Arizona gun store won't sell to Obama voters

[Ashton]

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]

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.

[Ashton]

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]

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]

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]

I fired people based on who they voted before.

Poor idea. See my cite above.

[ChunkyMonkey]

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]

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.

[ChunkyMonkey]

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.