights than gun owners and or ALL other people.

Name them.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Name them.

They along with all minorities are protected as individuals and groups by Federal and some state laws. This puts them at the front of the line for a myriad of things from quota based hiring, special set aside federal/state loans, college/univ attendance you name it brother, whites stand at the back of the line.

Its a mess to say the least, I saw it first hand and in fact was involved (not without reservations).

 

[AustinN4]

They along with all minorities are protected as individuals and groups by Federal and some state laws.

While I agree with this, it isn't what you said the first time. You said "Gays have more rights than gun owners and or ALL other people*.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

While I agree with this, it isn't what you said the first time. You said "Gays have more rights than gun owners and or ALL other people*.

AND the do:

Dash Riprock posted: "very time I read about a bakery or florist somewhere being forced to participate in a gay wedding against the baker or florists' wishes, and every time I read about a business or organization being forced by Obamacare to provide services to employees that the owner or manager of the organization finds morally reprehensible*,"

So we are FORCED to bake a cake for gays, or FORCED to provide dating services to LGBT (E Harmony case*), and this TRUMPS our 2nd Amend rights.

You see anything wrong here?

Here is the point: The govt has created class warfare by giving special rights to various classes of CITIZENS. What happened to "We the People"?


*

[h=2]eHarmony forced to offer same-sex dating services; Update: And now, a class-action lawsuit[/h]
Coming soon to EHarmony — Adam and Steve.
"The Pasadena-based dating website, heavily promoted by Christian evangelical leaders when it was founded, has agreed in a civil rights settlement to give up its heterosexuals-only policy and offer same-sex matches."
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/20/eharmony-forced-to-offer-same-sex-dating-services/

 

[Sam Colt]

One small but important point: The government does not give people rights.

 

[TX69]

I clearly said I'll respect their property rights by spending my money elsewhere. Please show me where I advocated ignoring/marginalizing their property rights. Respecting property rights doesn't mean you have to respect stupidity, which leads me to the main point of the article: I do not go to places which publicly broadcast anti-gun sentiments because it has a nasty habit of making them magnets for homicidal psychotics.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

[AustinN4]

So we are FORCED to bake a cake for gays, or FORCED to provide dating services to LGBT (E Harmony case*), and this TRUMPS our 2nd Amend rights.

Those are court decisions, not rights, and they do no trump your 2A rights.

But just to clarify, gays can get a cake, and so can I. Gays can join a dating service and so can I. Where am I being denied my rights? You did say "ALL people" after all.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

One small but important point: The government does not give people rights.

Don't you wish it were so, the gov in fact does give rights, what it cannot give is what we call inalienable rights...but don't fret, there is a movement now to begin changing that. Govt have doled out rights for all over history, and we have a govt and its leader who would do so in a heartbeat...to a dictatorship

Those are court decisions, not rights, and they do no trump your 2A rights.

But just to clarify, gays can get a cake, and so can I. Gays can join a dating service and so can I. Where am I being denied my rights? You did say "ALL people" after all.

So a court decision does not grant or take away rights? You live in Austin, your city govt is working now to decide how much a business MUST pay its employees and what benefits your private business will provide.


Right now I think you are beginning to argue for the sake of argument. I don't not know which of your rights you are being denied, I cannot speak for you. But if you owned a cake shop...you would have to bake a cake, but you are not going into Target with your gun...guessing that makes good sense to you!

Did you read post # 70 or just skip it as it did not fit your thinking?


POLITICSMore: Law and Order Supreme Court Constitution
6 Constitutional Amendments That Could Dramatically Improve America

• ERIN FUCHS

• JUN. 27, 2014, 2:20 PM

AP Photo​

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in April 2014


In a groundbreaking new book, the 94-year-old retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens has unveiled a blueprint for improving the Constitution.The jacket of "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change The Constitution" points out that Stevens is the first current or former justice to propose such amendments. Indeed, Supreme Court justices interpret the law rather than make it.
But it stands to reason that Stevens would understand the Constitution's flaws after analyzing it so deeply during his 35 years on the bench. Here are Stevens' six amendments and his justifications for proposing them.
A Constitutional Amendment To Prevent Mass Murder









Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-paul-stevens-six-amendments-2014-6#ixzz36cBPmp1E

 

[AustinN4]

Right now I think you are beginning to argue for the sake of argument.

Actually, I started this dialog to take you to task for your absolute statement "Gays have more rights than .................................ALL other people". But instead of backing off your absolute statement you obfuscate.

But if you owned a cake shop...you would have to bake a cake, but you are not going into Target with your gun...guessing that makes good sense to you!

Gays pretty much nauseate me, but if I owned a bake shop I would be in business to make money and the more cakes I bake the more money I would make. So I would have baked their silly cake and taken their money.

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't say except for gays and blacks.

The court basically said, and I am paraphrasing here, that their right to happiness trumped your right to deny them their happiness. That's what courts do, they settle disputes. One side was gonna lose that case and one side was gonna win. There was no win available to both sides. I really don't see that the court had any other choice.

As to Target, I would not be stupid enough to OC a long gun in Target or anywhere else, which also seems to be the prevailing opinion on this and other forums.

 

[London]

"Erin Fuchs."

She should really change her name; that is one of the least boneable piles of liberal vomit I've ever seen. How dare she openly walk around flaunting a name clearly deserving only of B-grade porn queens? "Chastity Chaste" would probably be perfect, but if she insists on familiarity I'll settle for "Erin Fuchthesecondamendmentyoubabykillingmonsters."

 

[CrazedJava]

Those are court decisions, not rights, and they do no trump your 2A rights.

Court decisions set legal precedent and may be used in how rights are interpreted. Look at how many Pro-2A people trumpet the Heller decision.

Courts cannot MAKE laws but they can INTERPRET them. If they decide a behavior is illegal, then any lower courts underneath them will typically act in the same manner. This is why the Supreme Court is so important. There is no higher court and all decisions affect all states and regions.

 

[Younggun]

Don't you wish it were so, the gov in fact does give rights, what it cannot give is what we call inalienable rights...but don't fret, there is a movement now to begin changing that. Govt have doled out rights for all over history, and we have a govt and its leader who would do so in a heartbeat...to a dictatorship


So a court decision does not grant or take away rights? You live in Austin, your city govt is working now to decide how much a business MUST pay its employees and what benefits your private business will provide.


Right now I think you are beginning to argue for the sake of argument. I don't not know which of your rights you are being denied, I cannot speak for you. But if you owned a cake shop...you would have to bake a cake, but you are not going into Target with your gun...guessing that makes good sense to you!

Did you read post # 70 or just skip it as it did not fit your thinking?


POLITICSMore: Law and Order Supreme Court Constitution
6 Constitutional Amendments That Could Dramatically Improve America

• ERIN FUCHS

• JUN. 27, 2014, 2:20 PM

AP Photo​

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in April 2014


In a groundbreaking new book, the 94-year-old retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens has unveiled a blueprint for improving the Constitution.The jacket of "Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change The Constitution" points out that Stevens is the first current or former justice to propose such amendments. Indeed, Supreme Court justices interpret the law rather than make it.
But it stands to reason that Stevens would understand the Constitution's flaws after analyzing it so deeply during his 35 years on the bench. Here are Stevens' six amendments and his justifications for proposing them.
A Constitutional Amendment To Prevent Mass Murder









Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/john-paul-stevens-six-amendments-2014-6#ixzz36cBPmp1E

NO.

Governments DO NOT give or take right. Rights are natural/god given (depending on your belief). Governments can give privileges, and they can infringe on rights, but they do not take, give, or create rights.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Actually, I started this dialog to take you to task for your absolute statement "Gays have more rights than .................................ALL other people". But instead of backing off your absolute statement you obfuscate.


Gays pretty much nauseate me, but if I owned a bake shop I would be in business to make money and the more cakes I bake the more money I would make. So I would have baked their silly cake and taken their money.

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It doesn't say except for gays and blacks.

The court basically said, and I am paraphrasing here, that their right to happiness trumped your right to deny them their happiness. That's what courts do, they settle disputes. One side was gonna lose that case and one side was gonna win. There was no win available to both sides. I really don't see that the court had any other choice.

As to Target, I would not be stupid enough to OC a long gun in Target or anywhere else, which also seems to be the prevailing opinion on this and other forums.

I gave you examples, links and made analogies, none of which you get. Until you get a better understanding of the laws passed by Congress granting special privileges to certain classes of citizens, you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

NO.

Governments DO NOT give or take right. Rights are natural/god given (depending on your belief). Governments can give privileges, and they can infringe on rights, but they do not take, give, or create rights.

You trying to be like Austin:

From the dictionary:

special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people: education is a right, not a privilege | he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.

The 2 of you put together could not pour pizz out of a boot with the directions written on the heel...

 

[jordanmills]

I can't believe I scrolled through 5 pages and didn't find any mention of this. Let me type it in all caps so that everyone understands:

TARGET HAD NO CHOICE OTHER THAN TO MAKE THEIR STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!

Let me explain why (and this goes for other establishments in the great state of TEXAS).

ANY business that sells alcohol including Target, Walmart, all restaurants that serves alcohol (even non 51%) must hold a TABC license. Here is the catch: any TABC licensee is expressly forbidden to allow the UNLICENSED carry of firearms on their property! If they break this statute, they will lose their TABC license. TABC has notified all license holders in the state of this statute. They are in their "education" mode, but it will soon turn to their "enforcement" mode.

Set every other opinion aside on Target. THEY HAD NO CHOICE! They are not going to pull their beer and wine sections out of every one of their stores in Texas (and lose that revenue stream) to please OCT.

Just for the record - I am all for OC in Texas, and will do so if handgun OC is ever passed!

That's incorrect. They're required to post a sign that inaccurately summarizes state law.