This is why we need to ban guns!

[kutter]

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

You can add sexual orientation to that now, but smoking and the carrying of weapons does not fall under that.

Well we will see if you can or cannot as it finds its way through the courts. All it means is that if someone does not want to serve a gay couple they will simply make an excuse not to instead of telling them that, which I suppose is simply the polite way of handling it.

[Gelston]

Of course, it is all based on States, they can add to but not take away. Some states have added protections that goes beyond the scope of the Federal Civil Rights Act.

However, any police officer called will likely go with the wishes of the Business owner and tell the person to leave. It is later in a civil suit that the person discriminated against will generally air their grievance.

[Gawyane]

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

You can add sexual orientation to that now, but smoking and the carrying of weapons does not fall under that.

Yeah and the Second Amendment says that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. But then again these days it seems laws actually explicitly stated in the founding document of this country are ignored.

[cwolff]

Yeah and the Second Amendment says that all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. But then again these days it seems laws actually explicitly stated in the founding document of this country are ignored.

The citizens have a right to keep and bear arms but there is caveat. You can't claim the "keep and bear arms" part while ignoring the opening words of the sentence "A well regulated miltia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." For the life of me, I can't understand why the people who claim to be defenders of the constitution just ignore 1/2 of this amendment as if it doesn't exist or is utterly irrelevant.

[Latrinsorm]

The citizens have a right to keep and bear arms but there is caveat. You can't claim the "keep and bear arms" part while ignoring the opening words of the sentence "A well regulated miltia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." For the life of me, I can't understand why the people who claim to be defenders of the constitution just ignore 1/2 of this amendment as if it doesn't exist or is utterly irrelevant.

The Supreme Court has ruled that explicit militia membership is not required, any citizen is a member of the unorganized militia. This break with the Constitution is a good Supreme Court ruling, and not in any way legislating from the bench, the way Supreme Court rulings that restrict the bearing of arms is.

[cwolff]

The Supreme Court has ruled that explicit militia membership is not required, any citizen is a member of the unorganized militia. This break with the Constitution is a good Supreme Court ruling, and not in any way legislating from the bench, the way Supreme Court rulings that restrict the bearing of arms is.

I agree that we do have a right to own and carry firearms. What I don't agree with is the position that the 2nd amendment allows the citizen carte blanche in this matter or that any attempt to regulate, register, license and limit gun ownership is a violation of one's 2nd amendment rights which is what Gawayne was getting at.

[Gelston]

So you feel that people should be able to carry weapons on private property against the wishes of the owner of said property?

[Latrinsorm]

So you feel that people should be able to carry weapons on private property against the wishes of the owner of said property?

All ownership is theft. Except gun ownership.

[Jarvan]

I agree that we do have a right to own and carry firearms. What I don't agree with is the position that the 2nd amendment allows the citizen carte blanche in this matter or that any attempt to regulate, register, license and limit gun ownership is a violation of one's 2nd amendment rights which is what Gawayne was getting at.

Regulate, License and register to a point, I agree with. Limit.. not really.

The citizens have a right to keep and bear arms but there is caveat. You can't claim the "keep and bear arms" part while ignoring the opening words of the sentence "A well regulated miltia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." For the life of me, I can't understand why the people who claim to be defenders of the constitution just ignore 1/2 of this amendment as if it doesn't exist or is utterly irrelevant.

The best part is.. Lefties like to mention that Militia part... but if you JOIN a militia.. you are a right wing nut.

[Latrinsorm]

Regulate, License and register to a point, I agree with. Limit.. not really.

Either you are for your neighbors being allowed to have nuclear arms or you are for limiting the right to bear arms. Real talk.