[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

And yet it is private property and an owner, in theory, has a right to exclude people he wants from his property.(Yes, yes I know this right of exclusion has been eroded years ago.) At any rate we have an apparent conflict between two rights; i.e. “Right to Carry,” and private property with its “right to exclude.”

[Slings and Arrows]

He has a right to exclude people carrying firearms. The public has a right not to eat at his restaurant. Let them both exercise their rights.

[AppyPappy]

And we have the right to spread the story and refuse to patronize that business.

[monkeyshine]

No conflict. His property, his rules.

[AFreeBird]

But if he exercised his right to refuse to cater a gay wedding, the outrage would be deafening.

[WayneS]

He was in his Army National Guard uniform and had his gun holstered to his side.

This is hardly the same as a private citizen open-carrying a firearm in the restaurant. Does Waffle House make police officers leave their firearms outside the restaurant?

In any event, I will not be eating at any more waffle house restaurants any time soon. They have a right to their anti-gun policies and I have a right to spend my money at establishments that respect me and my family.

[bgill]

Criminals have the right to choose between those establishments allowing guns and those that are gun free.

[Rusty0604]

They sure can’t exclude based on race or sexual orientation.

[cpdiii]

And yet it is private property and an owner, in theory, has a right to exclude people he wants from his property.(Yes, yes I know this right of exclusion has been eroded years ago.) At any rate we have an apparent conflict between two rights; i.e. “Right to Carry,” and private property with its “right to exclude.”

You are correct and I support the owners right to do this though I abhor his actions.

All gun owners also have the right to never, ever, under any circumstances give this fool one penny of patronage.

When I am in a restaurant and other patrons are armed as I , I feel safe!!!!!!

[FreedomNotSafety]

There is no “right to carry” there is a right to posses fire arms and a law via the BOR that prohibits Congress from limiting that right. Then we have private property which is also a right. What’s the conflict? Your right to bear arms is in no way impeded by a business owner denying you entry unless somehow eating at a Waffle house is a constitutionally protected activity.

For me, I do not shop or dine were firearms are prohibited. And I fully support the owners free expression of their idiotic beliefs.

[RobinOfKingston]

And yet it is private property and an owner, in theory, has a right to exclude people he wants from his property.

Would that be similar to the baker and florist who attempted to exclude queer cake and flower consumers?

[KrisKrinkle]

At any rate we have an apparent conflict between two rights; i.e. “Right to Carry,” and private property with its “right to exclude.”

I agree there is a conflict of rights here. Now:

As to "Right to Carry", I believe that's clearly documented in the Second Amendment (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)

As to "right to exclude", where exactly is that clearly documented? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I want to know where it's documented.