Actually no they don't if you're not being a douche about it and causing a scene...
Tennessee Gun Rights
- Thread starter "J"
- Start date
Actually no they don't if you're not being a douche about it and causing a scene...
- 39,228
- 274
It's completely opposite scenarios between removing someone that's disorderly and impacting their business and that business purposefully creating a situation that causes liability..
If you own a factory and require people to wear badge lanyards that don't have beak away safety's and someone gets pulled Into a machine, you're liable. If you own a scrap yard and post a sign that says no gloves and someone cuts their hand, you're liable. If you own a scuba diving business and you say no flippers and someone drowns because they didn't have flippers, you're liable. If you prohibit a person vetted by the state to carry a weapon for protection and then something happens, you're liable. Businesses should be allowed to post whatever sign they want. But if because of that sign someone can't protect themselves that business should be liable.
I disagree. Also just because you carry a gun doesn't mean u are safe. If they don't have a sign and I get shot can I still sue because they didn't have adequate security? How about we hold the person that went crazy liable and allow the business to operate how it sees fit. That sign was posted on the front door so you knew the risk when you walked in.
- 39,228
- 274
It's true just because you carry a gun doesn't make you safe. It does however give you a chance to be safer. A chance is better than no chance. A chance that was removed by a business that should be held liable for that action.
And the person who went crazy should be liable. As well as the person who created the perfect environment for them to do it an my right to protect myself an my family.
Per your reasoning I should be allowed to post a sign that says "whites only" and then claim complete innocence when the skinheads my business attracted kills a black fella for entering. Hell. That black guy knew the risk and that business should be allowed to operate as they see fit.
The business you speak of can still operate as they see fit. They can still prohibit guns. They can post all the signs they want. Nobody is infringing on their right to run a business as they see fit. However they should be liable for that decision and for removing that chance a person had to protect themselves.
Obviously we aren't going to agree but as controversial as it may be a business should be allowed to post whites only, or blacks only, or gays only. It's their business. If they want to hurt their business by limiting the amount of customers that come to their store why should we stop them.
I can pretty much guarantee that some one being civil and disagreeing with a business will be less likely ejected then someone making an ass out of themselves....
- 39,228
- 274
Because the right of the public to have equal rights to goods overrules the right of a person to operate a business.
A business should not be allowed to create a location where a persons right to defend themselves is removed, and then do nothing to prevent someone with intent on harm who will ignore those signs, and then claim innocence when the environment they created causes damages to someone they disarmed.
You answered your own question....
I believe if it's legal for gays to be married then the bakery should make the cake...
But I also believe if I walk into an establishment and they don't want to serve me for whatever reason then why would I want to give them my money in the first place....
I believe if it's legal for gays to be married then the bakery should make the cake...
But I also believe if I walk into an establishment and they don't want to serve me for whatever reason then why would I want to give them my money in the first place....
If Rosa Parks would of boycotted the bus line with all other blacks, how long would of the bus line went on losing the money flow from folks who predominantly couldn't afford vehicles and relied on mass transit?
There is the crux of our disagreement. I believe in liberty and if I believe marrying a gay person is wrong why should the government have the right to make me participate in it? That would be infringing on my religious freedom. I'm not sure what you are saying about Rosa Parks but wasn't that public transportation?
I guess my point is if someone denies you service, why would you want to use them? Go somewhere else....
Not saying I agree with gay marriage as well, but it's the law, and once that happened you have to oblige them with the same convenances heterosexual folks would be afforded...
You want to provide a service to the public, you have to take the good with the bad....
Not saying I agree with gay marriage as well, but it's the law, and once that happened you have to oblige them with the same convenances heterosexual folks would be afforded...
You want to provide a service to the public, you have to take the good with the bad....
Right, go somewhere else if someone doesn't want to serve you. Remember the no shoes, no shirt, no service sign. Now that would be called discriminating against the poor.
I've seen way more people with money not wearing shoes/shirts then homeless folks...
And if they're poor they probably couldn't afford the product if they couldn't afford shoes/shirt...
Exactly! But, people are getting ruined for denying services. This is where my stance on this issue comes from. I know there is a bit of difference between denying services and gun free zones at a business, but one should be able to run their business how they want and the consequences, whether positive or negative, will follow.