Disney Thumbing Nose At The New Gun Law [FL]

[Eleven Mike]

So if I open a store, and put out a no-guns sign, how have I violated your rights? Does the second amendment affirm a right to carry in my store? It does not.

Those same businesses that you defend and equate to individuals, respect the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, rights of the citizens against discrimination, ADA, and numerous others.

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said those things were acceptable objects of legislation, either.

But by all means educate me. I enjoy your condescending attitude.

 

[camacho]

You're putting words in my mouth again.

I don't, I just gave examples of other rights enjoyed by individuals which businesses have to respect since those are public places where people congregate. This is not about your house or you summer home. Those are public places.

I never said those things were acceptable objects of legislation, either.

That's correct, you did not but let me ask you, do you support discrimination against free speech, against race and ethnicity, against disability, against public health? Do the rights of citizen stop as soon as they get in your store, or those rights change from store to store or company to company?

I enjoy your condescending attitude.

None of this is an attempt to point out anything else but what we all believe, i.e, the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed.

 

[lacoochee]

Eleven Mike at this point you are just being argumentative for the sake of the same.

This thread is not about whether or not you approve of Florida's new law. It is about Disney flouting the law. Either address that or go resurrect a thread where we can all debate in circles as to whether or not a corporation is a person or is just a state created legal entity. Blah blah blah....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Well I dunno and I am all in favor of CCW, if you agreed to this rule when you were hired, you should honor you word doncha think?

I would imagine you signed agreement to this policy on Disney property when you were hired.

Nope.

Speaking as a person of sufficient principle that I quit a new job after three days rather than sign a personnal policy that wouldn't allow me to defend myself when leaving work after closing, I don't regard this Disney thing as being an analagous situation. If the law when I was hired allowed an employer to prohibit me from having a gun in my car, then yes -- I signed on so I should abide by it. HOWEVER -- if the law subsequently changed, as it did, so that employers may no longer impose that requirement, then my prior agreement becomes null, void, and inoperative. The employer is now breaking the law by asking me to not have a gun in my car. I feel no moral obligation to abet my employer in breaking the law.

 

[TAB]

Speaking as a person of sufficient principle that I quit a new job after three days rather than sign a personnal policy that wouldn't allow me to defend myself when leaving work after closing, I don't regard this Disney thing as being an analagous situation. If the law when I was hired allowed an employer to prohibit me from having a gun in my car, then yes -- I signed on so I should abide by it. HOWEVER -- if the law subsequently changed, as it did, so that employers may no longer impose that requirement, then my prior agreement becomes null, void, and inoperative. The employer is now breaking the law by asking me to not have a gun in my car. I feel no moral obligation to abet my employer in breaking the law.

So your word is only good until a 3rd party that has nothing to do with the said contract allows a you to break your word?

 

[divemedic]

Discussions on whether or not you agree with the law are off topic, aren't they?

The fact is, the law is the law, whether you want it to be or not.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Eleven Mike at this point you are just being argumentative for the sake of the same.

This thread is not about whether or not you approve of Florida's new law. It is about Disney flouting the law. Either address that or go resurrect a thread where we can all debate in circles as to whether or not a corporation is a person or is just a state created legal entity. Blah blah blah....

1. Very well, I will start a new thread.

2. No, I am not being argumentative for its own sake. I am speaking up for the individual rights of those we disagree with.

3. Whether a corporation is a person is actually a separate issue. What I'm arguing against is the notion that I have a right to bear arms on your property (your home or business), even if you don't want me to. If incorporation leaves a business with fewer rights than unincorporated businesses, I am open to hearing that argument.

 

[Eleven Mike]

You're putting words in my mouth again.

I don't, I just gave examples of other rights enjoyed by individuals which businesses have to respect since those are public places where people congregate. This is not about your house or you summer home. Those are public places.

OK, then, you're assuming I support anti-freedom laws, such as ADA or Equal Opportunity, in an attempt to paint me as a hypocrite.

I'll address your other confusions in another thread, but I have to go to work at this time.

 

[camacho]

OK, then, you're assuming I support anti-freedom laws, such as ADA or Equal Opportunity, in an attempt to paint me as a hypocrite.

I am not assuming anything. Again, just trying to point out why RKBA is as good as the others. Obviously, you do not agree with that. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[bubba1]

Another update from NRA ILA

Important Disney Firearm Poll:

Make Your Voice Heard in the Orlando Sentinel.com Poll on the New “Guns In Cars” Law

Please read the article below and VOTE in the Orlando Sentinel's skewed/biased poll:

Remember, the law allows customers and employees to have guns locked in their private vehicles in a parking lot -- NOT bring them into work.

The poll question reads as follows:

“Should Disney be allowed to carry guns to work?”

Yes. All other employees are able to.

No. It’s too dangerous for visitors.

Not sure.

To go straight to the poll to vote, please click here.

To view the news article, please click here.

 

[lacoochee]

Wow, that's a badly worded Poll question, wonder why...

Funny thing is no matter what the parking lot law says, Disney employees can carry a gun to and into work legally already. They of course be fired for doing so (trust me even if they couldn't be for that reason, any reason would do, Florida is a right to be fired state), but how many times a day are you searched at work?

 

[shdwfx]

So your word is only good until a 3rd party that has nothing to do with the said contract allows a you to break your word?

Something reminds me that the "word breaker" argument has been debated and argued before...a lot...

...oh yes.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=346845

[/offtopic]

 

[Coyote Rider]

Considering that Disney is a leader in brainwashing kids for the New World Order, pushing occultism and false gods in their "entertainment," and considering that they've been pioneering biometrics for the general public at their theme parks, it's hardly surprising that they would push for disarming everyone they could. Disney is scum.

 

[divemedic]

If Universal is a school as they claim to be, then they are in violation of state law for being a licensed alcohol vendor employing persons under 17 who are still in school.

562.13 Employment of minors or certain other persons by certain vendors prohibited; exceptions.--

(1) Unless otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any vendor licensed under the Beverage Law to employ any person under 18 years of age.

(2) This section shall not apply to:

(a) Professional entertainers 17 years of age who are not in school.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

(7) EXCEPTIONS.--The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

<snip>

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or
leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

Interesting. However, that is not their PRIMARY business, so it would not hold up IMO.

It would hold up IMO to Disney's Orlando Airport based magazine and distribution center.

No, probably not. Not unless the distribution of printed matter is covered under state or Federal hazardous materials regulations. Note that the exempted businesses are those involving

"... the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law."

 

[Eleven Mike]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=375229

 

[dmazur]

The argument about skin color vs. "you can leave it at home" is thin, I'm afraid. The person being persecuted or forced to sit at the back of the bus or drink from a separate fountain, could

1. Stay home
2. Walk
3. Carry your own water

It isn't about alternatives. It's about personal freedom and civil rights.

If you leave your gun at home to comply with some arbitrary nonsense, you're giving up your right to defend yourself. (See the text of Heller, for those who aren't keeping up with current events.)

So please, let's not bring up "alternatives".

 

[Art Eatman]

Nuthin' like wanderin' away from the original topic...S'posed to be THR, not Jerry Springer...