Kudos and Props to Jan Brewer, Republican Governor of Arizona

Discussion in 'Politics' started by chelloveck, Feb 27, 2014.


  1. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    AH, but the Question you seem not to be able to answer is WHY, is there a difference?

    What you are saying is, That if a THUG comes in and wants to purchase a Weapon from Me, that I MUST Sell it to him, if I could Sell the same Weapon to a Young Father, who brings his young Son, with him, on Saturday afternoon. That makes NO Sense at all... Total BS....
    and if a THUG brings me a Weapon that is Jammed, with a Stuck Cartridge, I can Refuse to Service his Weapon, and the same if the Young Father comes in with a .22LR Rifle, he has had, since he was 12 years old....
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2014
  2. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    Yes, if said "thug" is legally able to purchase a gun I think you have to sell if you are a store open to the public.

    The difference might best be describe like contract law. The most basic rule of contract law is that a legal contract exists when one party makes an offer and the other party accepts it.

    If you are a seller of goods you are making an offer, and the thug accepts.

    If you provide a service, it's the thug who makes the offer and you can accept or refuse.
     
  3. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Until a sale is complete, and a receipt tendered, the seller can always refuse to sell. Public or private sale, there is no difference. The seller is not under obligation to sell to anyone, it is strictly a profit motive.
    Most stores have signs up that read they can refuse service to anyone.
     
  4. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    I didn't mean it legally, just as a way to explain sale from service.

    Legally, you can deny sales or service as long as you're not discriminating against a protected class. A "thug" is not a protected class but if the "thug" belongs to a protected class things can get tricky quickly.


    Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.


    The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
     
    chelloveck likes this.
  5. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    So, it is not your turban the shop keep dislikes, it is your bad attitude, and he can still show you to the door.
     
  6. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    Yes. Sort of. No?
    The guy in the turban can file a protest. He's got an edge over, let's say, a "plain vanilla thug" because he is a protected class.
    Either way you may need a legitimate business reason to show someone the door. This appears vary by state and brings us back on topic!

    In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.


    On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.


    And to really bring it back on topic, when the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, they made gays a protected class. That means you can't refuse service to a homosexual because on their sexual orientation though I suppose you could refuse service for a legitimate business reason. The religious view of the seller wouldn't trump that.

    So even if Jan Brewer had signed the law, USSC would have struck it down as us unconstitutional.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2014
    tulianr and chelloveck like this.
  7. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Having spent 5years in Californication. And having been run through thier courts as a victim,....I mean defendant, of their legal nonsense, I can say with conviction (not mine) that they are all nuts, anyways, and should never be cited for legal common sense.
    I personally had to threaten to sue a judge for dereliction of duty, ( in open court, and at high volume) just to get my State supplied evidence read by the judge.
    I don't concider them a credible source. More, the exception than the rule.
     
    tulianr likes this.
  8. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Your position is Stupid, and not based in Reality. No one in their Right Mind, would sell a KNOW THUG, a Weapon, just because his wants it..... That is just plain Lunacy... You can hold those those views, fine, that is your Right, but do NOT be surprised, If you actually DO such an Act, and your Neighbors hear of it, that they DO NOT see it your way. Back in the day, folks would Tar & Feather neighbors for such actions.
    I am thru with this thread, and will no longer, post in it. There is no point....
     
  9. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    They are a legit legal source - for California.
    I haven't looked up refusing service on a federal level, but for this topic you're going to have a hard time trumping a federally protected class.

    I haven't been on this forum long, but it seems kind of... pro 2nd amendment.

    Anyway, you didn't say a KNOWN THUG, just a THUG. It's subjective. Do you really want to deny someone their 2nd amendment rights because of appearances?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2014
  10. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    We have talked of trade goods, that would be good or bad post SHTF, and guns and ammo were problematic. You could very well be supplying the weapon that kills you. So, YES, I will judge by appearances, if I feel it is in my best interests. It's not profiling either, it is observation.
    Said, "thug" can legally make his own gun, if no one will sell to him.
     
  11. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    [lolol] That would have to be ever so slight an understatement...in a place where Chuck Heston
    [​IMG]
    is considered the patron saint of the 2nd amendment; and Ted Nugent upload_2014-3-2_18-29-18. makes perfectly good intelligible sense,

    and who consider California as:

    [​IMG]

    and who consider [​IMG] a modern religious martyr,

    Yep...not too many liberals showin' their heads above the ramparts in this thar place![patr]

    Now.....if you'll just join me in the Faith and Religion forum, you can read all of the posts and threads there of mine that currently survive....Mwuahahaha
     
    oldawg, tulianr and BTPost like this.
  12. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    Post SHTF is a completely different scenerio. I was sticking to the law because of the title of the thread.

    I've been eyeing the "let there be light thread." I've been considering my approach but it's a bit like trying to argue about the theory of gravity.

    Aren't there any Libertarians around here?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2014
    tulianr, ditch witch and chelloveck like this.
  13. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Oh, that's right, all thugs will turn in their weapons for redistribution Post SHTF? Nothing to be concerned with here folks, move along, nothing happening here but an irrationality!

    Always look beyond now to what comes next!

    Ever heard of the bartender rule? it doesn't matter if an adult wants an adult beverage, the bartender still must look beyond the request or HE will be charged.
     
  14. Gafarmboy

    Gafarmboy Monkey+++

    I am a died in the wool libertarian. Have voted independent for the past 4 election cycles and will continue to do so in the future. I do, however, have a problem with someone telling ME what the norm is. If you want to have a relationship with a consenting adult of the same gender; well what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is none of my damn business. HOWEVER, when you began to FORCE me to accept that choice as normal, you are now in my bedroom, so to speak, and I will not accept this deviant life style as the norm. Anyway back to the main idea of the post, forced assimilation of non-traditional ideologies. Here is a link to an article about Katy Perry changing her video to acquiesce to a religious group. Katy Perry removes religious symbol in 'Dark Horse' video
    She is selling a product or service and changes it due to Muslim pressure, but Christians are not allow to voice their concerns about a issue they feel deeply about. Can you say double standard, how about hypocrisy? How about war on Christianity. I am not an overtly religious man, but I met God up close and personal 20 plus years ago. As they say, there are no atheist in a fox hole. With that said, keep pushing this anti-Christian agenda and there will be unintended consequence that no one will like.

    Gafarmboy
     
  15. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    Look, a convicted felon can not legally purchase a weapon. What's the definition of a thug? What if the only gun store in town believes anyone with a tattoo is a thug? Should the store owner be legally compelled to sell it to the guy with the tattoo - under today's law? I'm not talking morally, just would that store owner be violating the law?

    I think he would not be violating the law because "thugs" are not a protected class. Therefore you do not have to sell to a thug. But I think if you're pro 2nd amendment, this should worry you.

    The double standard is not Christian v non-Christian. It's protected class v non-protected class.

    Christians are a protected class if they are being discriminated against due to their Christianity.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2014
    tulianr, ditch witch and chelloveck like this.
  16. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Wrong. 2A does not supply you with a gun, it says (In essences) government can not nuture you by taking them away.
    In fact it does not say GUN" it says ARMS which can mean any type of weapon. You have the right to defend yourself and your family, and government can not strip you of that right. Even a felon can have a gun (black powder).
    But I do not have to supply it to him.
     
  17. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    Now it's you who might want to look ahead!

    True, 2A does not supply you with a gun. Any interesting and OT question is:
    Does the 2A guarantee your right to purchase arms?
     
  18. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Yes. All you have to do is find a seller willing to do business with you.
     
    kellory likes this.
  19. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 2, 2014
  20. cjsloane

    cjsloane Monkey

    Well, at least that's consistent with the view that supports the bill that Brewer vetoed
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7