1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

A shopkeeper told me I couldn't wear my cross into his store. Then called the cops.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Maelstrom, Dec 1, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Well-Known Member

    Actually, it didn't happen. Until I really gave it some thought, I've always supported the "Private property rights trump constitutional rights" theory. As we know, it is often the argument given to when a person is denied entry into, or thrown out of, a public establishment.

    I've always been OK with that. I may think that the manager is being ridiculous but it's the right of the owners, right?

    But what if it were applied to other Constitutional rights? Such as the right to worship freely, or the right to unreasonable search and seizure (stores often have signs saying they can search your bags, but can they randomly seize things they find inside?)

    So, replace "cross" with "gun" and why does the argument change? No shop would ever be allowed to do this.
  2. ccsniper

    ccsniper member

    yeah, they would. and they do. there are gas stations, restaurants and other privately owned institutions out here that have signs on the door, "No concealed carry" i used to work at one. but what was funny, the owner is a complete gun nut and carries himself.
  3. Beagle-zebub

    Beagle-zebub Well-Known Member

    I don't see why a store shouldn't be able to stop you from carrying on their property--it is, after all, their property. (I don't take this to mean that they can confiscate the offending property of yours when it is on their premises, however.)

    Someone is going to say that the right to carry is a constitutionally enumerated right, to which I say that the right to freedom of speech is as well, and that if you're ever on my property, I'll throw you out for voicing the aforementioned objection.

    The individual rights in the Constitution are so-called "negative rights," meaning that they arise from what they restrict the government from doing.
  4. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Well-Known Member

    So a "NO CHRISTIANS ALLOWED" sign is O.K. by you guys? After all, it is their property.

    How about "NO COLOREDS", does that look familiar to anyone?
  5. JohnBT

    JohnBT Well-Known Member

    "A shopkeeper told me I couldn't wear my cross into his store. Then called the cops."

    If you didn't leave when asked you were tresspassing.

    Anything else we can clear up for you?

  6. nalioth

    nalioth Well-Known Member

    I think this is off topic here, and it has also been covered enough previously.

    Store owners have the right to refuse service to anyone.

    If you don't like that they refuse service on the basis of religion, ethnicity or fashion choices or any other reason, don't patronize them or sue them.
  7. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Well-Known Member

    It is different with guns because of an emotional reaction that guns can kill people.
  8. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Well-Known Member

    Do they? Similar thinking was trumped in Florida recently.
  9. Mp7

    Mp7 Well-Known Member

    If i had a store i´d prefer both guns AND crosses to stay out.

    On the other hand: i want to spearate those people from their
    money... so i better let them in. :)
  10. General Geoff

    General Geoff Well-Known Member

    It's certainly the property owner's right to discriminate against anyone for any reason. There are certain laws that regulate what open-to-the-public businesses can discriminate against, but for private property, anything goes.

    Racism and antichristianism (if there is such a word) are not illegal.
  11. velojym

    velojym Well-Known Member

    Yeah. It's a shame, a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians telling folks what they may or may not allow on their own property. As for the OP, I'd have to say that the shop owner disallowing Christians' display of their chosen symbol would alienate a huge chunk of the American population. That's the owner's choice, though, and his business will prosper or wither based on his or her choices.

    That is... unless they're well connected enough to demand taxpayer bailouts. Then all bets are off.
  12. crebralfix

    crebralfix member

    How does a law trump a right?

    Please show me where "property RIGHTS" are enumerated in the Federal Constitution and your State Constitution.

    Additionally, please outline the laws of your state that state this.

    In other words, prove it. These threads keep coming up and I never see any proof in law...just a bunch of opinions.
  13. General Geoff

    General Geoff Well-Known Member

    crebralfix, this all falls under the basic concept of property. There is no enumerated right to life, or to breathe, or to travel. Yet they all exist, to one extent or another.

    Read up on the concept of property, then come back and ask your question if it still doesn't make sense to you.
  14. misANTHrope

    misANTHrope Well-Known Member

    Irrelevant. The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of individual rights.
  15. MGshaggy

    MGshaggy Well-Known Member

    Show me where in the constitution you have a 2nd amendment right applicable against a private (non-governmental) actor.
  16. velojym

    velojym Well-Known Member

    Anything not specifically enumerated for the GOVERNMENT by the Constitution is specifically reserved by the 9th Amendment.
    In other words, a vast majority of the laws on the books right now are constitutionally illegal.

    Not that TPTB care, though.
  17. Maelstrom

    Maelstrom Well-Known Member

    Heller just cleared that up, stating 2A exists for self-defense as well.
  18. BBQLS1

    BBQLS1 Well-Known Member

    For some people you could say the same thing about other races.

    I'm not really sure how I feel about this. On one hand, you have the rights of the property owner, but on the other if it's open to the public.....I don't think you should be allowed to restrict based on ones race, religion, or doing something that is generally completely legal such as CCW.
  19. MGshaggy

    MGshaggy Well-Known Member


    You apparently didn't read Heller, or didn't fully understand it. The right protected in Heller is only applicable against the federal government. So far, it is still not effective against the states or local municipalities, and most certainly not against non-governmental actors or entities.
  20. 6_gunner

    6_gunner Well-Known Member

    Personally, I wouldn't want to support a business that doesn't like "my kind." I'd rather them post warnings so that I know what businesses to avoid.

    That's something I've never understood about people who want to make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against them. If a store or restaurant doesn't want me around, I'll take my money where I'm welcome. Why would anybody want to give their money to someone who would kick them out of their establishment if they had the choice?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page