Posted on 07/22/2015 2:55:59 PM PDT by Enlightened1
Hand out samples. If you spend a hundred bucks, you get a BLT.
Even if their religious 'belief' is that they should kill the owner and rob his store ?
He's here to give us that liberal "CONSCIENCE".
He's remarkably subtle, but he's been on my radar for a while.
I can’t wait until this country is an Obama-free zone.
I know that. The problem here is that the while it may be the owner's intentions to just 'deny' those he deems untrustworthy, he either said or the media is misusing his words to state that he intends to NOT ALLOW THEM TO EVEN COME IN THE STORE.
That is what the legal beagles have told the President to zero in on.
...
One could argue that a gun store is NOT a Public Accommodation under the Civil Rights act.
And the "Freedom of Religion" thing under the Bill of Rights has absolutely nothing to do with private enterprise.
*Note that says CERTAIN goods and services... Not All goods and services.
MLK said as much in “Letters from a Birmingham Jail”!
Gosh, didn't see that coming! /s
Lets see if his bid for free advertising and increased firearm sales will surpass the anticipated lawsuits coming down the pike from both the Justice Department and any other organization claiming discrimination.........
With that being said, could this be the Bridge at Concord? Could this be the start of the next civil war?
How many folks are willing to jump on board and support Florida Gun Supply against this tyranny?
Probably none since most folks still have mortgages and payments on their SUV's and RV's as well as soccer practice for their kids this weekend.........Maybe in the fall.
So Obama can move really quick when something threatens America.
COAC is what you think she is.............
In response, President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice announced that it would launch a civil rights investigation into Hallinan’s establishment.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Nearly all civil rights issues that the states have expressly amended the Constitution to authorize the feds to protect, as evidenced by Sections 1 and 5 of the 14th Amendment, deal with voting rights as evidenced by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments.
In other words, a potential customer who is refused service in any business establishment has no constitutional standing to claim that his civil rights were violated imo.
So lawless Obama Administration concerns about possible civil rights violations by an intrastate gun store owner are just another dog-and-pony show to win support of low-information voters for Democrats, imo, voters who are clueless about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, just like the federal investigation into Ferguson civil rights issues arguably was.
And the post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is predictably going to sit on its hands and let the Obama Administration get away with harrassing this business owner.
Yes...as a matter of fact they do.
In his particular business he can deny service to anyone he deems a threat. And he is going to determine mooslimes are a threat. he has history that they are: they have squat that they are not.
And until the fedgov follows the laws themselves, screw them and their selective enforcement. I’ll be more than happy to contribute to his legal fund.
There is no rule of law anymore.
That's the Obama administration: a radical Islamic extremist kills five American servicemen and the Pentagon suggests that recruiting offices keep their window blinds closed from now on. But if there's even a hint than a Muslim could possibly see his civil rights violated at some indeterminate point in the future...
While C of C has been on my radar lately as well, most of the statements he has made have been factual and true.
Uncomfortable, maybe, but still true.
In this case, by specifically stating that he would BAN MUSLIMS from his store (if that is actually what he said and not just the media ‘expanding’ upon his original words) he is in violation of the civil rights act.
He, of course, has the right and legal obligation to deny sales to any individual that he sees as a ‘danger’ or ‘untrustworthy’, but the blanket ‘ban’ based on a religious affiliation (even though Muslim is not a religion) is what will get you in trouble.
Belittle conservatives? Nah, though I have belittled Donny Trump a bit. Lemme guess, you’re a Trumpette? Trump is no conservative.
You summed it up exactly right!
Has he denied any sale to any self-identified Muslim since making the statement? If not, then it seems to me that nobody’s civil rights have been violated, and no one has standing to sue.
Or, y'know, it's an ode to one of my favorite political books.
“He’s a gun store owner with different rules established...”
If he has reason to believe someone is buying illegally, he can deny service. Doing it simply based on religion is illegal.
“Even if their religious ‘belief’ is that they should kill the owner and rob his store ?”
I was unaware that all Muslims try to kill everyone they meet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.