Question of the Day: If the Government Can Compel a Business to Bake a Cake, Can It Keep One From Prohibiting Firearms?

masterpiece_cakeshop_protest

Another baker has come a cropper over a refusal to bake a happy wedding cake. First there was Masterpiece Bakery in Colorado. Then Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon. Both, it was determined by courts, discriminated against potential clients in violation of public accommodation laws. As an ACLU attorney commented after the Colorado ruling, “While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers.” . . .

So it’s the position of the ACLU — an organization which has never really recognized the number ‘2’ — that no reason, including freedom of religion, is good enough to discriminate against a protected class. In this post-Obergefell world, gay marriage is a reality. Just as in this post-Heller and –McDonald world, the right to keep and bear arms is a thing. And may it ever be thus.

Still, while the RKBA is an enumerated right, in the eyes of the .gov, packing heat doesn’t make you a member of a protected class. But if a business can be compelled (or fined for refusing) to sell a product to anyone who walks through the door, why can’t they be compelled to accommodate those who carry a firearm for their own protection, as the Bill of Rights guarantees?

Isn’t the right to armed self defense – the exercise of which can and does save lives – at least as important as due process and equal protection? Given the SCOTUS’s latest muddled jurisprudence, can private property rights be used to justify barring guns, but ignored in order to require the preparation of a buttercream frosted delight? Don’t gun owners deserve the same protections as any other customer?

 

comments

  1. avatar Ancient Alien says:

    Ancient alien experts say, Yes.

    1. avatar SueEveryone says:

      I plan on going to kosher and halal butchers and demanding they cater a pig roast. I then will sue if/when they refuse. The precedent has been set, right? My status as an eater of swine trumps any religious objections.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Go with the halal guys. The kosher crew has had the stuffing beat out of them for a couple millennia. Time for the rampant halal types get their’s.

  2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    First of all, the very concept of “protected” classes is a violation of the 14th amendment protection of equal protection under the law.

    Second: there is no valid reason that anyone should have the legal authority to compel another, law-abiding person to disarm. Property rights have absolutely nothing to do with a tool someone chooses to carry on his or her person.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I agree with you, as far as you went.

      I would add (and I wonder if you agree with me) that although a business owner cannot compel you to disarm, you cannot compel that business owner to allow you on his property, while armed. Or while not armed. Or due to any other condition.

      I don’t know of anyone who makes the “business owner is allowed to ban guns” argument who actually thinks the business owner should be allowed to take your guns away (rather, they think the business owner has a right to refuse entry to armed people). Yet it’s clear that many who comment here want to pretend that’s what the property rights position entails.

      1. avatar Fat Al says:

        If a business owner can prohibit legally carrying gun owners, that is, persons using their 2nd amendment rights, could they not also prohibit other categories of person, such as LGBT persons. Perhaps if those persons “hid” their classification, would that be “allowable”?

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          And if the (choose random alphabet letters here) person in the “protected” class went into the cake shop open carrying an AR-15 and demanded a cake for their wedding, and the shop owner refused and demanded they leave…was it the gun or the gay? If he/she comes back without the gun and gets served, was there a violation? If he/she comes back with the gun and says the gay part was just a joke and gets refused and told to leave? Too many questions caused by too many stupid people who cannot seem to figure out what the simple phrase “…shall not be infringed.” means. Pathetic.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Absent existing case law regarding equal protection and public accommodation, I would agree with you.

        However, the “we reserve the right to deny service to anyone” position has essentially been deemed illegal, and business owners cannot discriminate against law-abiding patrons. Do I agree with the status quo as a matter of principle? No. But the free market has been supplanted by government regulation/intervention.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          I was describing what I believe the proper situation would be. I certainly recognize the law is messed up on this issue.

          I think, therefore, that we’re in accord.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        IF Mr Businessman opens his door to the pubic he has to let everyone in (perhaps no shirt/no shoes/no tattoos). That includes any he may see as undesirable queers (so says SCOTUS) and includes those who’s rights are protected by the 2nd. As the Constitution is for legal citizens only that would exclude those present who were not invited.

        If the business is by invitation only, such as coin, jewelry store etc where know and unlock then perhaps can make more restrictive “rules”.

        At least until Congress finds a pair and slaps down SCOTUS. Zero their budget, rewrite the judicial code to limit the overreach, and impeach/disbar the 5 libtards, pillory Kennedy. Not betting on this happening.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      I have to disagree. Property rights allow you to bar any person from access to your property for whatever reason you see fit. Otherwise, you do not have control over your property. Those reasons can be anything, including the clothes they wear (I do not have to let someone into my house, for example, or onto my lake-cabin lot, or my horse pasture, or whatever, if that person is wearing a t-shirt that find offensive, or is underdressed); or their political views, or their race or national origin. It most certainly could apply to whatever they are carrying on their person. Obviously, there are exceptions (A policeman with a warrant can enter my property to conduct a search, for example). Whether a person carrying a firearm who is otherwise “acceptable” to me as a guest on my property should be one of those exceptions is debatable, but there is certainly room for debate that it should not.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Except that your house or lake cabin are not places of business open to the general public. Once you hang the “Open” tile up, you (according to the SCotUS) implicitly wave the right to decide who you do business with.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          That may be what SCOTUS said. It’s a wrong decision on their part. And I won’t make it “wronger” by adding more groups to the list of people allowed to violate rights, even if one of those groups is a group I belong to.

          The only difference between a business and your private home should be that a business is open for you to enter unless told otherwise, while a private area is NOT open for you to enter, unless told otherwise. The default condition is different. Unfortunately “public” gets used for both government facilities and businesses, so much confusion results.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Legally, at present, you are correct, pwrserge. At least to an extent (I can still do the ‘no shoes, no shirt, no service’ thing at my business, at least for now, for example). But that doesn’t make it right. The “public accommodation” ruling by SCOTUS, done in the name of “regulating interstate commerce” BTW, was a big enough power-grab by the .gov. But the states have been monstrously expanding the definition of “public accommodation” (which originally was limited to food and lodging–to service interstate travelers, see?) to include any kind of business activity at all. Which distinction, of course, is nowhere to be found written in any constitution, state or federal, that I know of. what if I live on a horse ranch and I sell to customers there on the ranch? does that make my house a “place of public accommodation” and “waive” my right to exclude guests at my own discretion?

        3. avatar Grindstone says:

          Steve, that’s not what SCOTUS says, it’s what the law says. In the gay cake case, it’s what Oregon law explicitly says. The bakers were in violation of state law.
          There’s also the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

        4. avatar Cliff H says:

          So all those places with the sign over the counter “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” are now in violation of federal law, right?

          How about the

          No Shoes
          No Shirt
          No Service

          signs, do they all have to come down?

          If you are a black homosexual racist can you now demand service anywhere, at any time, from anyone? (Unless you’re carrying a firearm.) We have come a LONG way from segregated lunch counters.

        5. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

          You don’t give up all rights. Just protected classes. Which SCOTUS did NOT include gays in. They recognized a right to marry not any right of gays as a protected class. Weather they would rule that way if any of the baker cases come up OR even if they would find bakers can discriminate, is still on the table.

          Note to anti gay bakers: post a large sign that you donate all the money from gay weddings to conversion therapy( the pray away the gay folks). Also note that when you donate money to charity for a job you make that public info including a message on the delivery can thanking the couple for the donation.
          You won’t get sued or any gay business.

        6. avatar JasonM says:

          It’s yet another example of the supreme court making up laws by pretending the constitution says things that it does not.

          In the Heart of Atlanta Motel case, the court claimed that customers counted as interstate commerce, therefore the government could regulate anything it felt like. According to the contemporaneous writings of the founders “regulate commerce…among the several States” meant to eliminate the states’ abilities to impose tariffs, not control every aspect of a business.

          According to the free market principles of the founders, a business owner has the right to ban the armed or unarmed, gays or straights, blacks or whites, christians or jews, men or women, kids or adults, or any thing else he damn well pleases.
          And we have the right to show our disagreement by boycotting or protesting like the people in that picture, or show our agreement by patronizing the business.

        7. avatar int19h says:

          Anti-discrimination laws, such as they are, cover specific categories; it’s not a blanket thing. Until such time as gun owners are not included, they need not apply.

          As others have noted, the federal anti-discrimination law does not cover sexual orientation as a protected class, so gays don’t get any special protection in that regard either (i.e. yes, you can ask someone who’s openly gay to leave, and if they do not, you can call the police and report them for trespassing; or just refuse to service them). But in addition to the federal law, there are also state laws, which may add their own protected classes. Those state laws are certainly not in contradiction with the federal constitution, and you’d have to look at the state constitution to see if they are problematic.

      2. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Note, though, Chip’s phrasing. “to compel another, law-abiding person to disarm.” That’s very, very different from requiring an armed man to leave your property.

        This is in large part why good people butt heads over this issue. Some see it as “property owner takes your guns away” and others see it as “asking a guy to leave your property.” The first is illegitimate (and not, in any way what’s actually at issue) and the other is legitimate.

        You have to torture the bad logic of the civil rights act, which *forces* property owners to allow their property rights and free association rights to be violated, to come up with a rationale that MIGHT allow gun bearers to go whereever the heck they please without regard to the wishes of the owners of the property…but then, the people who enforce the civil rights laws will never regard us as one of those classes that can freely violate property rights just because.

        Unfortunately, we have many spoiled brats in our camp who think they should be allowed to trespass, just because they’re carrying a gun. They’ll go ahead and pick up the rights-violating Civil Rights law and try to use it as precedent to justify their own desires to violate property owners’ rights.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          No the business gave up those rights for profit under a contract with the people to serve the public. They still have the choice to close.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Wrong, there is no “contract” involved. Try again.

        3. avatar mark s. says:

          This is why the gay marriage issue was so important to the gay community . It’s about adding another classification to the discriminated against list . It is now basically federal law and according to the double talkers ( politicians ) , federal law supersedes state laws . This is why this is such an important issue for the religious community , because it expressly counters the teachings of many doctrines within church bylaws . The homosexuals don’t just want to have equal rights and opportunities , they want to force the religious communities to say , your behaviors acceptable and not a sin .
          We all sin , but when we change a sin to ‘not a sin’ , we abominate . This agenda is about acceptance , period .

        4. avatar Cliff H says:

          The whole concept of a free market is that the customer has a choice where to do business based on their personal considerations of the best service, price, or whatever other criteria they choose. This competition is what makes the system work.

          The business, on the other hand, should be equally free to choose who they provide their services and goods to, without interference from armed government thugs. If that results in loss of revenue to the business, that is entirely up to them to accept or not. The MOST the government should have is the power to honestly publicize the business decisions so that the public is aware and can make informed choices as to where to spend their money. Any other government action is fascism, pure and simple, and has no place in a supposed free market economy.

          Fascism: “We have decided what is best for you. If you know what is good for you, you WILL NOT argue with us.”

        5. avatar int19h says:

          >> This is why the gay marriage issue was so important to the gay community . It’s about adding another classification to the discriminated against list .

          You are plainly wrong. The list of protected classes is not automatically extended like that. Until such time as Congress votes to update the list in question, it remains what it is.

          The only thing that changes is that you now have to treat a same-sex married couple the same you would treat hetero couple – i.e. you cannot discriminate against them on account of their marital status or lack thereof. You can still discriminate on sexual orientation if you so choose (under federal laws; your state law may vary).

      3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Property rights enable the property owner to allow or deny the presence of a person on his property. They do not enable the property owner to infringe upon the natural, civil rights of a person he has allowed to be on his property. The property owner may revoke permission for the person to be present on his property, but he may not infringe upon natural rights.

        1. avatar Judge Johnston says:

          Try putting up a sign in you store that reads: “No Negroes Served” and see how quick you get sued. That was exactly that factual situation behind the Ollie’s Barbecue case or Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), The U.S. Supreme Court held:

          “Here, as there, Congress has determined for itself that refusals of service to Negroes have imposed burdens both upon the interstate flow of food and upon the movement of products generally. Of course, the mere fact that Congress has said when particular activity shall be deemed to affect commerce does not preclude further examination by this Court. But where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, oar investigation is at an end. The only remaining question — one answered in the affirmative by the court below — is whether the particular restaurant either serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or serves food a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce.

          ***

          Confronted as we are with the facts laid before Congress, we must conclude that it had a rational basis for finding that racial discrimination in restaurants had a direct and adverse effect on the free flow of interstate commerce. Insofar as the sections of the Act here relevant are concerned, §§ 201(b)(2) and (c), Congress prohibited discrimination only in those establishments having a close tie to interstate commerce, i.e., those, like the McClungs’, serving food that has come from out of the State. We think, in so doing, that Congress acted well within its power to protect and foster commerce in extending the coverage of Title II only to those restaurants offering to serve interstate travelers or serving food, a substantial portion of which has moved in interstate commerce.

          The absence of direct evidence connecting discriminatory restaurant service with the flow of interstate food, a factor on which the appellees place much reliance, is not, given the evidence as to the effect of such practices on other aspects of commerce, a crucial matter.
          —-
          The power of Congress in this field is broad and sweeping; where it keeps within its sphere and violates no express constitutional limitation it has been the rule of this Court, going back almost to the founding days of the Republic, not to interfere. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as here applied, we find to be plainly appropriate in the resolution of what the Congress found to be a national commercial problem of the first magnitude. We find it in no violation of any express limitations of the Constitution and we therefore declare it valid.” Page 379 U. S. 304-305

          The judgment is therefore
          Reversed.

          Since 1964, of course, the Commerce Clause, has been so perverted that the failure to sell an agricultural product has been held to “affect interstate commerce.”

          Unless we get some “golden chains” around the Supreme Court and all the Article III Courts they will continue to run the nation. Congress could do it, if it had the guts.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          The Commerce Clause has been stretched beyond the limits of reason. That said, I’m not so sure that this restaraunt decision has exceeded the limit of reason.

          Let’s back-up a moment to a time when the most practical and economical mode of transportation was by rail. And, that most railroads engaged in interstate commerce enjoying rights of eminent domain to build their rights-of-way.

          The Federal government taxed Blacks and whites alike, Jew and Gentile alike, and so forth to support logistics to further interstate commerce. It subsidized land-grants and granted rights-of-way to railroads to further interstate commerce. Now comes an octoroon, Mr. Plessy, who wishes to ride in a 1st class railroad car in defiance of a State’s law.

          Did Plessy have a “RIGHT” to access the 1st class car having paid for a 1st class ticket thereto? Or, could the State have a power superior to the Commerce Clause to discriminate against Plessy in restricting him to the 2nd class Colored car?

          One power must trump the other; or so I think. Which power is superior? Do interstate rights-of-way give Congress the upper hand? Seems a strong enough case to me at least.

          Once Plessy crossed a State line he was in interstate commerce. He had a legitimate human need to rest in a hotel and to obtain sustenance in a restaraunt. And, these rights have an arguably reasonable connection with Plessy’s interstate commerce.

          IF and to the extent that there were robust competition in each station town among hotels and restaurants, a countervailing argument might be made against Plessy’s plea. Plessy was free to patronize any hotel or any restaraunt that solicited his patronage. Yet, this argument would carry some weight only if and to the extent that there was enough hotel and restaraunt trade for Blacks (or some other disparaged class) to give Plessy a wide choice of public accommodations.

          Bear in mind that our man Plessy is a man of some standards; he bought a 1st class railroad ticket. Perhaps there was no hotel in town offering first-class accommodations that welcomed Black patronage. No restaraunt open at late hours that offered first-class cuisine that welcomed Black patronage. There is a reasonable argument that public accommodations for Black travelers is reasonably affected with interstate Commerce such that Congress’s power trumps that of the State’s power.

          Yet, what is really at stake here, I think, is widespread American acceptance of the notion of discrimination in public accommodations (whatever the hell that might mean) based on race, national origin, religion or some other possible criteria. I THINK that we are approaching a consensus on this point. Discrimination on race, national origin, or religion are no longer acceptable as respects the civil law.

          Sex and sexual orientation haven’t quite reached this point. The public is willing to look-away when the Martha Washington hotel clearly but politely asks gentlemen to take their patronage elsewhere. The public isn’t entirely clear how far they are willing to carry gay rights.

          The bakery debate seems to bring us not to the question of expanding the enumeration of protected classes. Instead, it seems to stretch the notion of a public accommodation. Is a wedding cake bakery a public accommodation? Is a pizza catering service a public accommodation? If these are public accommodations then what else is a public accommodation? A hardware store? A gun shop?

          What is interesting about this debate to us on TTAG is that we are broaching the question of whether a hardware dealer is at liberty to refuse to sell a box cutter or a pocket-pistol to a black youth in a hoddie waring his pants low on his hips exhibiting tattoos reading “Kill White!”

    3. avatar Dale Smith says:

      While I agree with you that I should be allowed to enter a store armed, it is the property owner’s decision. If not, what other rights should be allowed, no matter what the store owner says. Should people be allowed to protest inside of your business? Big signs and all? What about holding a religious service in your store? It’s their 1A right, after all. Which rights should be allowed, and which ones not? Who decides which ones are ok, and which ones aren’t? It’s a slippery slope, and one best not started down.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        Please , can we just shelf the logic ? The protesters , transgendered , naked , tattooed , pierced , purple haired , barefooted , body mutilating , polygamist , non bathers just haven’t got enough political clout to argue before the supreme court yet . There day is coming . As of now , It is strictly race , ethnicity , religion ,and sexual preference , I think . I may have left a group or two out and if I did I am truly sorry . So I have to do business with you if you’re a black Jewish Indian from Ireland who identifies as gay and may be somewhat mentally challenged but not if you are concealing or openly carrying a firearm . It’s all good . Reasonable and comfortable , everybody’s happy .

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          “I may have left a group or two out and if I did I am truly sorry…”

          Why in the world should anyone feel the need to include a prophylactic apology for offending some mythical group that has no problem offending you?

        2. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

          Sexual preference rea or perceived is NOT a protected class according to SCOTUS. They are no more protected than a white hetro couple. They can get married. These lawsuits are over state laws that have NOT been challenged in federal courts.

        3. avatar mark s. says:

          Cliff H , It was satire , my apology was satire . I didn’t mean to confuse anyone and if I did , I am sorry , truly sorry !

        4. avatar mark s. says:

          Cuteandfuzziebunny , I was so politically incorrect and so totally mistaken , my apologies all around , seriously . I was under the delusion that homosexuality was a sexual preference . My bad . I need to stay up to date . Thanks !

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Holding a protest, religious service, etc. inside your place of business interferes with and harms your business. Such activities are in no way analogous to carrying a firearm into a place of business.

        1. avatar Dale Smith says:

          I can make the (gun-grabber) argument that I will leave your store if I see someone OCing, therefore hurting your business.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I can make the ([racist]) argument that I will leave your store if I see someone [black], therefore hurting your business.

          Doesn’t sound quite so compelling in other contexts, does it?

          Besides, someone carrying an inanimate object on his person is doing nothing overt that in any way inherently interferes with the business – especially considering that the person is in the place of business, engaged in business.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        I think we should all be able to agree that bearing arms is different in that it represents the ability of the individual to defend themselves in the moment. None of those other things really compare. If one is deprived the ability to bear arms for their own defense, then they are exposed to serious injury or death.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Exactly!

          And, I think this is an important point we should emphasize.

          I carry primary to exercise by 2A rights. I have no acute vulnerability and I don’t do stupid things in stupid places at stupid times of the night with stupid people.

          However, I enjoy the preverbal white privilege.

          I recognize that there are a lot of petite women out there trying to buy groceries, cloths for their children, gas for their cars, etc. They are carrying orders-of-protection against their Ex’es. While I could criticize such women for having done stupid things with stupid people, I refrain from doing so. The fact of the matter is that these peaceable citizens DO suffer from an acute jeopardy of violence everywhere they go. They should carry and polite society should not shun them.

          That these women are bared from the public Post Office or from private businesses that are places of public accommodation is – in my opinion – a legitimate civil rights issue. Does a restaurateur have a proprietary right to refuse service to a woman carrying a gun when she also holds an order of protection?

          I just don’t see why it’s crystal-clear that the restaurateur’s rights automatically trumps those of the woman.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @MarkPA: My POV is this… I think that property owners ought to be able to refuse service and ask someone to leave for any reason or no reason at all. As things currently stand, there are artificially created protected classes that enjoy supra-privileges, elevated above actual rights. Since government and progressives want to play at that game, we ought to hold their feet to their own fire. The natural right to bear arms in public is paramount, far above any other. Therefore, that ought to be protected first and foremost in a public accommodation, if government wants to play. Besides, with so many armed virtually everywhere, the third American revolution will be more easily won when the time comes. 😉 (Which is why government will fight such an argument tooth and nail.)

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Absolutely in agreement.

          I’m an OFWG. Decently dressed and groomed (I don’t care what my wife and kids say). If a business discriminates against me by kicking be off it’s premises then the only inference I can draw is that they don’t like the cut of my Glock.

          That raises a legitimate question: May a business open-to-the-public discriminate against patrons exercising their 2A rights?

          Do the rights of the proprietress to “REALLY” FEEL SAFE trump my right to exercise my 2A right?
          The answer in my case isn’t very important; I’m not a sympathetic character (OFWG).
          What if the carrier is a petite woman with an order of protection against her Ex? She IS a sympathetic character.

          Is society going to designate GFZs again and again on her agenda of daily errands? Must she dis-arm and re-arm after every other stop? May society leave her vulnerable to an inevitable attach when her Ex follows her and waits for his opportunity in the vicinity of a GFZ?

          Whose right trumps the other’s?
          – The right of the proprietress to “REALLY” FEEL SAFE?
          – The right of the petite woman to really BE SAFE with her order of protection in her purse and Glock on her hip?

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @MarkPA: Yep, we are in agreement.

          I used to dislike when business owners wanted me disarmed in their establishment. I didn’t like it but I understood that was their right. When I had a price out on my head for a number of years, I began getting angry at business owners who wanted me disarmed. They might have felt safer but I could’ve really been in danger. Still, I didn’t carry in most private businesses (I plead the 5th on public properties during that time 😉 ). Nowadays, I am getting to the point of not giving a damn and concealing if I simply must go into a business that posts. I still avoid them if at all possible. Unfortunately, I can’t ignore signs locally as I’m known to always be armed. If they see me in someplace, they assume I am packing.

          I understand that a property owner has a right to not allow firearms but it is my opinion that they ought to be liable for the reasonable safety of the individuals for the entire time of the visit if they are so disarmed. If they get robbed while I am there and disarmed because of a sign then I should be able to sue the life out of them.

    4. avatar mark s. says:

      This is all true of coarse , in a world where logic prevails . A world of reason and common sense where up is up and down is down . We are no longer living in that world .We are living in a demonic upside down world now where common sense is unreasonable and logic is illogical . If his argument is brought before our current supreme court we will be disarmed . We better not try to be proactive in this current environment , we will lose , you see it all around you and can feel it in your gut . The day of reckonings at hand .

    5. avatar MarkPA says:

      I think you are wrong Chip. Our Constitution DOES admit of “protected classes”. For example, citizens who are 18, 19 or 20 years of age are a protected class; they can’t be discriminated against for purposes of voting. Either females or males can lawfully be made a protected class based on sex; usually females. Were this not so then the Equal Rights Amendment would have been ratified and the issue would have been closed.

      The countervailing rights of property owners to control who they indulge on their property vs. gun-owners’ rights to bear a means of effective self-defense are in contention. It is not yet clear in American sentiment which right trumps the other.

      We take no offense from a store with a sign that reads “No shirt, no shoes, no service”. We recognize that this is a proprietor’s right.

      Try to imagine a hypothetical case; a Florida store that has potential customers half of whom are white and half are Black. By convention, Blacks – having great resistance to sunburn – go shirtless. Whites – being very sensitive to sunburn – always ware shirts. An empirical case could be made that the shopkeeper’s sign is discriminatory; and, that the discrimination operates against a protected class. What should our society do to resolve this issue? Perhaps the shopkeeper really is racially prejudiced and is deliberately refusing to make his public accommodation available to blacks. Conversely, perhaps he is not the least bit prejudiced; he just wants to maintain some level of decorum in his establishment.

      I don’t see an easy answer to this question.

      Sort of reminds me of the Martha Washington hotel that posts a sign asking gentlemen of refrain from offering their patronage. Flatly illegal; but in the interest of promoting a sense of security for their female guests, they blatantly discriminate.

      I think the OP makes an interesting point. And, I think we ought to advance such arguments gently and respectfully. What about the battered woman who carries because she is being stalked by her Ex? It’s entirely reasonable for her to go armed. Is it reasonable for grocery stores, gas stations, department stores and other such places of public accommodation to discriminate against her? Does she not have a natural right to access the staples of life on an equal basis with every other woman or man? How does the proprietor’s hoplophobia trump her right to feel safe from her Ex?

      In the long run, I think we can gain some ground with this argument; far more positive outcome than the damage we might do to the principle of proprietary rights to exclude anyone’s presence regardless of articulable reason.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        Thanks. good to see well-reasoned, respectful responses. Minor point: blacks do get sunburned. see http://www.ebony.com/wellness-empowerment/doctors-orders-yes-black-people-do-get-sunburn-405

      2. avatar Gene says:

        But, am I not being discriminated against in your voting example by having the value of my vote decreased by having individuals ineligible to vote cast a vote and be counted anyway?

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Absolutely true that your rights are diluted if your right to vote is offset by someone’s vote that was illegitimate. That this is “discrimination”? I don’t think that this is the correct objection.

          I confess to not knowing anything about the law under which a voter’s rights are impaired by illegal voting. Therefore, I can’t say anything more about this.

          In this tread I think we are focused on discrimination. Generally, we are concerned with an individual’s right to access to some public or private service based on unlawful grounds. A person’s access to the right to vote can’t be discriminated against on the grounds that the person is of the wrong sex or under the age of 21 if that person is over the age of 18. A person has no right to vote if he is not a citizen of the State where he seeks to vote, nor if he is under 18 nor under some other circumstances.

        2. avatar Gene says:

          Overall, I agree, Mark. I figured since progressives and SCOTUS can be creative in word meanings, that would be sufficient license to do the same – the discrimination would be the deliberate actions taken to specifically reduce legitimate rights by specifically targeting voters.

  3. avatar Warlocc says:

    The same logic could be extended to companies that disarm employees, if that’s the case?

    1. avatar working4change says:

      “disarm” employers are not taking away guns. Disarm is to take away ones weapons. instead they Prevrnt employees from going to work armed. leave it at home or in your trunk. not on the job.

      my rules i used were simple and followed 100% or your fired on the spot no matter how long you worked here or what your “class” in.

      “Work” is any company property, job site or clients location active or not.
      No Agendas of any type at work.
      No politics
      No Drugs or Drinking unless notified otherwise like Bear at a BBQ event.
      Work Cloths only. Uniform and approved clothing only.
      2 pictures of family, nothing more in work space.
      Proper Hygiene Hair neat and you are clean. (no 3days without bathing) a list of does n dont were provided.

      Drunk or High…. your Fired! first time is the last time. if your not “Clear” to work Call in and sleep it off.

      if your going to be late, call it in so soneone else can fill your spot and they get onsite ontime. you will do their job at their payrate for the day. you get no hits on your record and keep your job. the lose in pay is a wakeup call. if you need to change scheduling for a time because of kids or family issues…. someone gets to prove their worth covering for you and you do their job but at your normal rate upto 30days. if it goes longer you get max pay for that job slot upto your normal rate.

      we had only 1 loser try and come in high, get fired and try to suit as if it was a union job. lol he lost.

      everyone loved the work place, it was clean, productive, and without Drama. everyone understood the requirements and the pay structure. everyone signed accepting all conditions and were happy to do it.

      yes i love Firearms, but to the job, they would get in the way and could easily be a danger. plus the range in clients would cause massive issues overall.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        OLD SCHOOL , In today’s world , you are just another kook and in tomorrows world you’re probably sent to the reeducation camp . You are sooo mean hearted , careless and bigoted . I bet you didn’t even let your employees have mandatory breaks , paid maternity leave for both genders ( sorry , can’t say male or female , sorry ) and I bet you didn’t allow cell phone use or cursing or inter workplace affairs . Surely you wouldn’t have got mad at me for catching a buzz on my mandatory 30 minute lunch break , I mean taking my doctor prescribed medication , would you ? I just can’t understand old farts like you . If I would come to work in a dress even though I am still using a urinal , while I transgender , would you have a problem with that ? What if I want to use the ladies restroom because I identify as female , problem right ? You old fuddydud .

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Drunk or High…. your Fired! first time is the last time. if your not “Clear” to work Call in and sleep it off.”

        Wrong.

        Nowadays the company sends you to substance abuse rehab.

        And when you return clean-and sober they generate the proper paperwork trail and *then* fire your ass. Unless you’re in a Union.

        Even if you’re in a Union your Union buddies can decide you’re not worth the aggravation and let the company fire your worthless sorry ass.

        You have to know how the game is played.

        1. avatar AndyNC says:

          Not true at any company I’ve worked for. Sure, marginal employees were let go, but I’ve seen several examples of good employees who were provided help with addiction issues.

          If you’re valuable and accept the help offered, many companies will gladly provide it rather than attempt to retrain/rehire. It all depends on the specifics of the situation.

        2. avatar EnjoyingSobriety says:

          Thanks Andy.
          My understanding is that substance abuse must be treated as a medical problem under US labor law. Of course, employers can terminate employment if the employee fails to respond to treatment. Many of the people I meet in AA say that getting fired was the best thing that happened to them. It finally forced them to confront their affliction. Some were fired after they failed to respond to treatment.

          40 years later I’m still grateful that my employer gave me a choice of entering treatment or getting fired for the next unexcused absence.

      3. avatar Warlocc says:

        Mighty defensive over a passing comment.

  4. avatar Sammy says:

    Just an aside, are there no gay bakeries the gay community would rather support?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Of course there are–and plenty of non-“gay” bakeries that would gladly take on a homosexual couple as customers. But there are also homosexual fascists out there who would rather stick their thumb in someone else’s eye than actually have a happy, controversy-free “wedding” celebration, and government agencies more than willing to cater to them.

      1. avatar RKBA says:

        THIS!!!!

      2. avatar Morgan Gatorsee says:

        It’s kind of funny, I just started using Facebook and the only thing all my liberal family members do is whine and complain. Boycott Sea world, boycott grocery stores offering plastic, boycott Chick FIL a, ….not one positive post in the few weeks I have been active.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          I’ve said it elsewhere, I’ll say it here–there is no one more mean-spirited than a doctrinaire liberal. They will happily pay confiscatory taxes as long as they think someone else who is a little better off is getting bitten harder than they are. And evidently they want everyone else to be just as guilt-ridden, envy-driven, and just all-around miserable as they are.

      3. avatar working4change says:

        sure a nice happy queer couple… sure np.

        a “RUDE” agenda driven queer couple, hell no!

        come in demanding service you will be removed from the property. its not complicated

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Gays have been targeting Christian businesses and shutting down Catholic adoption agencies for some time now. Most of the gay movement is above love and freedom. I’ve got no issue with that. Keep the .gov out of marriage.

      But there’s another part that is all about vengeance and force, and they know the federal government will back then up in force. Unless people think that a $135,000 fine is “justice” for not baking a cake for a gay couple. That’s like 13 plus DUI fines and then some.

      What do you think I’d get as a straight white Christian male? Probably not enough for a coffee at Starbucks.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “But there’s another part that is all about vengeance and force, and they know the federal government will back then up in force. ”

        This is the part that baffles me a bit.

        Why in the HELL do you want someone to do a service (and a wedding cake is a personally symbolic service) for you if KNOW they find it (and you) to be personally reprehensible?

        So you can have the cake tested to see if the shop spit in it? Or worse?

        I don’t want to eat ANYTHING personally prepared for me if I had any reason to believe the cook detested me. Are there no LBGT owned bakeries that would be overjoyed to have that business?

        What am I missing here?

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          What you are missing is , they aren’t interested in having a cake, or a nice, happy wedding. they are interested in forcing someone else to toe (not tow) their line, or putting them out of business. The New Mexico lesbians who preceded Dan’s “first” example and pursued their targeted baker all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court eventually went elsewhere to get a cake–but not before they put their target through fines and sanctions and court costs. The most “understanding” of the New Mex S-Court “justices” frankly admitted he knew he was forcing the bakers to go against what he himself called their deepest, most sincerely held personal beliefs. He apparently thought he was making them feel better about it by telling them it was just the “cost of citizenship” that they had to do so.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Geoff PR,

          I heard someone else describe the term “gay mafia”. That description characterized the “gay mafia” as a group of people who strategically target unsuspecting businesses with the explicit intent of punishing the owners for failing to embrace their choice of sex partners … and hoping to receive windfall punitive judgments as well. That description seems to really explain the facts to a “T”.

          It is nothing more than an another example of Progressives being intolerant as they demand that OTHER people be “tolerant”.

        3. avatar Accur81 says:

          @ Uncommon,

          Sounds like an apt description to me. Of course the mainstream media is going to focus on other things.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          >> Why in the HELL do you want someone to do a service (and a wedding cake is a personally symbolic service) for you if KNOW they find it (and you) to be personally reprehensible?

          If you specifically refer to the Oregon story, then they didn’t actually know that. The couple that was refused service has actually been the customer of the same place before, where they have ordered a cake for one of their parents. There was no indication that having a cake made for their wedding would be a problem until they’ve got to the details of the arrangement, and the baker spotted two female names. At that point, they’ve got into an argument, and he cited the “abomination” quote from Leviticus at them, prompting them to leave in distress.

          They then filed a consumer complaint (not a lawsuit) with respect to this incident. The purpose of such a complaint is not necessarily to force to provide service (they didn’t), but to seek monetary compensation for any damage caused, including emotional distress.

        5. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Thanks for clarifying the matter. Clever user name.

          NB for non-nerds: int19h handles the boot operation on PCs.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        So let me get this straight (no pun intended) – An openly “gay” butch lesbian stops at the Bunny Ranch in Nevada, goes inside, and demands service (to be serviced?). None of the girls is willing and management tells her to F off. Is this a potential SCOTUS case for the future?

      3. avatar int19h says:

        Just FYI, the $135K fine for the bakers who refused to bake the cake is not actually for the refusal of service. It’s for damage they have caused to the customers by publishing their private information (in particular, their address and contact details) publicly on their FB page, prompting a barrage of angry calls, death threats etc.

  5. avatar Sock Monkey says:

    One terrible law deserves another. If bakers must participate in sham wedding ceremonies, they must also endure the lawful bearing arms.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Because two wrongs make a right. /sarc.

    2. avatar Grindstone says:

      If the bakers didn’t know the cake was for a gay wedding, is it still “participation”?

      1. avatar Sock Monkey says:

        OK. “Participate,” “endorse,” “condone;” whichever.

        It really isn’t a homosexual/moral/religious issue. It’s just a matter of whether personal property and freedom of association are rights we want to recognize or not. But with the courts inventing new rights every day, maybe we just don’t need those old, crusty ones anymore.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        I think it’s pretty clear from the facts of the cases that if the bakers didn’t know it was for a homosexual wedding, they would have just baked the cakes without a fuss. At least some of the bakers involved regularly served known homosexual customers, they just didn’t want to have any part in a homosexual wedding ceremony. Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with baking the damn cake, I don’t feel it would make me an active part of the wedding. but that’s not my call to make for someone else. And I don’t think it’s the damn government’s call to make either. And just to keep on the subject of the blog, if I happen to be a no-foolin’ hoplophobe who pisses my pants at the sight of a gun, I don’t think it’s the .gov’s call to make me allow guns on my own private property, whether or not I conduct money-making activities thereon.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “At least some of the bakers involved regularly served known homosexual customers, they just didn’t want to have any part in a homosexual wedding ceremony.”

          Someone offered a possible ‘out’ for the baker in question by simply taking the order for the cake and wishing the couple a nice day.

          And then sub-contracting the job to another baker happy for the business and not marking up the cake. The baker didn’t bake the cake nor made a profit on it.

          Situation defused.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          First, thanks for using the right word (“defused”)–one of my pet peeves also being defused thereby. Second–There are lots of “avoidance” strategies out there. And again, I myself wouldn’t even consider providing a normal consumer product to a customer to be any kind of endorsement of that customers total lifestyle. But the issue is whether it’s any of the .gov’s bloody business who I sell my own products from my own business to. Avoiding the issue doesn’t answer the question.

        3. avatar mark s. says:

          I have a sneaky suspicion that these customers and the business owners had a previous situation and the request was to initiate the battle . That’s how these things get there start . The homosexual couple initiates an intended outcome to prompt the argument from the concept against a targeted business . This will soon come to a church , a Christian fundamentalist church . We should simply all order our confections from this bakery now to just show our support i.e. Hobby Lobby and Chic Filet .

        4. avatar Cliff H says:

          “Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with baking the damn cake…”

          Robert, unfortunately the issue here is not and never was the cake, but the ceremony and how the bakers perceived their knowing participation in that ceremony based on their religious convictions. It was their true, considered and deeply held opinion that it was not the cake that would be damned.

          As to my personal beliefs, in a free market, the shop owner should have the absolute right to look you in the eye and say, “I don’t like you. Get out of my shop.” And not be required by anyone, ever, to give any further explanations.

        5. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “But the issue is whether it’s any of the .gov’s bloody business who I sell my own products from my own business to. Avoiding the issue doesn’t answer the question.”

          I agree.

          At this point, however the only strategy left for the baker (unless they are obscenely wealthy) is to deny them the combat they want.

          It’s not optimal, but it’s about all they have left.

          Well, they could tape a zerox copy of a check made out to one of those organizations who are crazy enough to think they can ‘de-program’ gayness out of someone on the box the wedding cake is delivered.

          But *that* will probably lead to a civil rights charge against the baker.

          So smile at the nice couple and when the door closes behind them when they leave do what countless businesses around the planet do daily when a jerk leaves their business.

          Use your imagination. 🙂

      3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Because a homosexual must tell total strangers the kind of sex they practice.

        1. avatar Grindstone says:

          How is that any different than when I kiss my wife in public?

      4. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Why must a gay couple tell? Don’t ask don’t tell right?

  6. avatar Dale Smith says:

    Private property rights trump all. If on property I own, I tell you that you have to walk backwards in order for me to allow you to be there w/o trespassing, you better be walking backwards. While not a sound business practice or a good way to make friends, it’s my call, no matter how stupid it is. You are welcome to complain about it, and tell all of your friends to not do business with that crazy guy that makes people walk backwards in his store; but it’s my decision, on my property, to determine what conditions I will allow you to be there. Period.

    1. avatar Chris says:

      Nope, you chose to invite the public. Don’t like it close shop. Or make it members only.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Even a business has the right to eject people who are causing problems–in their judgment. Or have you never seen “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          the “no shoes etc.” is a health law that all businesses serving or selling food are required to follow.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Mark–“No shoes, etc” is not necessarily limited to eating places. If I run a hoity-toity ladies boutique, I can bloody well require that anyone who walks through the door be fully dressed. At least at the moment. Until the .gov decides that nudists are a “protected class” I guess.

      2. avatar Sock Monkey says:

        This is a stupid idea. “Open to the public” should not mean that a business or property owner has no control over his property. It should mean exactly what the business/property owner says it means.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          It’s not that simple.

          I whole-heartedly agree with you that a proprietor has a lot of lee-way to decide what he will suffer on his property. If a restaraunt has a coat & tie policy for “gentlemen” then – as arbitrary as that policy is – I have to comply or find sustenance elsewhere.

          Conversely, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the evolution of our society since then, there are some kinds of arbitrary discrimination we no longer suffer as a nation. Today, Plessy can ride in the 1st class railroad car notwithstanding that he was born an octaroon. Today, it matters not one whit what the owners and managers of the railroad think about the matter; nor does it matter what other passengers in that 1st class car feel about it. If he can pay for the ticket he has a right to ride in that car with white folk.

          You may not like the principles underlying the Civil Rights Act of ’64. You may disagree with the fact that it undermines the unlimited and unqualified rights of property owners. Nevertheless, this is America in the 21st century. You are pissing into the wind to reverse the clock.

          That being the case – now, we turn to the question of whether gun carriers can be discriminated against by businesses. The door to this question is just opening now. The question deserves exploration; neither presupposition (proprietor’s rights trump; nor, gun-carriers’ rights trump) deserves summary judgement. Let’s explore the question with an open mind and see where society takes us.

        2. avatar Sock Monkey says:

          Mark,

          I used the word “should.” Twice. I was obviously talking about the way things should be. (That word again.) I don’t know why you would assume I’m ignorant of well-known legal realities, as backward and wrong as those realities may be.

      3. avatar Dale Smith says:

        False. Private property is private property. Just because I allow people into my private property, that does not mean I do not have control of said property. Go read the Constitution bud. I don’t give a damn what the SCOTUS says. I go by the Constitution.

      4. avatar Dale Smith says:

        Chris, according to your logic, all Constitutional Rights should be allowed in a private store that is open to the public, correct? Should people be allowed to protest inside of your business? Big signs and all? What about holding a religious service in your store? Cool with having an Islamic call to prayer in your store? It’s their 1A right, after all. Which rights should be allowed, and which ones not? Who decides which ones are okay, and which ones aren’t? Why is one right ok, but not another? If one right is ok, do you mean the FULL exercise of that right, or just a little bit of it? It’s a slippery slope, and one best not started down. Private property is private property.

      5. avatar Cliff H says:

        This seems to be where a great deal of the confusion lies.

        Just because I “invite” the public to be my customer does NOT mean I have given up the right to decide which part of that public I may in fact accept as a customer. If my place of business is open to the public I should not be able to prevent a potential customer from entering to inquire about my products or services, but I fail to see how that then obligates me to provide those products or services without any other considerations. I somehow lose ALL rights to make personal or business decisions simply by the fact that I opened my doors to the public? They are still free, after passing through those doors, to decide not to spend their money, why am I no longer free to decide not to take their money?

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Private property rights trump all.

      No, they do not. Natural rights are co-equal.

      1. avatar Dale Smith says:

        In PUBLIC they are all co-equal, but not on my property. Come onto my property and try exercising your natural rights in a way I don’t like. You’ll be told to leave with threat of lethal force behind it, if need be. Out in public, I’ll support that exact same right I just forced you off of my property (at gunpoint if need be) for exercising.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You’ll be told to leave with threat of lethal force behind it, if need be.

          Do you even listen to yourself?

          Someone you have invited onto your property (especially private property that you have opened to the public, for the purpose of public commerce), who is doing nothing unlawful, has not done anything that would justify your use of deadly force. If you carried out your threat to evict that person with deadly force, you would be going to prison for a very long time, and rightfully so.

        2. avatar Dale Smith says:

          Um….. If I’m on my property and I tell someone to leave, I will continue to escalate on the force continuum until they leave. Pretty simple and common sense actually.

          If you have someone on your property and they refuse to leave, repeatedly, what are you going to do? And if you say call the cops, it has the potential to be the same thing as threatening deadly force.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Yes, but that is the way it is.

          If the person refuses to leave your property but he is not threatening anyone you do not have a right to use lethal force to evict him. If you have enough husky friends to pick him up and carry him to the property line you can probably do that, but little more. Your practical alternative may be limited to calling the police.

          The police can arrest the trespasser. If the trespasser resists arrests the police can escalate – ever so gradually – their use of force including the Rodney King treatment. Eventually, the trespasser will see things as clearly as the police see them.

      2. avatar Dale Smith says:

        On my property, I am “king/dictator”, along with my wife. 😉
        But in all seriousness, if you do not support this idea of an individual being able to dictate the terms under which you enter their property, then by definition, you believe in a communistic approach to property ownership. But you can’t really call it ownership, as you are not able to solely dictate the conditions to enter the property. It’s you AND people that don’t “own” the property that are dictating the terms in which they can enter your property. If that’s how you view private property issues, you might need to rethink it. Unless you’re in fact a believer in communism. And if that’s the case, where do you live? I might want to come and claim part of what’s mine.
        (the last two sentences are a joke, and meant to illustrate a point)

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          But in all seriousness, if you do not support this idea of an individual being able to dictate the terms under which you enter their property, then by definition, you believe in a communistic approach to property ownership.

          We’re not talking about private property. We are talking about property that a private owner has willingly opened to the public for the purpose of public commerce.

          Further, we’re not talking about what I do or don’t support; we’re talking about the current legal landscape, created through legislation and judicial action.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          You are right h Chip.

          It’s one thing for a woman to bake in her own home. She can invite guests to tea or sell cookies to her friends. The minute she hangs a shingle over her door and leaves that door unlocked she is in a different ball game.

          The rules are different here. The fact that our baker lady doesn’t understand that the rules are different doesn’t have any impact on the rule of law. Suddenly, she is subject to health laws that did not obtain before she hung-out the shingle.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          I wish everything in life was so simple as you put it. In fact, we are all subject to some superior force. You and I are each subject to our wives’ respective whims.

          The thing that arises for me out of the Plesy v. Ferguson case is that the railroad ran inter-State. It enjoyed the right of eminent domain to take private property for rights-of-way. (This last point wasn’t argued at the time so far as I know; but it seems pertinent to me.)

          So, the octoroon, Mr. Plesy, was subjected to taxation to support his Federal government. He was subject to the risk of his property being taken by right of eminent domain. He was subject to draft for military service, and so forth. Did the 14A extend to him the equal protection of the law? The respect of the rights and privileges of US citizenship? SCOTUS decided that he was not so protected.

          Do we take SCOTUS’s decision at face value? Is it incontrovertible because SCOTUS has the last word? Or, do we enjoy the right of individual analysis.

          As to property rights, this is an interesting question. I recall that the railroad companies of the era were not fond of the Southern segregation laws. The laws didn’t do much to promote traffic. Instead, they tended to increase costs. Instead of packing Blacks and whites into the smallest number of cars possible, the segregation laws forced the railroads to add cars for colored passengers who might have filed seats in white cars; or vice versa. Wealthier Blacks were forced to buy 2’nd class tickets if collectively the Black market for 1st class tickets didn’t justify running a Black 1st class car. Running an empty Black 1st class car with no paying passengers to achieve separate-but-equal was a pure money looser.

          The railroads’ proprietary rights were being infringed upon by Southern legislatures who were acting at the behest of their voting white constituents who were racially prejudiced.

          Brown v. Board of Education reversed Plesy; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked the turning point of racial segregation. The mood of the nation has followed. Today, a proprietor of a business that purveys to the public does not have as complete a set of rights as that proprietor has over his homestead.

          It’s pretty clear that a railroad, bus company, restaraunt or hotel falls into the category of a “public accommodation”. It’s not the least bit clear that a company that sells nuclear reactors falls into that same category; I doubt that GE is obliged to cater to a homeless person merely because of membership in some protected class based upon race, national origin, religion etc.

          Interesting questions that arise here are whether:
          – an FFL might be a place of public accommodation?
          – a petite white woman bearing arms with an order-of-protection against a stalker is a member of a protected class?

          If an FFL WERE deemed to be a place of public accommodation then I think he would be bared from refusing the patronage of young black women. Imagine the FFL were black and routinely associated with other black people. Imagine that he held a sincere conviction that any young Black woman was apt to be a straw-buyer. Imagine he holds a heartfelt belief that it would be a moral sin for him to sell a gun to anyone he sincerely suspected to be a straw-buyer. Under all such circumstances, whose rights trumpet the other:
          – the proprietor’s right to refuse to sell a deadly weapon to someone he just doesn’t trust? or,
          – the right of young Black women to avail themselves of the means to an effective self-defense?

          You expect me to agree with you that the FFL’s rights trump all others. Another person – someone sensitive to the rights of self-defense might expect me to agree with her that the young Black women have rights that trump those of the Federally licensed purveyor of 2A arms. Don’t expect to win this debate with me.

        4. avatar Dale Smith says:

          Chip, you said,
          “We are talking about property that a private owner …….” Do you even read what you type? LMFAO

          I’m pretty damn sure that property that has a private owner is the definition of private property. Especially when you compare it to public property. Which you would likely describe as, “Property that the public owns” Do you see the difference now? One is public and owned by many, one is private and owned by a private entity. It’s not a mixture of the two. Again, unless you’re a Communist.

          Yes, this person has welcomed people onto their private property, and that person can set whatever stipulations they want for that access.

          I’m pretty sure you’re part of the problem sir. Your way has certain conditions that must apply, or it must be under this circumstance, or you can do this, but not that. And somehow it’s publicandprivate property? WTF?

          My way is based on liberty and freedom. I own the property. I make the rules for my property. If someone doesn’t like it, they can leave. Seems pretty simple and common sense to me. But keep doing what you’re doing. That thought process is what’s gotten us to this point anyway. But go ahead and keep doing what you’re doing.

        5. avatar MarkPA says:

          The distinction between private and public property is not as straightforward as the binary condition that you describe.

          For example, your home and yard are private property. However, the property line might run to the centerline of the street. There may be a sidewalk separated by a narrow strip of grass from the street. All this land is your private property, subject to the right-of-way granted to the public marked by the street and the sidewalk. You don’t have to shovel the snow on the street but you may have to shovel the snow on the sidewalk.

          You can exclude anyone you like from the grass, but not from the sidewalk or the street that you “own”.

          A gas line, water line or TV cable might cross under your lawn. You can plant grass on the that lawn over the easement; but you may not be able to build a garage over the easement. And, we’re just getting started here.

          A public park is public and there is little the municipality can do to exclude you from this public property. They may, nevertheless, exclude all people from the park during nighttime hours.

          A school playground is publicly owned property just like the park. Nevertheless, the school board can exclude you from that playground 24 hours a day if you are not a student or parent. Even if you are a parent, the school can kick you off the property for no reason.

          You usually have some right to be present and speak at a “town hall” type of meeting; but, in a court room, you have no such right if you are not a party to the proceedings.

          Private property – stores, malls, parking lots – open to the public are also in a quasi-public/quasi-private classification. The rights of the property owners are in some ways circumscribed that would not apply if the property were NOT “open to the public”.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I’m pretty sure you’re part of the problem sir. Your way has certain conditions that must apply, or it must be under this circumstance, or you can do this, but not that. And somehow it’s publicandprivate property? WTF?

          Again, it’s not my way; it is the current landscape, based on legislative and judicial action. My way would be complete, free-market control. But that, unfortunately, is not the world we live in.

      3. avatar Dale Smith says:

        Actually, in Texas, and I’m guessing most somewhat sane states, you do in fact have the right to use lethal force to force someone to leave. And cops do not escalate force “ever so gradually.” That’s hilarious.

        1. avatar Dave says:

          See Subsection D, Section 9.41 at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

          Seems as if lethal force is only allowed against property trespass under narrow, yet sensible circumstances . What am I missing?

  7. avatar Scott Brittain says:

    Sadly, our increasingly liberal society allows certain ‘classes’ to be discriminated against. We gun owners don’t enjoy the same protections as most others. We are treated as potential criminals, judged before the fact.

    1. avatar Sock Monkey says:

      I think you mean “increasing illiberal.”

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    in the eyes of the .gov, packing heat doesn’t make you a member of a protected class

    Packing heat makes me a member of a protected class. which is why I do it. And the .gov be damned.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Nice play on words there; clearly “protected” is used in two different senses. You’re protected by your firearm. Those “classes” are “protected” (actually, they are given the power to compel acquiescence) by civil rights law.

    2. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      Actually, a few years ago, a bill was introduced in Missouri that would make people with a CCW a member of a protected class. It did not make it out of committee, but I do like the thought. . . .

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        I hate the thought. There shouldn’t be “protected” classes.

        That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t enjoy watching liberal’s heads do 360s and vomit come spewing out of all orifices when they see it happen.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Amen to that. I’m a straight white Christian man – as “unprotected” by the .gov as it gets. If I want protection I’ll get a gun (or a couple dozen) and learn how to use them. And knives. And my fists. And maybe watch what I’m doing and who is around me.

          I don’t give a sh!t if someone is gay, black, transgender, etc. they have absolutely zero additional rights above me. And I have zero additional rights above them. That is how rational people operate. I’d be an idiot to vote for a president just because he’s blavk or just because she’s a woman. We have a lot of idiotic voters.

          Unfortunately, the .gov narrative means I must celebrate all of the aforementioned things – more so than my own unprotected heritage – or risk being labeled a racist, homophobe, bigot, etc. Maybe lose my job and get sued, too.

          Welcome to “tolerance.”

        2. avatar int19h says:

          >> Amen to that. I’m a straight white Christian man – as “unprotected” by the .gov as it gets.

          You are, even if you’re not aware of it. The same exact anti-discrimination law protects you against being discriminated as a white, or as a Christian – if ever any place refuses service to you on either of those grounds, you can definitely sue and will certainly win (and if you don’t have the money, ACLU will likely step in to help).

          It’s just that the number of cases where a business would actually discriminate against whites or Christians in this country is so negligible that those protection clauses are pretty much never invoked. That, by the way, is exactly what “white privilege” means, even if I dislike the term.

  9. avatar SteveInCO says:

    If the government can *compel* you to do something like bake a cake, or buy health insurance, there’s absolutely nothing it cannot do.

    I can guarantee you that the people who want the government to compel baking a cake or buying health insurance will NEVER want the government to compel one to allow armed people into one’s place of business, even though there will be no compelling argument against such as the principle is already conceded.

    Stepping away from what government is doing, to the question of what it ought to do: The government SHOULDN’T be able to do either.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      In the open homosexual elected government of San Francisco you are correct. They made it a gun free zone were illegal alien murders run free.

  10. avatar Another Robert says:

    Next-to-last question in the post is phrased poorly. Private-property rights are not “requiring” anyone to bake a cake. The issue is whether private-property rights can protect you from someone else requiring you to bake a cake. And evidently, the answer is “no”. But good luck in getting the .gov to apply that reasoning to a right that is actually specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The courts, like any parent, seem to flagrantly favor those rights that they themselves create.

  11. avatar Jim says:

    “You need the cake when? I’m sorry. We are all booked up with other orders. Here is the # of another bakery ” There I solved your problem for you, bakers.
    The key is to never say or put anything in writing you don’t want coming back to you at trial.
    Oh, and guns. Because this is TTAG.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ““You need the cake when? I’m sorry. We are all booked up with other orders. Here is the # of another bakery ” There I solved your problem for you, bakers.”

      That hasn’t worked for people who didn’t want to rent apartments for *cough*, ‘undesireable’ people, Jim.

  12. avatar tdiinva says:

    Irrelevant. Homosexuals are special people and superior to all others at least as long as they can be used to dismantle the Constitution. Gun owners are all untermenschen and have no rights.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

  13. avatar Lurker_of_lurkiness says:

    Dumb thought, if I own property is it not my choice to choose who I do or do not let on, based upon whatever criterion I choose?

    Do I also not have the right to choose who I associate with?

    Property rights > sjw feely feels

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That’s certainly how it ought to be.

      But law has taken a decidedly different turn, creating “protected classes” you aren’t allowed to refuse to associate with. I wonder how long it will be before government decides to tell you what class of people you must marry.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Interestingly enough, the answer to your question is (in part) resolved. When Blacks started moving North white communities started writing into their property deeds clauses called “restrictive covenants”. The clauses prohibited the buyer from ever selling to a Black buyer. Moreover, the buyer was obliged to include the same restrictive covenant in any deed he gave to his buyer; in perpetuity.

      Obviously, a developer could buy an open field and lay-out a plan for a subdivision. The developer could sell lots at a premium if he included a restrictive covenant in the deed to each lot. Every buyer would know that no other buyer would be Black. Nor, could any other buyer sell to a subsequent black buyer.

      Equally clearly, the laws against discrimination in housing based on race rendered all such restrictive covenants a nullity.

      You don’t have to invite anyone to dine with you in your home. However, if a qualified buyer signs a contract to purchase a house you have listed you do NOT hold an effective right to refuse to sell to him just because he is Black/Christian/Nigerian/Female/. . .

  14. avatar Another Robert says:

    Just as another aside–you can see how “important” the ACLU considers religious freedom to actually be when they plainly state it is not as important as the possibility of offending a prospective customer. I mean, I guess we can all agree that potentially protecting a prospective customer from potentially being offended is really, really, important on the scale of fundamental human rights, no? I would dearly love to see what the ACLU would have to say if some homosexuals would actually sue a Muslim-owned bakery for refusing to serve them. I predict their collective brain would explode from their politically-correct dilemma.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I can’t imagine a couple of nasty lesbians suing a fundamentalist Muslim bakery. More likely than not, the “girls” would end up face down at the bottom of a long stairway.

    2. avatar RickA says:

      Yep. There will be no charges of failure to accommodate the public when a muslim bakery owner refuses to bake a gay cake. Muslims are rated higher up on the protected political class than are gays. Christians don’t even make the list….

  15. avatar gsnyder says:

    It seems like business has the Right to manage itself, until they run up against the LGBT. Is cake baking a Right?

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      No, but apparently cake-buying is. Cake-baking is now a government-controlled activity.

  16. avatar Shwiggie says:

    The penalty is not commensurate to the alleged harm. Declining to bake a fake wedding cake is an inconvenience to those seeking the product who will just go down the road to the next bakery. In no dimension of this universe does that warrant the government fining the business into oblivion and ruining someones life and livelihood.

    To such a government I would ask: in whose interests do you exercise your power? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?

    Regarding RKBA, you’re just whistling Dixie. Who is the aggrieved class? I can assure you, the government could not care less for its major constituents.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Same sex marriage has nothing to do with either homosexuality or marriage. It is just a Progressive method of destroying civil institutions and the Constitution. Progressive elites are notoriously puritanical when it comes to the behavior of the general population. When they obtain full power they will outlaw homosexuality just like every other Progressive regime.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        When the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, the Communist Party declared homosexuality a sign of bourgeois decadence. Treatment of suspected homosexuals during the Cultural Revolution was particularly harsh.
        In 1933, the Soviet government, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, recriminalised homosexual activity with punishments of up to five years’ hard labor.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Agreed.

      We should admit that there may be NO bakery down the street. Or, all the bakeries in the county might be owed and operated by orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslems. There may be no cake whatsoever available to the couple.

      Is this “Let them NOT eat cake” equivalent to:
      – no train that will carry the passengers?
      – no hotel that will provide lodging to the travelers?
      – no restaraunt that will provide substance to the travelers?
      – no doctor that will provide medical care to the patients?

      As we move from the sentiments of the train conductor and its shareholders toward the personal services of a doctor we are moving increasingly from less personal to more personal involvement.

      As we move from the train to medical care we are moving from less important to more acute needs for the service.

      Where, in these two spectrums, does a wedding cake fit? Is “Let them NOT eat cake” a more or less egregious withholding of civil rights from the prospective patrons? Or, a more or less egregious intrusion on the rights of the businessmen?

  17. avatar Grindstone says:

    Lots of misconceptions here. Let’s go over what is protected by Oregon anti-discrimination law:

    Race / color
    National origin
    Sex
    Sexual orientation
    Religion
    Age
    Marital status
    Physical/Mental disability

    Oh, look. It doesn’t specifically say “gays”. So if YOU are refused a cake and the bakers cite it’s because you’re white, straight, male, hetero marriage, and/or old as f…, you CAN indeed sue.

    Interestingly enough, when researching this (research?? we don’t need no stinkin’ research!) I found that the law also protects your job when you’re on leave for the “organized militia”.

    1. avatar Bob H says:

      You federal discrimination law does not include gay in the protected classes. No where in any federal law is Gay listed as protected. A gay couple suing a baker is the same legally as a man suingthe same baker over “no shirt no shoes no service” signs. It has no standing in law eexcept for with activist judges. Just because something “feels” wrong doesn’t make it legally wrong.
      If it’s true that a majority of Americans support gay marriage, it would be easy to amend the constitution or change certain laws constitutionally.
      It’s extremely dangerous when anyone can sue anyone for any reason based on descrimination, especially when it comes to a temporary state like shoelessness and homosexuality are in some people.
      And before anyone brings up the born gay argument, you need to refresh yourself on the scientific method. It’s up to the proponents of a theory to prove it, not the opponents to disprove it. No proof? It’s just an opinion then.

      1. avatar Bob H says:

        Also the 1st amendment is clear on the freedom of religion. The 10th is also clear about what is the states authority and what isn’t. Oregon doesn’t have the right to tell it’s people to check their Christianity at the door.

      2. avatar Grindstone says:

        Read again. It’s OREGON state law. I never said anything about federal.
        Reading is fundamental.

    2. avatar Dale Smith says:

      Organized militia is defined as state military forces, such as Texas Air National Guard. Unorganized militia is the true citizens militia, which I’m guessing you’re talking about. You do not want organized militia status, as there’s a lot of strings that come along with those benefits.

    3. avatar Another Robert says:

      ummm..”sexual orientation” covers “gays”…

      1. avatar Grindstone says:

        Right, sexual orientation covers BOTH gay and straight, not SOLELY gay, like many are making it out to be.

  18. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    This is why Ayn Rand thought that parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were Unconstitutional and this is where it is leading. I usually agreed with quite a bit of her Objectivist philosophies.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Actually her major complaint wasn’t that it was unconstitutional, but rather that CRA 1964 was objectively immoral.. She believed the constitution was pretty good, but by no means perfect, and was perfectly willing to argue against the constitution where she thought it was mistaken by Objectivist principles. To her, being unconstitutional in addition to being objectively wrong, was just icing on the cake, an argument that could convince those who couldn’t or wouldn’t be swayed by the principled argument.

      And it happens I agree with her rationale, which is why I am so disgusted with the legions of people here who want to misuse this misbegotten law, or rather the “logic” behind it, to be able to go armed anywhere against property owners’ wishes.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        She had a diatribe about racism where she thought that at least parts of the Civil Rights Act was Unconstitutional and of course objectively immoral. I agree with your views on property rights trumping the right to carry weapons against the wishes of said property owners; as this now presents a slippery slope which may tie into the LGBT “cake rights” now trumping business property rights.
        I had about all of her books at one time, but gave them away when i moved. I wish I would have kept them.

      2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Any business owner in America has the right to refuse me service and ask me to leave if he doesn’t like my firearm, and if I refuse to leave he has the right to have me arrested for trespassing. What he doesn’t have, at least in my state is the ability to have me arrested on sight. IMHO the business owner doesn’t need to know I’m armed, just like he doesn’t need to know if I’m straight or gay.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          You’re confusing the right to refuse service with the right to have someone criminally prosecuted.

  19. avatar Stateisevil says:

    The bakery thing is very North Korean. More amazing still, many Amerikans think they live in a free country. This place sucks hard, even IF it is ” one of the best”.

  20. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Good to know OFWG is a protected class(lol). Seriously why is this even a topic? We are already a “protected” class-the 2A is not about hunting…

  21. avatar Mister Fleas says:

    Because the “justices” will bend the laws and Constitution to whatever they want(in this case, anti-Christian rulings), and then bend the laws and Constitution the other way to attack something they don’t want(the Second Amendment).

  22. avatar Ovidio G says:

    As George Orwell put it, every animal is equal, but some are more equal than others.
    This principle is becoming the true rule all western nations have to abide to.
    Power to minorities, no respect for the majority.
    I think all that is going to hurt the aggressive minorities very much in the mid-term. Apart from the fact that this is a blatant negation of equality and democracy.
    If someone can forbid a citizen to step in the shop because he (or she) is armed, why should’nt he be allowed to do the same, or refuse to serve, whoever they don’t like? Whatever reason for?
    Is there a special scale to weigh right from wrong?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Is there a special scale to weigh right from wrong?”

      As someone corrupt once said:

      “It doesn’t matter how many votes they got. All that matters is who counts the votes.”

      Infer from that the obvious.

      “It’s not nice, but it’s reality.”

      The Indigo Girls – ‘Bury my heart at Wounded Knee’

  23. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    A government that can force someone to bake a gay wedding cake over their religious objections can also force doctors to perform abortions, Mormons to consume caffeine, Jehovah’s Witnesses to take blood transfusions, Muslims and Jews to eat pork. The list is long when your society slips into fascism.

    Fortunately we are still in the ‘teach the dissenters a lesson phase’. The best remedy for this is what happened with the family run pizzeria in Indiana. They tried to make an example out of them and then somebody set up a Gofundme page for them and they raked in $850,000. If becoming a target of these fascists ends up like winning the lottery then they’ll learn not to target innocent people anymore. If you like living in a free society, put your money where your mouth is and donate the next time this happens. That or keep your mouth shut when they come for you.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      An excellent line of reasoning.

      Suppose infidels in America reach the point where they have had enough of jihad. Suppose infidels pass a law requiring all residents Eat Pork, the Other White Meat.

      Majority rules; right? Isn’t that populism? Anyone who doesn’t like this law can expatriate.

      Unless there are some areas of personal rights – such as religious rights – then there is NO protection for minorities of any sort.

      White America did not stand-up for the physical protection of Blacks against lynching (let alone segregation) until around 1960. Is that what America means by “majority rules”?

      Our principles – established in the Declaration and Constitution – set certain rights of minorities sacred over the rights of the majority. This is so notwithstanding that the majority might be right. (E.g., suppose it might be scientifically established that there is no god; nevertheless, the rights of the religious to practice their religion would trump the rights of the majority to assert atheism as a correct fact.)

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        In this case we’re not even talking about majority rule. Gay marriage has lost just about everywhere it’s been put on the ballot. But the left, and this is who we’re talking about – it’s not the average gay person, it’s the militant gay activists and their allies in the Democratic party, wasn’t content with majority rule so they convince the courts to overrule popular opinion. So why is the non-gay left so intent on pushing this agenda? Because the atheist left dislikes the First Amendment as much as they hate the Second. They wanted gay marriage so they could use it to persecute Christians (funny but I don’t see them using it against Muslims). We know this because that’s exactly what they’re doing. The question is, what is the next step for them? During the proceedings, one of the justices asked the Obama lawyer if this would open the door to religious groups and even churches losing their tax exempt status and the Obama lawyer said that was a real possibility.

        So ask yourself what these people would do if they could put in place a supreme court that would rule that the 2nd Amendment in not an individual right, but a right of government to maintain a national guard. I’ll tell you what would happen, they’d start a civil war.

        1. avatar RepublicOrDemocracy says:

          Be careful of the ballot argument. Political science studies (it’s been repeatedly several times), surveyed the public on the Bill of Rights. To the best of my knowledge, each study concluded that the Bill of Rights would be rejected were it voted upon. One can make the argument that ballot issues would be discussed and an informed electorate would form an opinion based on the strengths of the pro and con positions. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.

          Also, public option changes. CA’s Prop 8 (anti-gay marriage) passed, but a few years later public opinion had shifted so that a sizable majority were in favor of it.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Alas, this is a true and tragic statement about the lack of political sophistication of the electorate.

          Fortunately, that doesn’t matter. Our founding fathers did not ordain a democracy; instead, a republic.

          The ratification conventions were made of wise members (for the most part) empowered to decide by their constituents, the People.

          The amendments were ratified by the legislatures of the States who are empowered (by Article V) to decide by their constituents, the People.

          Our civil rights (to be distinguished from our natural rights) are decided by the People only indirectly. By in large, the decisions to ratify, or not to ratify an amendment, have been made wisely by this republican mechanism. One thing for which we can be grateful.

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          That ‘change in public opinion’ has never been backed up at the voting booth in CA, but that’s a minor point. The point isn’t whether the majority is abusing the minority or the minority abusing the majority. The point is that the courts are being manipulated for the purpose of denying the First Amendment rights of others.

  24. avatar GayGunOwner says:

    Has TTAG become so desparate for clicks that it needs to resort to gay baiting?

    1. No one was “compelled” to bake a cake – the Oregon bakery was fined for their behavior. Tough to understand why a business couldn’t just as easily claim the owner’s religion forbids commerce with Jews, mixed race couples, or any other reason that one wants to claim is a religious belief.

    Most of us would be outraged were businesses permitted to discriminate against gun owners.

    2. Courts have held that businesses are NOT compelled to craft offensive speech. A Jewish baker could not legally refuse to sell a cake to the local American Nazi Party chapter, but could refuse to decorate it with Death to Jews lettering or a swastika design.

    3. Like many, I agree that the $135K fine was disproportionate. However, the bakery owners embarked on a publicity campaign and named the complaining couple. That resulted in death threats being sent to them. News reports claimed officials were concerned about the foster children in their care and were considering removing them due to the threats. What began as a minor complaint with just a warning, mushroomed into a major fine due to the bakery owner’s egregious behavior.

    It’s been reversed per Volokh law blog at the Washington Post. But that’s not been as widely reported as the initial fine.

    I remember when an exclusive private Chicago men’s club had their liquor license pulled because they refused to admit women. Membership included a number of well-known lawyers, judges, and business executives. The club could have continued to discriminate against women, but Illinois liquor license holders can’t discriminate against women. The club quickly changed their admission policy.

    Perhaps suspending a business license would be a better approach than fines, but the conduct of the business owners in the Oregon case resulted in death threats over a cake.

    I’d hope that TTAG would focus on guns, not gays. But if relevant, then consider that yesterday at our local range’s open house, another gay man and I were accidentally paired. I don’t believe anyone in the club knows we’re gay. We spent the afternoon teaching straight couples to shoot. It was gratifying to see firearm apprehension evolve to joy. Seems like everyone now wants photos with the firearm and target.

    I don’t know, nor care about their religious beliefs concerning my sexual orientation. But yesterday, another gay man and I introduced 4 straight couples to firearms. I’d like to think that they are now less likely to favor restricting the rights of firearms owners. That’s my primary concern – not bakeries.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Most of us would be outraged were [ private] businesses permitted to discriminate against gun owners.
      I might be outraged, but I would still support their right to do so.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Private businesses not only discriminate against gun owners all the time not only by denying service but in many states they can have gun owners arrested on sight and prosecuted.

    2. avatar Stateisevil says:

      Despotic filth, please move to North Korea.

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      A Jewish baker could not legally refuse to sell a cake to the local American Nazi Party chapter,
      I would support the Jewish Baker in his right not to sell the cake to the Nazis. This is a voluntary transaction between two potentially consenting parties of which a meeting of the minds never took place.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        Thanks Tom , there’s that common sense again . We really need to get past this common sense , logic crap , it’s interfering with everything , it’s really got to stop . Can’t we get back to functioning on emotions again ? Gray baby , everything is gray .
        To the gay gun owner , I imagine you have been offended , stared at , had people whispering behind your back , ostracized and treated differently for as long as you have told people you were homosexual and probably longer and I wish people weren’t so judgmental , we all sin , every minute , everyday , even the most righteous among us are filthy rags in Gods eyes , but if you could take a step back , remove the emotional side of your argument and think LOGIC , you would perhaps see your oppositions side a little better . I would have no problem training firearms with you or going into battle with you as long as you removed your emotions and dressed in common sense . God bless .

    4. avatar Another Robert says:

      The pizzeria owners (yeah, that was another one–they never even refused to do anything, they were just quoted by a sensationalist newshound as saying they hypothetically would not cater a “gay” wedding) got death threats and arson threats from the gay mafia too, and their business wound up being shut down. And the damn official complaint didn’t have to be made in the first place, the couple could have just gone down the street to another bakery. So no, don’t expect me to thus sympathize with folks who would rather wield government power against someone who doesn’t agree with them on what they themselves keep insisting is a “private matter” than just live their lives privately in peace. And don’t assume because that kind of thing pisses me off no end, in that it represents egregious government overreach into what should be private affairs, that I “hate gays”.

    5. avatar Ralph says:

      @GayGunOwner, if you are a regular lurker here, you know that TTAG’s staff and editors has been very supportive of gays with guns. And I saw no “gay baiting” in the OP. Perhaps your victimization fantasies are showing.

      1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

        Yup, am aware of TTAG’s position and privately thanked Robert. Nevertheless, the headline is factually wrong – no one was “compelled”. And the explanation for the (now reversed) fine was also misleading.

        Gay baiting is *not* the same as homophobia IMO. Some gay news sites (Advocate and Huffington Post – Gay Voices to name two) are just as guilty. They throw out an incendiary headline knowing full well that most readers respond to the headline – not the article. Sadly, it’s become common on many websites.

        TTAG is a business whose success is shaped by readers. Sometimes It’s tough to know where to draw the line between click bating sensationalism and news worthy reporting. TTAG’s editorial standards were lacking in this piece. Attempting to link cake sales with the truth about guns seems like waste of electrons.

        I’d like to read about firearm related topics – not those that are completely orthogonal.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Attempting to link cake sales with the truth about guns seems like waste of electrons.

          I disagree. And besides, they are TTAG’s electrons, not yours. So may I suggest that you dismount from your high horse?

          The outrage industry is quickly becoming the only one in America that can be guaranteed to make a profit these days. Personally, I find it repulsive.

    6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      1. No one was “compelled” to bake a cake…

      Please, torture language some more. “Bake this cake or face civil or criminal prosecution, fines, and closure of your business” is, in every way, being compelled to bake a cake.

      2. Courts have held that businesses are NOT compelled to craft offensive speech.

      To Christians, homosexuality is sinful, and for some Christians, baking a cake with the speech “Congratulations, Adam and Steve!” is offensive speech. Further, creating something that implies endorsement or condoning of a sinful act is an offensive violation of conscience.

      Such people have natural and constitutionally protected rights, as well – whether you like it or not.

    7. avatar Ovidio G says:

      The main issue here is that the pro-gay lobby is violently forcing everybody to like or support gays. No objections are allowed or tolerated. Freedom should mean that one can like or dislike them, as long as he treats them like everybody else. If I’m allowed to refuse something to somebody because of my personal beliefs (not necessarily religious), then I should also be able to do it with gays. But now, wherever you live, if you’re not more than supportive to gays, you’re attacked and accused of every absurd thing.
      That, actually, is fascism! Or dictature, to be more precise.
      Live and let live, and no-one will ever bother you.

      1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

        I agree. We had a gay politician that urged our county to set up a a separate LGBT office. He cited discrimination / bashing statistics that were completely irrelevant to our county – even our state AFAIK. In effect, he ‘pink mailed’ other elected officials to fund the office. Waste of taxpayers money, particularly when other minorities (asians, latins) probably encounter more discrimination than any LGBTs.

        So we’re now funding an LGBT office to the tune of ~ $300K / year on top of a human rights commission (who have had no gay discrimination complaints in years). I have no idea what the LGBT office is supposed to do. But I do know that any bureaucracy’s primary purpose is self-preservation. No doubt they will find something to justify their existence.

        The gay politician is being termed-out, and I suspect he’s laying the ground work to run for another office. He probably won’t be getting my vote.

        I mention this because the “gay mafia” (did know someone who actually was – part of Tony Accardo’s outfit when I lived in Chicago) are often government entities that strive to be relevant. Sometimes they conduct sting type operations or amplify complaints out of proportion.

        I’m hoping the LGBT office gets defunded after he’s termed out. We have better uses for taxpayers money.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Speaking of the Chicago Outfit — there was a time when most of the gay bars in Manhattan were owned by the NY mob. And that includes the most famous of them all, The Stonewall Inn. Scene of the Stonewall Riots, where most of the rioters were the police.

          So the mob — which hated gays — catered to gays (ain’t it funny what money can do), protected gay bars from the cops to the extent possible through bribery, and eventually were complicit in the “gay liberation” movement that eventually won the day.

          Strange bedfellows indeed.

    8. No one here is gay baiting. Certainly not this pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-legal marijuana managing editor.

      The purpose of the question was a little reductio ad absurdum. Only it’s not so absurd any more.

      Given the basis for recent SCOTUS (and lower court) rulings concerning public accommodations, religious freedom, and finding emanations and penumbras in the law where they never existed before, it’s a perfectly reasonable question. Unless, of course, anyone actually expects the federal government to force acceptance of something as icky as the right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        I’m pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-gun and pro-pot, just not all of them at the same time.

        I’m against straight marriage, lying politicians and bad whiskey, three things that I have experienced more than once in my lifetime.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          I don’t think God knew what he was talking about when He declared that man and woman should become one . I know God does not mind when we scramble unborn in the womb , He understands the many hardships placed on women with the children and accepts their desire to remain unencumbered . God put pot here so I know He wouldn’t mind if I smoked a dubie and then attended to your medical emergency . Marriage is actually about consummation not procreation and I can consummate with any gender in any orifice . All politicians have to lie , they have to . Whiskey isn’t an acquired taste and a gun in the hand of a child or adult can neither save a life nor take a life , they are useless . UPSIDE DOWN !

    9. avatar MarkPA says:

      Hi GayGunOwner. I haven’t followed the underlying facts in details; just read the headlines. “What began as a minor complaint with just a warning, mushroomed into a major fine . . . ”

      I found your remark intriguing. “A minor complaint”; well, OK, anybody can complain about anything. If the gay couple complained to civil authorities about the bakers then that’s just fine with me.

      “With just a warning . . . ” What was this about? Could you fill us in? I wouldn’t complain if the civil authorities tried to act as a mediator vis a vis the bakery. I wouldn’t complain if the civil authorities told the bakers that they ought to try to speak politely to prospective customers – especially if they were going to reject their patronage.

      If the civil authorities used coercion to compel the bakers to accept patronage they rejected then I’d have some problems here. E.g., if you don’t bake cakes for all gay patrons we will pull your business license.

      Seems as though (from what I read in your remarks) the civil authorities warned them (i.e., a threat of future material adverse action) if the bakers continued to engage in uncivil discourse with gay prospective customers.

      If so, this seems like a new class of asserted civil rights: the right not to be treated rudely by a licensed business. I don’t know how I feel about that. Seems like I could complain and the civil authorities would be able to coerce my butcher, baker or gundealer to be polite in dealing with me.

      I’ve never met an impolite butcher or baker; but on the other hand, there have been a couple of a-** gun dealers i’ve come across. Maybe I’d feel more strongly in favor of this new right if it forced gun dealers to mind their manners.

      In any case, what’s the scoop here? Did the government raise the stakes with the bakers in a manner that violated the baker’s rights? Or, did the bakers respond to a kind word from the government by escalating the dispute to an uncivil level?

      1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

        MarkPA,
        As is often the situation, an incident gets mis-reported. It seems as if Raw Story made a claim about the fine and Volokh provided a correction and an opinion about the matter. Volokh is behind the Post’s paywall. However you can subscribe via their RSS feed for free after the Post’s free count has been exhausted. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/10/no-the-oregon-bakers-werent-fined-for-publishing-the-complainants-home-address-or-for-otherwise-publicizing-the-complaint-against-them/

        I like Volokh because it is written by law professors typically on constitutional law matters. One on Dylan Roof’s purchase is at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/07/11/dylann-roof-apparently-had-not-been-arrested-for-a-felony-a-month-before-he-went-through-a-gun-purchase-background-check/

        Thanks again for your thoughtful and polite comments.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Thanks for the pertinent response.

          If I get the drift, the fine was NOT predicated on a refusal-of-service to bake a cake for a gay wedding. By way of illustration, it might have been a refusal to bake a chocolate cake when the baker felt that nothing but vanilla would be appropriate for a gay wedding. The refusal-of-service is merely background, it’s not the cause of action. Rather, the cause of action was speech/press that was slanderous/libelous. It was the baker’s speech that should have been expected to provoke threats upon the prospective customers.

          If I’m correct in getting the drift of this dispute then I think I understand. We are not dealing with a right to be sold a product or be provided with a service. We are, instead, dealing with a sanction against speech/press that is NOT protected by the 1A.

          The baker’s speech might – in fact – enjoy protection under 1A. Or, the bakers’ speech may be such that they forfeited their liberty by inciting violence or threats of violence. That is an entirely different issue. The gays have as much a right as anyone (politicians excluded) to be protected from speech outside the bounds of the liberties protected by the 1A. The judgement that the bounds of 1A protection were exceeded might be correct or not; I don’t propose to inquire further into this question.

          Thanks very much for your help.

          We can use all the help we can get from you guys by way of how to assert and reclaim our RKBAs. Doubtlessly, you have learned a lot in the past few decades about how to turn membership in a disparaged class into a politically-correct protected class.

          Any tips on choosing boas or applying body paint?

        2. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          MarkPA,
          Sorry, I lack stereotypical gay genes and can’t help. Dislike shopping unless at Home Depot, have no fashion sense, and all the gay designers I know develop software or electronic circuits. The only male florists and hairdressers I know are straight and happily married.

          You raise an excellent question and one I wish TTAG would continue to explore: what can we do to change public opinion about firearms?

          Funding NRA and others that advocate for our rights, of course. Teaching newbies and youth responsible and safe firearms practices. Combating FUD – fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread by those who oppose firearm ownership.

          But if I had to cite one thing, it would be direct contact. I know every single elected official at the city & county level. I go to their events and know their positions on various issues. Only 1 (a gay elected official) knows I’m gay. Not closeted, but there are more important things to advocate for.

          Instead, I got a streetlight installed on a dark street, a flashing crosswalk light for children at a nearby school, some traffic mitigation controls to slow down drivers speeding through the neighborhood, funding for our neighborhood block party (AFAIK, I’m the only gay person in the neighborhood), and blocked a liquor license transfer at a neighborhood market after many problems. These are the kinds of things that concern me.

          I’m eager to hear strategies and approaches others use to advocate for firearms.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Any tips on choosing boas or applying body paint?

          Gun Pride parade? I’m in!

          (Or “out”, whatever the proper term is these days. 😀 )

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          GayGunOwner asked MarkPA:

          “You raise an excellent question and one I wish TTAG would continue to explore: what can we do to change public opinion about firearms?”

          I can offer my observations on public opinion about firearms –

          And it’s going better than the antis wish it was. Overall the general public agrees roughly 70 percent that the American public has a right to own a firearm. That’s big, 20 years ago it was about 50 percent.

          The biggest gains have been in Black American attitudes on gun ownership, over 50 percent, with the largest gains made in the past decade or so. The cynic in me believes the current administration’s ham-handling of race relations is a major factor in that gain. Blacks are beginning to wake up to the fact they may be better off tooling up then relying on law enforcement.

          That may be a way to approach gun ownership in the LGBT community. The antis desperately want to stigmatize gun ownership. As you have mentioned, direct contact, simple exposure reduces that stigmatization.

          Personally, I believe a tipping point has been reached (in our favor) and the antis are aware of it and that is driving their extreme response.

          Just my .02 (and worth every penny…)

        5. avatar GayGunOwner says:

          Thanks, Geoff.

          Am not familiar with changes in attitudes about firearms and hope there is more support firearm ownership.

          Sorry if I left the wrong impression. To the best of my knowledge, there is no organized LGBT opposition to firearms. In fact, just the opposite. A LGBT group of firearm enthusiasts called the Pink Pistols marches in the San Francisco gay pride parade – maybe elsewhere too. There are chapters in major cities. I don’t shoot with them and have very limited knowledge about the group.

          The group’s website mentions firearms as a bashing deterrent, but CCWs are hard to get and gay bashing is very rare. And if it makes a difference, I have reservations about enhancements for hate crimes. AFAIK, a hate crime designation does not make murder or assault less likely, nor less painful or deadly for the victims.

          I do get some good natured teasing from others at a Buddhist service I attend on weekends at a monastery. Go from the service to the range so my gear is in the car. I’m convinced that meditation improves my aim. I seem to shoot better afterwards than at other times.

          A couple of the monks have expressed interest and hope to get them to the range. VegetarianThai monks in saffron robes wearing shooting goggles and ear muffs while aiming pistols is not a common sight. Would make a great photo.

    10. avatar tdiinva says:

      In no case has of these businesses refused to serve gay customers in general. What they refused to do is to participate what they consider something offensive to their religious sensibilties. This fundamentally different from say Jim Crow where no service was provided. Big Gay’s agenda has always been to force people to affirm and celebrate homosexuality mere toleration/live and let live is not acceptable
      When all this start Big Gay said no one would be forced but now we see that was a big lie.

  25. avatar mark s. says:

    JUST MAKE THE UGLIEST CAKE POSSIBLE THAT TASTE LIKE SHIT . hehehehehehe

    1. Exactly. Would you really want to eat a cake someone was force to make for you against their will?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          That little girl just looks like pure evil.

          Is that the actress from ‘The Ring’?

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I believe that’s Christina Ricci playing Wednesday Friday Addams of The Addams Family.

          Addams Family Values I think? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106220/

  26. avatar Sian says:

    Does anyone involved understand the absurdity of their argument here?

    They want a customer to be able to force a business to produce something against their beliefs.

    They might change their mind when the same argument is used to force a black-owned southern bakery to decorate a cake with the Confederate Battle Flag, or the ISIS flag.

    Nobody is saying ‘I won’t do business with gay people’. They’re saying ‘I won’t make a cake decorated in a way that offends me’ and there is nothing wrong with that.

    1. avatar Ovidio G says:

      Just hope never to be publicly on the wrong side of political correctness!
      Democracy and right of opinion and speech will not apply to you!!!

  27. avatar mark s. says:

    To CliffH, I have told customers to leave my store on more than a few occasions , usually because they were a__ holes and I reserve the right to do it for any reason I choose . I just wouldn’t do it though unless you were being an a__ hole or maybe half nude or drunk . My problem is this , when they are a black a__ hole or a Jewish a__ hole or gay a__ hole I may run into trouble when they say I made them leave because of what they are and not how they’re acting . If I go into a Jewish black gay business and I’m an a__ hole and they toss me out can I say they discriminated against me because I am a white Christian heterosexual ?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      A merchant can order people to leave his store — just as an employer can fire an “at will” employee — for any reason or for no reason at all. Unless the reason is illegal. Which is a damn big “unless.”

      And who decides what is legal and what is illegal? That’s the eternal question. Revolutions have been fought over the answer.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Progressive SJWS will have no problem with you not serving Jews err I mean Zionists. They oppress the poor Muslims and deserve “special handling.” No SJW would challenge a Muslim bakery that would refuse any kind of service to Gay’s, Jews or Christians.

      1. avatar mark s. says:

        My only reply is this . WTF ? I read the comment several times and I have no idea . Please don’t be a Jew basher or Christian basher or homosexual basher or woman basher or anything basher , leave the comments to stand on there merit . For instance , you can say that those Islamist that are wanting to kill all Jews and Christians and lop off their heads are crazy , and not be a Muslim basher , or if it was a Jew or Christian that wanted to kill all Muslims you could call them whacky degenerates and be fine , but base stuff on reality and try to be more descriptive in your comments , I simply did not understand , I apologize . I’m not real bright . I don’t know what SJWS is , I think that was my problem . God bless .

  28. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Not to throw a wrench into some of the private property rights comments but you can be sued by anyone you “invite” on your property-no matter how many Not Liable signs you tack up during a garage sale. I’m not a lawyer but was an insurance agent in another life. Maybe Ralph can shed more light on this…

  29. avatar Mad Max says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    All states that issue/recognize any marriage licenses must issue/recognize same-sex marriage because of the equal protection requirement. This should also apply to gun permits.

    A sole proprietorship or closely-held corporation can refuse service because of their religious beliefs because “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits individuals from discriminating against other citizens. It restricts the Government (Federal & State) from discriminating and also prohibits the Government from enforcing the portions of any laws (such as parts of “public accommodation” laws) that interfere with the individual’s free exercise of religion. Public accommodation laws or business privilege laws are legal insomuch as they don’t interfere with the individual business owner’s constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

    Individual business owners can prohibit the carrying of firearms on their business property if they can show their constitutional rights would be violated if the Government requires them to allow the carrying of firearms (I’m thinking of a Quaker business owner as an example).

    There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits individual property owners from preventing the carrying of firearms on their property or denying access to their private property to anyone.

  30. avatar mike says:

    We are a ‘Self-Protected Class’

  31. avatar Mike in OK says:

    Government will compel whoever it is able to do whatever it wants because words no longer have meaning.

  32. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Yes, yes, of course yes, a thousand times yes. After all, the government has men with guns, LOTS of both and far more than any other unified entity. With zero respect for the law and a Supreme Court that gives authoritarianism its imprimatur, the government can do whatever the hell it wants.

    The Constitution? Well, yes, there is that. Let me ask you, though: how many divisions does the Constitution have? OK, now that we’ve settled that, the only question remaining is what will the government do with its unbridled power. Many answers are possible, of course, but don’t expect any of them to align with expansion of your right to keep and bear arms. Next question.

  33. avatar Nick says:

    Does the Constitution apply on private property? If my private property rights trump your constitutional rights, does that mean I can own slaves as long as I keep them indoors?

  34. avatar H says:

    It’s private property yet you’ve opened it to the public. You aren’t allowed to discriminate in your service of customers. You can insist/require that they do certain specific things. Remember, “no shoes, no shirt, no service?” Some restaurants will not admit you without a sports coat or suit jacket. Keeps their image and their ambiance. I saw a family enter a vegan restaurant ready to be seated. Ten year old is eating McDonald’s fries. He was told he could not eat them inside. While that may seem picky, the smell to people who don’t eat them is quite strong. The establishment is protecting their ambiance. Grocery stores won’t admit folks who are barefoot in case they get injured. Their insurance. My agent tells me subtle little things that I can’t do that would boost my risk.
    So I think a store can refuse open carry. Let the market work this one out. Chick Filet isn’t open on Sundays. The market doesn’t care. Their product quality compensates for this choice.

  35. avatar Burley says:

    IT can, but it won’t.

  36. avatar BDub says:

    As long as they are willing to sit in the corner and paint the floor, I’ll keep bringing buckets of paint. Napolean was right on the money – do not interrupt them.

  37. avatar TwinReverb says:

    Actually, the problem is that the government can’t compel a business to bake a cake. Nor carry a gun.

    I don’t care what anyone else does in their personal time, but hunting down people who disagree with you to haul them into court is evil and wrong, no matter what minor issue it is.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Hummm…where to draw the line?

      Health Departments cite restaurants and sue if necessary for violations; New York authorities recently cited Whole Foods for short weighting. I believe an earlier complaint elsewhere resulted in an $800,000 fine against Whole Foods.

      Then there are whistleblower complaints where one can get a cut of the penalty. I believe the Feds have awarded multimillion dollar amounts to some over defense contractor ripoffs.

  38. avatar TwinReverb says:

    (Sorry) and I’m glad the government can’t compel a business to make a cake. It’s none of their business.

    Maybe they should start with stuff that’s actually bad, like eradicating the KKK. But since they can’t prohibit free speech either, that will never happen.

    I’d rather see the KKK gone than see people forced to bake other people cakes, but our country, and the world, don’t run on my whim or the whim of anyone, majority or not. It runs on rules and principles. And if we intend to uphold the principle of liberty, we should stop the frivolous lawsuits being taken up just because one out of (say) a dozen bakeries in a city won’t bake a cake that says something about gay wedding. It’s no less offensive than forcing Muslims to knowingly eat pork.

  39. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Homosexuals being progressives don’t believe in the US Constitution. To them it is just a tool to be used to crush anyone who disagrees with them. Homosexual elected leaders and their voters disarmed San Francisco California and the bay area. They are working on disarming the entire state of California. Homosexuals will use the racist gun control laws of California to end civil rights for gun owners and prevent others from using gun civil rights. They have worked to prevent school vouchers from being used as an alternative to the government school system. They precipitated the murder of a woman by an illegal alien.

    In Washington State the choice on the ballot was legal Marijuana intoxication, yes to homosexual marriage, and does the second amendment apply in Washington State?

    The the voters exchanged homosexual marriage and Marijuana intoxication for ending the second amendment in Washington State. They are the enemy of freedom.

    Before you challenge me on my statement please provide the name of an open homosexual elected leader who is A rated by the NRA. What voting record can you show me of their support for the civil right of gun ownership and gun businesses.

    I can provide a list of anti freedom homosexuals.

    1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      Chris – yes, do publish a list of “anti- freedom” homosexuals. Inquiring minds want to know.

      LGBTs are a relatively small percentage of the population. Even if all of us favored gun control, it’s doubtful that it would change anything. I know a number of LGB (no Ts) that are current or past (including career) military and law enforcement. Quite a few LGBs work in technology on projects that help keep our country safe. I suspect they would be stunned to hear anyone questioning their patriotism as would anyone that knows them.

      One of the NRA’s spokesman is gay, lives in San Francisco, and a former Google engineer. I believe that the entire San Francisco Board of Supervisors is straight, 7 of 120 members of CA’s legislature are gay (source Wikipedia). Don’t know any of them, but excepting Senators Pelosi and Feinstein, my elected officials at all other levels of government do not favor additional gun control legislation – and know my views as well.

      If by “anti-freedom” you mean anyone that supports gun control, then many prominent religious leaders would head the list. I believe Pope Francis made some remarks a few weeks ago. Off hand, I suspect you’ll find a higher correlation of gun control (anti-freedom?) advocates among women and among whites. Does that mean all women or whites are “anti-fredom”? Of course not.

      I believe former Sen Larry Craig had an outstanding record as viewed by the NRA. But trying to pick up men in public restrooms didn’t sit well with voters. Retired Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) got an F from the NRA. But offhand, that seems true with most from MA.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        Thank you for your reasoned arguments.

        I’m baffled by those PotG who seem determined to summarily bash gays in the context of gun rights. They seem unaware that there is a gay-gun-rights organization – Pink Pistols – that supported us in the Heller decision.

        As far as I’m concerned, anyone is free to bash anyone else on the basis of their morals or fashion statement or standing on the 2A. However, when there are any gays (Blacks, Catholics, Irish, Mexicans, . . . pick your favorite prejudice) who are WITH-us on gun-rights we had better welcome them to our parade.

        I can walk with you, talk with you, buy with you, sell with you; and, shoot with you without committing to eat with you drink with you or pray with you. When we meet at the barricades we will need every rifleman available.

        The most important argument to be made, with respect to the gays, is that they have – how might we put it? – a “way” with flamboyance in promoting their cause. Just exactly how is it that a minority that has suffered prejudice for centuries has – in just a couple of decades – promoted themselves into the status of a key protected group? How the hell did they do that? Was it the boas? Something in the body-paint? Whatever it is, we need them to give us some coaching.

        I’m prepared to presume that a super-majority of gays are Progressives. That’s fine. We don’t have to embrace them all. Nevertheless, the simple existence of the Pink Pistols, and the gays on this board, are proof-positive of a fissure in this demographic. If there are some gay PotG there can be more.

        At some point – 5% – 15% – 25% – it becomes politically dangerous to disparage a gay-man-with-a-gun. Just as it becomes politically dangerous to disparage a Black-man-with-a-gun or a mother-with-a-gun. Other gays/Blacks/mothers who may not be pro-gun may begin to resent an attack on any member of their solidarity group.

        Take a deep breath – – – now, try to imagine a Gay-Gun-Pride parade in Wilmington DE complete with boas, body-paint, rainbow-flags and OC holsters. I defy ANY Mom-who-Demands-Action to stand before a microphone, clutching her pearls, expressing how terrorized she is by Gays-with-Gunz!!!!

        Following the Gays we can have the Women’s-Auxiluary Brigade pushing baby-carts with OC holsters. The OFWGs in American Legion caps can bring-up the rear with Garands.

        If we could pull-it-off in Delaware we can take the show on the road to NYC and DC using faux long-guns and bananas in OC holsters.

        We OFWG get-it about bringing our wives and daughters into the PotG. We ought to be bright enough to see how beneficial it will prove to be to bring Blacks, gays, physically-challenged, actors, athletes, clergy, and – dare I suggest – Democrats into the fold.

        In a similar vein we ought to think about another protected minority demographic: illegal aliens. I’m not talking about violent illegals or drunk-driving illegals. Nor am I talking about recent illegals. All illegal aliens are stripped of their natural 2A rights regardless of their circumstances.

        We ought to be very well aware of the arguments the Progressives make for illegals. Some are law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working with many years of (illegal) residence in the US. They have US-born children. By the terms of SCOTUS decisions they are – arguably – members of the class “the People”. Do we really need to disparage their natural right to keep and bare arms in defense of themselves and their American children?

        Doubtlessly, a majority of the illegal aliens are hoplophobic; however, there are plenty of exceptions. A significant fraction of Hispanic illegals are from rural areas and bring with them a tradition of gun-owning. (I’m personally acquainted with a couple of illegals from Oaxaca. They are perfectly comfortable with arms coming from arms keeping and bearing families.) These – too – represent a fissure into the ranks of a presumably hostile group.

        We have no obligation to support any path to legal status for illegal aliens while – at the same time – admitting of their natural rights (speech, religion, self-defense, search & seizure, trial by jury, etc.) WHILE they ARE here – regardless of their legal status – we should not discriminate against their natural right of self-defense.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email