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

[Maelstrom]

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.

 

[ccsniper]

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.

 

[Beagle-zebub]

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.

 

[Maelstrom]

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?

 

[JohnBT]

"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?

John

 

[nalioth]

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.

 

[ServiceSoon]

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

 

[Maelstrom]

Store owners have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Do they? Similar thinking was trumped in Florida recently.

 

[Mp7]

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.

 

[General Geoff]

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?

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.

 

[velojym]

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.

 

[crebralfix]

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.

 

[General Geoff]

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.

 

[misANTHrope]

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

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

 

[MGshaggy]

How does a law trump a right?

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

 

[velojym]

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.

 

[Maelstrom]

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

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

 

[BBQLS1]

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

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.

 

[MGshaggy]

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

Fail.

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.

 

[6_gunner]

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?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Actually, it didn't happen.

best part of the post


ever seen a "no colors " sign in a bar?
dress codes bother you as much? they actually happen

 

[mp510]

Public accomodations are specifically prohibited frrom discriminating on grounds of religion in the civil rights act. The same does not protect those who choose to exercise their right to bear arms.

 

[Sinixstar]

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?

My mother and I have both had problems with wearing symbols of... shall we say "alternative" religions - in certain places.

It happens.

 

[Maelstrom]

Public accomodations are specifically prohibited frrom discriminating on grounds of religion in the civil rights act. The same does not protect those who choose to exercise their right to bear arms.

DING DING DING! WINNER!

Now the question is. Why? And more importantly, can the protections afforded other rights be applied to the second?

 

[Maelstrom]

Fail.

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.

From DC Circuit, which was upheld by SCOTUS.

Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.

From Scotuswiki:

Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban is unconstitutional, as it "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense". Similarly, the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock is unconstitutional, as it "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense".

And from the Supreme Court decision itself:

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting.

Un-fail.