[TexasGunLover]

So you think just by saying “nope” you can erase established jurisprudence? Doesn’t work that way.

The precedence you're talking about is regarding protected classes, not speech on private property.

Many people believe because something is open to the public it makes it public property, but they're not related.

[Boogieman]

“The precedence you’re talking about is regarding protected classes, not speech on private property.”

Nonsense. You haven’t even asked me what precedents I am talking about, and you obviously aren’t familiar with them yourself or you wouldn’t be trying to deny that they exist. Perhaps you should ask me what I’m talking about?