View Full Version : Arizona gun store won't sell to Obama voters
Aloha_Shooter
11-19-2012, 13:10
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/gun-store-obama-voters-not-welcome.html (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/gun-store-obama-voters-not-welcome.html)
As he says, his customers probably aren't Obama voters anyway but he's putting his money where his mouth is -- or refusing their money anyway ...
Highlights from the article:http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/gunphoto-225x300.jpg
The owner of an Arizona gun store said he will not sell weapons to customers who voted for President Obama because “you have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm.”
Cope Reynolds, owner of the Southwest Shooting Authority (http://www.southwestshootingauthority.com/) in Pinetop, Ariz., posted the new store policy in a newspaper advertisement — as well as on a sign posted on the front door.
“I’m a small business owner,” he said. “If you are dumb enough to vote for Obama again – after four years of this — I don’t think you are responsible enough to own a firearm. I don’t care who it makes mad.”
He also posted a letter on the Ammoland website (http://www.ammoland.com/2012/11/09/southwest-shooting-authority-of-arizona-tells-obama-voters-to-get-lost/#axzz2CPirZIN9) that read in part:
“To Whom it May Concern:
I thought you all might be interested in this. We will try to demonstrate once again that the bottom line for our business is principle, not money. Yes, it has been damaging at times but our values are intact. Effective immediately, if you voted for Obama, your money is no good here. You have proven beyond a doubt that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm. We have just put a sign up on the front door to save you the trouble of walking all the way in here.”
At the end of the day, Reynolds said it really doesn’t matter what happens to his company — the signs are staying up.
“If we lose the whole business it doesn’t matter,” he said. “The bottom line is — my values.”
And nynco weighing in on this in 5... 4... 3... [Coffee]
I'll say this, small businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, legally.
stupid....to me i try to shot with as many libs/non gun people as i possibly can i have changed peoples whole stances on gun control once they realized my scary black guns could be for something else besides mass shootings and drive bys
Why not sell to them in hopes that they become more knowledgeable about shooting sports and change their likely negative opinion of firearms....presumably anything is possible. The common gun forum mantra seems to be "take a new person to the range, get them interested in it", or "get the next generation interested in firearms to preserve the future of the 2A" and yet this businessman seems to be divisive about the very thing many of us would benefit from making inclusive.
It's surely his right to do it, just like it's his right to shoot himself in the foot. I simply think he may be accomplishing both tasks simultaneously.
Great-Kazoo
11-19-2012, 13:46
Jensens did this in 08
Why not sell to them in hopes that they become more knowledgeable about shooting sports and change their likely negative opinion of firearms....presumably anything is possible. The common gun forum mantra seems to be "take a new person to the range, get them interested in it", or "get the next generation interested in firearms to preserve the future of the 2A" and yet this businessman seems to be divisive about the very thing many of us would benefit from making inclusive.
It's surely his right to do it, just like it's his right to shoot himself in the foot. I simply think he may be accomplishing both tasks simultaneously.
That is one possibility, the other is that the average on the fence person who is ignorant enough to vote for Obama and still enjoy his freedom to shoot firearms would have his eyes opened when he viewed such an add. In either case I think that the numbers affected are very small. I doubt that this will do anything to push people away from gun ownership or conservative values. Chances are it will not affect their individual prospect of becoming more conservative in the future either. It is just there to stir up a little bit of controversy, and it is working. I wonder if they have online ordering...
CrufflerSteve
11-19-2012, 14:06
Why not sell to them in hopes that they become more knowledgeable about shooting sports and change their likely negative opinion of firearms....presumably anything is possible. The common gun forum mantra seems to be "take a new person to the range, get them interested in it", or "get the next generation interested in firearms to preserve the future of the 2A" and yet this businessman seems to be divisive about the very thing many of us would benefit from making inclusive.
It's surely his right to do it, just like it's his right to shoot himself in the foot. I simply think he may be accomplishing both tasks simultaneously.
+1. It just alienates people who are anti-gun just because they have never even held a real gun. We're on the losing side based on urbanization and other factors. Safely introducing people who know nothing really helps the gun cause.
I used to work at a company that was neutral about gun. I was open about and had an open offer to take people shooting. If you'd never shot before I'd take them out to a range and provide guns and ammo. In 10 years I must have taken over 20 groups of people. It was safe and most had fun. A fair number actually bought guns and a couple even joined the NRA and gun clubs. Now I work at a place with the no weapons sign on the door and I keep a lower profile but don't hide it.
That gunstore owner has the right to run his business as he wishes. It's also his right to be a fool.
I have a few friends who work at the gun counter in Sportsman's Warehouse and they told me that after Obama won the 2008 election, they had a few customers who came to purchase firearms wearing their "Hope" & "Change" t-shirts. I guess there are some gun-toting Liberals out there...
Great-Kazoo
11-19-2012, 16:37
I have a few friends who work at the gun counter in Sportsman's Warehouse and they told me that after Obama won the 2008 election, they had a few customers who came to purchase firearms wearing their "Hope" & "Change" t-shirts. I guess there are some gun-toting Liberals out there...
There are gun toting liberals who could give 2 shits about your or anyone else RKBA. We have a few members who toe the Lib mentality, ask them about "your rights" regarding anything else you as a libertarian, independent, republican or conservative believe in. They would sell you out in a heartbeat to "preserve" their Tolerant & Diverse Values.
He has the right to do business as he pleases, but I think it is counter productive to gun rights.
He has the right to do business as he pleases, but I think it is counter productive to gun rights.
Says the guy who votes for the party that has been sooo good to gun rights in the past.... /sarcasm.
MATT02GT
11-19-2012, 18:32
He probably got more busniess from all the anti Obama people than he lost from the pro crowd
How can you find out who a person voted for
BlasterBob
11-19-2012, 19:00
How can you find out who a person voted for
Just ask em. Chances are if they are Democraps, they will say whatever will make them look good.
Great-Kazoo
11-19-2012, 19:53
How can you find out who a person voted for
Usually they pop up here and there, in the GD section of most gun related web sites. They will tout that O will never take away guns, how we should share everything with those who never worked or do not deserve it. Argue and type away like a hysterical teenage girl, then stomp their feet when EVERYONE disagrees with them and their superior attitude.
Watch, wait for it.........................................
USAFGopherMike
11-19-2012, 19:58
Usually they pop up here and there, in the GD section of most gun related web sites. They will tout that O will never take away guns, how we should share everything with those who never worked or do not deserve it. Argue and type away like a hysterical teenage girl, then stomp their feet when EVERYONE disagrees with them and their superior attitude.
Watch, wait for it.........................................
^ Sad, but true. If I were the owner of a gun store, I wouldn't sell to them either.
Bailey Guns
11-19-2012, 20:03
I don't think it makes any difference. He's not going to alienate the people that won't shop there anyway and he's going to strengthen his standing with the pro-gun/anti-Obama crowd. Good for him for putting his money where his mouth is.
theGinsue
11-19-2012, 20:05
Why not sell to them in hopes that they become more knowledgeable about shooting sports and change their likely negative opinion of firearms....presumably anything is possible. The common gun forum mantra seems to be "take a new person to the range, get them interested in it", or "get the next generation interested in firearms to preserve the future of the 2A" and yet this businessman seems to be divisive about the very thing many of us would benefit from making inclusive.
It's surely his right to do it, just like it's his right to shoot himself in the foot. I simply think he may be accomplishing both tasks simultaneously.
Just because a tick prefers your purebred instead of a mongrel stray doesn't make it any less of a tick. Unless people are made to see the error of their ways, they will continue to make the same foolish decisions which adversely effect us all - and will ultimately cause the end of our 2A rights. I say "good for him" about this gun store owner. Besides, do you really want the left armed up when all hell breaks loose?
Fact is you can't legally find out who someone voted for. If he asked me who I voted for I'd say neither of the two evils. If he didn't take my currency for a advertised asking price I'd sue. Plain and simple.
Fact is you can't legally find out who someone voted for. If he asked me who I voted for I'd say neither of the two evils. If he didn't take my currency for a advertised asking price I'd sue. Plain and simple.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Case dismissed.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Case dismissed.
Not exactly. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.
AKA political party... Which could be argued is Obama given his public stance. He's obviously shown that he will refuse business to a person who is a member of a certain party.
In all reality.. At the end of the day all that matters is who has deeper pockets to fight the fight.
It's likely the business would go down before the business owner put his life, family, and well being before his pride.
Also, link for those that are interested.
https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
Good for him. doubt the libtards will understand though and it certainly won't change their way of thinking.
Great-Kazoo
11-19-2012, 23:38
Not exactly. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.
AKA political party... Which could be argued is Obama given his public stance. He's obviously shown that he will refuse business to a person who is a member of a certain party.
In all reality.. At the end of the day all that matters is who has deeper pockets to fight the fight.
It's likely the business would go down before the business owner put his life, family, and well being before his pride.
Also, link for those that are interested.
https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
So you would go to court because someone who disagrees with you will not provide a service? I better sell some ammo so i can make sure you stay put, and don't try screwing with an independent business owner. Better yet i see a handgun he has 4 sale. Looks like i'm off the the post office 1st thing tues morn.
Sounds like you checked off O/B too[Bang]
I'm hoping someone hacked Ashton's account.
spqrzilla
11-19-2012, 23:53
Unruh Act is California specific.
Bailey Guns
11-20-2012, 06:21
Fact is you can't legally find out who someone voted for.
Sure you can...just ask 'em.
If he asked me who I voted for I'd say neither of the two evils.
Thanks for doing your part to re-elect Obama
If he didn't take my currency for a advertised asking price I'd sue. Plain and simple.
For fuck's sake....
Byte Stryke
11-20-2012, 06:54
Me personally, I wrote in BigBear :)
IShouldDoThisAllTheTime
11-20-2012, 07:03
Oh yeah, winning hearts and minds. Jensen's in Loveland was doing this for a while too. I guess they only want to ever have the customers they already have.
Whistler
11-20-2012, 07:13
Not exactly. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.
AKA political party... Which could be argued is Obama given his public stance. He's obviously shown that he will refuse business to a person who is a member of a certain party.
In all reality.. At the end of the day all that matters is who has deeper pockets to fight the fight.
It's likely the business would go down before the business owner put his life, family, and well being before his pride.
Also, link for those that are interested.
https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
Well there's 'yer problem... reread the bold part over & over until "pride" starts to come out "values" or "ethics" then perhaps you'll "get it". This may take you a very long time, weeks or even months, but stay the course and we'll chat when you return. I'll even give you a couple hints (below) to help you along;
When a person of character and moral fiber takes a stand on an issue despite the unassailable Liberal emotional characterization it may not be "pride", "ignorance" or "spite" as shrilly screeched by those of your ilk but simply something they don't recognize or do and fear - a man of principal.
An example to illustrate the point; "rich business owners are firing people out of spite 'cuz Obama won!" Nuff' said...
IShouldDoThisAllTheTime
11-20-2012, 07:50
When a person of character and moral fiber takes a stand on an issue despite the unassailable Liberal emotional characterization it may not be "pride", "ignorance" or "spite" as shrilly screeched by those of your ilk but simply something they don't recognize or do and fear - a man of principal.
It might also prove to non-gun-owners that gun-owners are absolute dickheads.
Great-Kazoo
11-20-2012, 08:49
It might also prove to non-gun-owners that gun-owners are absolute dickheads.
Really? name calling because you are not Tolerant & Diverse. Guess we know who you voted for.
HEY ASHTON, LOOK I FOUND ANOTHER O SUPPORTER ( Or someone who shares ideology) AND NEVER ASKED WHO THEY VOTED FOR.
Whistler
11-20-2012, 09:05
It might also prove to non-gun-owners that gun-owners are absolute dickheads.
Really? It's okay for them to distort & ignore the facts to legislate infringement of my rights and to vote their individual welfare ahead of that of the country but he's a dickhead for taking a stand on what he believes in? Bit of a double standard there. I try to be a goodwill ambassador for the firearms community however I don't coddle Liberal idiots either. You can't change some people's minds they will raise their voices and stamp their feet while spewing tolerant rebukes of "racism" and "bitter clinger". Spite and pride is trying to take my rights based on your emotional response, they don't like them so I "don't need them".
This board is filled with posts advocating respect for the business owner in the context of concealed carry and as many touting the business owner right to run his business as he sees fit, including extorting employee political decisions. While we might hold the opinion that it is our responsibility to promote the positive aspects of our sport at every opportunity the fact is no such responsibility exists. We do it because we choose to and each in our own way, maybe he perceives it as a wake up call and overall positive in sparking dialog and debate.
That is one of the great things about America that hasn't been stripped from us yet; the right to be as clever & informed or as closed-minded and ignorant as we choose to be. It's also why ice cream doesn't just come in chocolate.
Really? name calling because you are not Tolerant & Diverse. Guess we know who you voted for.
HEY ASHTON, LOOK I FOUND ANOTHER O SUPPORTER ( Or someone who shares ideology) AND NEVER ASKED WHO THEY VOTED FOR.
yeah you should really be more tolerant of the knee jerk liberal hate. This is sooo stupid when you conservatives WHINE and I mean look above at all the whining about people not being tolerant of your hate of other people. Then to top it all off, you want the people you hate to see your side of the 2nd amendment argument. About the only straight shooting you guys are doing is right into your own foot.
Not that it's likely to be challenged in court, but I wonder if he really has the right to refuse service to anyone. Imagine if Romney had won, and a grocery store that gets a lot of food stamp business put up a sign about Romney voters. I'm just not sure it's legal to refuse to serve based on political preferences. It certainly isn't in California, but I'm not sure if there are any Federal or Arizona laws prohibiting discrimination based on political preference.
He'll gain business from some like-minded people, and alienate others. And at the end of the day, "there's no such thing as bad publicity." Right?
DavieD55
11-20-2012, 09:37
yeah you should really be more tolerant of the knee jerk liberal hate. This is sooo stupid when you conservatives WHINE and I mean look above at all the whining about people not being tolerant of your hate of other people. Then to top it all off, you want the people you hate to see your side of the 2nd amendment argument. About the only straight shooting you guys are doing is right into your own foot.
You know i think i have an alternative for ya nynco.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/
IShouldDoThisAllTheTime
11-20-2012, 13:28
Really? name calling because you are not Tolerant & Diverse. Guess we know who you voted for.
HEY ASHTON, LOOK I FOUND ANOTHER O SUPPORTER ( Or someone who shares ideology) AND NEVER ASKED WHO THEY VOTED FOR.
Yeah, you got me. I'm probably also vegetarian and left handed and a fag. Now knock it off.
Look, 50% of the country didn't take your/my/our/whoever's arguments seriously. We need to be *growing* the shooting community, and that means not alienating people who aren't already a part of it.
You know what the self-image of an immigrant rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. You know what the self-image of a self-defense rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. There is a common language that can be spoken here, and this us-versus-them mentality is bullshit and gets us nowhere.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't infantile? DON'T throw public tantrums.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't ignorant? DON'T assume you know everything -- or even anything -- about them because of how they react to your tantrum.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't bullies? DON'T call them incapable of exercising a fundamental constitutionally guaranteed human right.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't paranoid clingers? DO drop the siege mentality.
The shooting community is its own worst enemy when it comes to PR, and its shit like this at the core of it. This behavior only appeals to the single demographic that needs NO outreach from us.
If you're worried about another AWB, or mail-order ammo ban, or whatever, and GIVEN that an Obama win already puts us all behind the curve on these fights, we as a group need to STOP making the anti's job easier. Don't act like a goddamn clown, and don't cheer on those among us who do.
Great,,,,, this got into a political debate thread.
Just remember how we lost this election.
Demographics. Our party did not do a better job to reach people in certain community.
It was about 12-15 counties in swing states really got us.
Although I would love to criticize democrats, I am gonna try to convince them to come to the RIGHT SIDE.
Before 2016, I am planning to have 4-5 democrats to convert to republican. It will be much easier, because our economy will probably go to a crap..
Aloha_Shooter
11-20-2012, 14:34
I personally thought the store owner was making a point that decisions have consequences. He was willing to give up a few sales in order to emphasize his point. Obama voters who want to buy a gun are still free to buy one (if they haven't lost their rights to do so), just not from him. You can still take non-shooters shooting to get them exposed to it without letting them have one; as the store owner said, they proved their poor judgment and irresponsibility when they voted for Obama. In any event, I was more focused on the fact that someone was willing to take a stand on principle -- he's willing to give sales for his principles, did Alec Baldwin ever leave the country as he promised when Bush won?
How can you find out who a person voted for
Everyone else overlooked one simple thing- they usually tell you. Liberals are the type to stand on the mountain top exclaiming their views, even if no one wants to hear it. Same goes for Vegans and PeTA supporters. You don't have to ask, they'll tell you before you can even start guessing. [Beer]
certainly the owner's right. also certainly an idiotic move. who cares, not everyone can have the same philosophy. refusing to serve people based on their political stance is ridiculous. shallow to me. also appears to me to be an attention whore. what, is he going to have every person sign a statement saying they didn't vote for obama and swear on it?
Whistler
11-20-2012, 15:38
Yeah, you got me. I'm probably also vegetarian and left handed and a fag. Now knock it off.
Look, 50% of the country didn't take your/my/our/whoever's arguments seriously. We need to be *growing* the shooting community, and that means not alienating people who aren't already a part of it.
You know what the self-image of an immigrant rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. You know what the self-image of a self-defense rights activist is? A person who cares about individual human dignity. There is a common language that can be spoken here, and this us-versus-them mentality is bullshit and gets us nowhere.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't infantile? DON'T throw public tantrums.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't ignorant? DON'T assume you know everything -- or even anything -- about them because of how they react to your tantrum.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't bullies? DON'T call them incapable of exercising a fundamental constitutionally guaranteed human right.
You know how we convince "them" that "we" aren't paranoid clingers? DO drop the siege mentality.
The shooting community is its own worst enemy when it comes to PR, and its shit like this at the core of it. This behavior only appeals to the single demographic that needs NO outreach from us.
If you're worried about another AWB, or mail-order ammo ban, or whatever, and GIVEN that an Obama win already puts us all behind the curve on these fights, we as a group need to STOP making the anti's job easier. Don't act like a goddamn clown, and don't cheer on those among us who do.
Not to be repetitive but how's that strategy been working for the last 40-50 years? While I respect your opinion on the best approach and even agree with some of your thoughts on a personal level, our unfettered access to firearms, ammunition and places to shoot are diminished daily as we "hold the moral high ground" in the face of emotional, groundless accusation and falsehood. The opposition is louder, they draw more attention and invoke more emotion, theirs is obviously a more effective strategy or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Switch your argument for a moment and direct it at the anti-gun crowd, how many of them would agree with or embrace your approach? I think I know the answer because I see their "tantrums", "ignorance", "bullying" "siege mentality" in every one of these conversations including your quaint parenting reprimand.
In a Utopian world we might be able to engage in meaningful dialog grounded in facts without name calling and baseless accusation but that's not this world. In reviewing the state of battle and the effectiveness of various strategies Sun Tzu might advocate adopting that of the enemy as a more effective counter strategy.
The firearms community was well represented in years past with school sanctioned and other youth shooting events, no one thought twice of a boy walking along the side of a road with a shotgun draped over his arm. All the sterling examples of safe and recreational gun ownership conveyed the message you promote and were universally ignored in preference of uninformed emotion and opinion. Not uninformed because no one took the time to send a positive message, uninformed because they just don''t care about or respect anyone's rights or opinions contrary to their own narrow view of the world at large. I don't lobby to diminish or restrict their rights under the Constitution even though I may disagree personally and I don't want to fight with them at all, I want them to have the same level of tolerance for me that I afford them and leave my rights alone.
IShouldDoThisAllTheTime
11-20-2012, 16:33
Not to be repetitive but how's that strategy been working for the last 40-50 years?
I can only speak to what has worked for me, personally. I know a LOT of sensitive vegan bike riding Boulder/Seattle/SF types. I've learned that people who care about human dignity really do respond to the self-defense/firearms argument when presented from that angle. But if you're doing a really good impersonation of an overbearing bully with something to prove, you've lost them.
Think about it this way: are you going to give more credence to discussions of vegetarian diet when it's coming from some screeching dreadlocked waify chick looking for an excuse to splash you with red paint, or when it's coming from Mac Danzig?
I've had really good results talking to be as if we're all sane adults. It's not universally successful, but name something (other than the MAN STOPPER 45) that is. On the other hand, if you start out talking to someone as an enemy, guess what happens?
I can only speak to what has worked for me, personally. I know a LOT of sensitive vegan bike riding Boulder/Seattle/SF types. I've learned that people who care about human dignity really do respond to the self-defense/firearms argument when presented from that angle. But if you're doing a really good impersonation of an overbearing bully with something to prove, you've lost them.
Think about it this way: are you going to give more credence to discussions of vegetarian diet when it's coming from some screeching dreadlocked waify chick looking for an excuse to splash you with red paint, or when it's coming from Mac Danzig?
I've had really good results talking to be as if we're all sane adults. It's not universally successful, but name something (other than the MAN STOPPER 45) that is. On the other hand, if you start out talking to someone as an enemy, guess what happens?
I don't think you're understanding what Whistler is saying here... Which by the way, well put! The point he's making is that we've been trying the mature adult approach and it gets us nowhere, so maybe we need to appeal to what they (by "they" I mean the loud-mouth liberal anti's) understand, emotion and extremes. On a one-on-one basis, yes, most people will be sane, rational folks, but you have those exceptions, the ones that do jump head first into argumentative talk against guns that won't. When talking about that kind of anti, you have to understand that they don't want tolerance or sanity when discussing the "evil black guns," they want to be right, and they believe they are right, second amendment be damned. They believe the 2nd is this ancient part of our bill of rights, that in a modern "civilized" society has no place. I've had discussions with people who see no rational argument for carrying or even owning firearms, you try to present them with factual evidence and they dismiss it as if you got it from some extremist blog, or are "living in a scary fantasy world." Worse, they claim you got it from the biggest lie of all "Fox News!" AHHH! You must deal with the most friendly of people who are willing to accept differing views. I approach these people with a responsible, reasonable, and calm demeanor, and still they resort to name-calling, and claims that guns are bad mmkay... [Bang] God forbid I bring up the actual fact that Police rarely arrive as the crime is being committed, they usually show up when the person involved becomes the "victim."
IShouldDoThisAllTheTime
11-20-2012, 19:04
The point he's making is that we've been trying the mature adult approach and it gets us nowhere
As demonstrated by ever-dwindling number of shall-issue states? By SCOTUS ruling that the Second Amendment is a collective right and doesn't affect state or local law? By campaign spending limits being upheld despite First Amendment concerns?
I think the premise that we've gotten nowhere is crap. It's a mixed bag, but that's life.
so maybe we need to appeal to what they (by "they" I mean the loud-mouth liberal anti's) understand, emotion and extremes.
Why? You'll never reach them anyway. Because they're being emotional.
It's the vast majority of more or less rational people in the middle trying to make sense of the world who matter, and those people -- those VOTERS -- don't want to see more poo flinging. These are the folks who find phrasing like "common sense gun laws" so appealing. They're tired of powerfully emoted bullshit and just want a realistic option that works. That antis have made a strong play to hijack the "reasonable" position is the biggest external challenge we have to face.
IMO it's emotion and hysterics that lost "us" the election. The Tea Party rode in on an economic mandate in 2010, then immediately switched course and started fighting the culture wars. That looks awfully unfocused and emotional and untrustworthy to the great more or less rational middle. We could have spent the last two years being focused and effective, but we didn't do that, so the election went to the team with the best PR team.
IMO.
He is making a statement...freedom of speech in my eye. If you really think about it when you go to a store and they have the "No Firearms" sign it's not only saying you cannot carry firearms into this store but if you do we will not see you as a customer and you are not welcome here. I know they are on 2 different levels but I see them as virtually the same even though selling your service to someone is a choice but to own and carry a firearm is your right. It's his right and if he doesn't care if he loses the business obviously he can afford it. Whether I think it's stupid or not if you don't like it shop somewhere else right?
I should have replied to this thread earlier before I let it go on too long.... Because I'm too lazy to ready all the other posts. Discrimination is something that in my head needs to be cut off at the pass. I believe there is a huge difference between a service and a transaction. IMHO a gun deal is a transaction. Add in advertising and IMHO it's no different then going to walmart for an item and them refusing to sell you that item when you have the cash right there because of some discriminating factor that's not posted. Services require work, trust, and mutual agreement... A transaction is purely financial and I stand by my guns... If a purely financial transaction that is advertised WITHOUT contingencies or signs. I'd sue. You let some discrimination go on and next thing we know everything discriminated against... If someone has clear signs posted, and the person knows they're not welcome then that's their bad. It's like costcos no gun policy... It's posted.
Well there's 'yer problem... reread the bold part over & over until "pride" starts to come out "values" or "ethics" then perhaps you'll "get it". This may take you a very long time, weeks or even months, but stay the course and we'll chat when you return. I'll even give you a couple hints (below) to help you along;
When a person of character and moral fiber takes a stand on an issue despite the unassailable Liberal emotional characterization it may not be "pride", "ignorance" or "spite" as shrilly screeched by those of your ilk but simply something they don't recognize or do and fear - a man of principal.
An example to illustrate the point; "rich business owners are firing people out of spite 'cuz Obama won!" Nuff' said...
Ok. I couldn't help but read my whole thread... and I added those words... So they're my words... Not anyone elses. Had you taken the time to actually read the article you'd know that they weren't in the article and you wouldn't be highlighting them as some tactic like I don't understand the things I said. Obviously I know that one would put his life, family, and well being before his pride because I typed it. It's how I was raised. Now get off your sideways rant and lets get on topic.
Sure you can...just ask 'em.
Thanks for doing your part to re-elect Obama
For fuck's sake....
You can ask them but they don't have to disclose. I'm glad I did my part to not elect either of the two evils. But I voted on other things that actually meant something to me. And yes. I'd be interested in when walmart doesn't take your legal american tender because you need your charmin toilet paper but they discriminate against you for some reason.
So you would go to court because someone who disagrees with you will not provide a service? I better sell some ammo so i can make sure you stay put, and don't try screwing with an independent business owner. Better yet i see a handgun he has 4 sale. Looks like i'm off the the post office 1st thing tues morn.
Sounds like you checked off O/B too[Bang]
I'm hoping someone hacked Ashton's account.
IMHO there is a huge difference between providing a service and a transaction. See other post. I wouldn't sue some random business owner because he didn't like me and was providing a service? I would sue a business owner who advertised a price and I came in to TRANSACT business in less then a few mins and was turned away for BS reasons. I have LEGAL TENDER. Accept it or face the consequences.
spqrzilla
11-20-2012, 22:53
Discrimination isn't illegal. We all discriminate all the time.
Discrimination based upon protected categories under the law, in protected subjects, is illegal. "BS" reasons, if not prohibited by law, are not a cause of action.
Discrimination isn't illegal. We all discriminate all the time.
Discrimination based upon protected categories under the law, in protected subjects, is illegal. "BS" reasons, if not prohibited by law, are not a cause of action.
OK. I won't lie. When I see a lowered truck with chrome wheels I think mexican, when I see a escalade with chrome wheels I think blacks, and when I see a farm truck I think white farmer / mexican cowboy working for a white man.
I'm not suggesting it is illegal. However, this specific category has been protected in a state before. So it's not like I'm just pulling it out of my ass. If you want someone out because they stink, fart, are ugly, loud and get rid of clientele... Go for it. Fact is there is case law which was voted for even if in a different state that affirms that this is a problem.
At the end of the day... Given todays society if you try to supress this persons beliefs, whether it be race, gender, color, sexual, etc... You're looking for a war.
Also please reference my mexican stereotype posts before this. I'd be honored. Stereotypes aren't called stereotypes for no reason.
and if you're in doubt of that I suggest googling the word stereotype, and why the word exists.
spqrzilla
11-20-2012, 23:13
You didn't understand my comment. There are specific prohibitions on specific kinds of discrimination. Outside of that, it isn't illegal. Which is why Chick-Fil-A isn't going to sue the people who boycotted them.
You didn't understand my comment. There are specific prohibitions on specific kinds of discrimination. Outside of that, it isn't illegal. Which is why Chick-Fil-A isn't going to sue the people who boycotted them.
No I understood it and there is already case law that prohibits it... It's nothing out of the box. We're not talking gay marriage here... We're talking simple protecting of people based upon who they decide to vote on which is their right.
Great-Kazoo
11-20-2012, 23:42
No I understood it and there is already case law that prohibits it... It's nothing out of the box. We're not talking gay marriage here... We're talking simple protecting of people based upon who they decide to vote on which is their right.
They are not refusing you service based upon color of skin etc. They are refusing you business because you (generalization) voted for Obama.
ONLY AN IDIOT would walk in to a gun shop, Read the No Obama Voters Served, then make a stink about being refused. INSTEAD of keeping quiet buying a gun and walking out. OR voting with your wallet and not even bother.
Yes, VOTING IS Everyone's Constitutional RIGHT. Refusing you service because of who you voted for is not!
Protecting people who are at the polls should never need to be done. UNFORTUNATELY Groups like the NBPP did intimidate voters. Could you link me to your thread here voicing your Outrage and Condemnation of that? Are you going to sue the NBPP in court because of it?? After all you did state this
simple protecting of people based upon who they decide to vote on which is their right
ChunkyMonkey
11-20-2012, 23:47
No I understood it and there is already case law that prohibits it... It's nothing out of the box. We're not talking gay marriage here... We're talking simple protecting of people based upon who they decide to vote on which is their right.
I fired people based on who they voted before.
spqrzilla
11-20-2012, 23:50
No I understood it and there is already case law that prohibits it... It's nothing out of the box. We're not talking gay marriage here... We're talking simple protecting of people based upon who they decide to vote on which is their right.
There is a prohibition upon government discrimination based upon how one votes but if you think you have a case cite for private discrimination, let's see it. I can see an application of a particular Colorado statute if an employer discriminated against an employee (CRS 24-34-402.5) but not a sales transaction.
spqrzilla
11-20-2012, 23:50
I fired people based on who they voted before.
Poor idea. See my cite above.
ChunkyMonkey
11-20-2012, 23:51
There is a prohibition upon government discrimination based upon how one votes but if you think you have a case cite for private discrimination, let's see it. I can see an application of a particular Colorado statute if an employer discriminated against an employee (CRS 24-34-402.5) but not a sales transaction.
There are none. I checked w/ couple lawyers and even called EEOC in my case. :)
ChunkyMonkey
11-20-2012, 23:59
Poor idea. See my cite above.
It's already Done. Only California, NY, and DC have some kind of law to protect employee's political affiliation. CO and North Dakota prohibit discrimination on outside employment activity and conduct. The guy tried to conduct political debate within my property AFTER the election - in short, he was rubbing it in. He was out of there that day.
spqrzilla
11-21-2012, 00:08
It's already Done. Only California, NY, and DC have some kind of law to protect employee's political affiliation. CO and North Dakota prohibit discrimination on outside employment activity and conduct. The guy tried to conduct political debate within my property AFTER the election - in short, he was rubbing it in. He was out of there that day.
That's indeed within your rights.
Whistler
11-21-2012, 07:33
Ok. I couldn't help but read my whole thread... and I added those words... So they're my words... Not anyone elses. Had you taken the time to actually read the article you'd know that they weren't in the article and you wouldn't be highlighting them as some tactic like I don't understand the things I said. Obviously I know that one would put his life, family, and well being before his pride because I typed it. It's how I was raised. Now get off your sideways rant and lets get on topic.
Yes I read the entire article otherwise I would have made no comment at all. I am well aware they are "your words" and that was my point though forgive the attempt to be facetious, it was obviously wasted.
It was not a "tactic" or implying "you didn't understand the things you said", it was specifically your characterization of his actions as "pride" versus any other more laudable attribute. You response reinforces my point that you simply "don't get it".
Let me be blunt; it was in direct response to your negative spin of a positive trait (principals) and attempting to communicate your cynical perception of his motivation. It was on topic and specific to your post, you misunderstood and responded with yet another mis-characterization. How's that for a sideways rant?
Great-Kazoo
11-21-2012, 08:30
IMHO there is a huge difference between providing a service and a transaction. See other post. I wouldn't sue some random business owner because he didn't like me and was providing a service? I would sue a business owner who advertised a price and I came in to TRANSACT business in less then a few mins and was turned away for BS reasons. I have LEGAL TENDER. Accept it or face the consequences.
Watch out forum members Today the gun store,Tomorrow the Trading post forums.
Frivolous lawsuits do nothing but shakedown a place of business. Perhaps you might ask the mods to change your board name to jesse jackson. He's made millions shaking down small & large business for decades. You use the right buzz word, DISCRIMINATION. That gets every ambulance chasing left leaning ideologue s attention. Perhaps one of the first cases to go before O's newly appointed 2nd SCOTUS judge.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.