TexasCHLforum.com

Austinrealtor,

We can always agree to disagree, and a polite discussion never hurts anyone. But you might have misunderstood one of my points slightly. I was not saying or implying in any way that discrimination is right, even for a person on private property. It is not even right for what you call truly private property, such as a home. But it is the right of the property owner to be as stupid and as wrong as he can be, if it does not directly harm another. To me, the government interference in private property is the bigger harm to society than the bigotry is.

For proof, I will point out that one of the ways they justified the equal rights laws applying to such things as Lester Maddox's restaurant in Atlanta was by using the Interstate Commerce Clause. The logic was that the restaurant might be serving someone who traveled interstate to get there, so it was affecting interstate commerce and was therefore legally regulated. This stretch of the law has been abused more and more and leads us to many bad things.

And freedom to be stupid and morally wrong is important to me because protecting other people is the only way I protect my freedoms. I don't care for the government telling me what to do, so I try to protect even those I strongly disagree with, if it is an overreach of the government.

austinrealtor wrote:Steve, I understand your point. I really do. But how to do you explain all the other "rules" for property owners who willingly open their property to the general public?

Well, I was trying to avoid saying it because it can be a very unpopular opinion, but you, Embalmo, RPB, and Xtremeduty45 all deserve an answer.

The problem here, as I see it, is that you are using the principle of stare decisis. That is the Latin phrase for I was wrong before so I will continue to be wrong. or, in simpler words, the laws mandating that I allow the protected classes into my business are wrong. If it is my property, I get to make the rules. I get to decide who I associate with, in my private life and in my business life. If I don't want Catholics, Gun owners, bikers, women, tattooed people, midgets, redheads, or any other type of person in my business, I have the right to say no. Of course, the current law may not recognize that right in every case, but it doesn't make the law right. This is what is known as freedom and respect of EVERYONE's rights by the government.

Along these lines, if you disagree with my choices, you have the right to not do business with me and to encourage everyone who agrees with you not to do business with me. If my business fails because of my choice, I lose my money and go out of business. If more people agree with me than you, then I stay in business and you get to stay unhappy. we see this concept in effect all the time, with many of us not going into or doing business with anyplace that posts a no guns sign (whether legally banning or just expressing a wish). We even see it being used against Arizona right now, with people supporting illegal immigration trying to convince Arizona to change their laws.

I keep coming back to the concept of freedom and individual rights. The government MUST treat every person equally, without regard to whether they are rich or poor, black or white, Republican, Democrat, or independent, male or female, or any other category we can think of. This is critical and the government must treat everyone equally. But your rights to want to carry a gun do not override my rights to associate with whomever I choose. My property, my rules. This is when we will have real freedom. It is also when we will get a civil society with some degree of equality. This is what I keep striving for.

austinrealtor wrote:Frazzled, all due respect, but can you back up your assumption that your property rights absolutely and without question trump our rights to defend ourselves?

I don't know about him, but I can. All I need to do is to point out that the Constitution only protects you from GOVERNMENTAL infringement on any of your rights. Other people can infringe on them all they want and it is not illegal nor a violation of the Constitution. So, if it is my property, my rights trump ALL of yours. If it is public property, our rights are equal. If it is your property, your rights trump all of mine.

And the more I think about it, the more I am willing to bet we all learned this very principle at home from our parents, and taught it to our kids. At least, if you are my age, I am confident your parents at one time said something along the lines of "my house, my rules." The principle still applies.

Embalmo wrote:

frazzled wrote:I understand. However if I were a property owner I would want the right to regulate my own business. If I can deny custom to people without shoes I should be able to be stupid enough to deny custom to CCers.

If I understand you correctly, that is a false analogy. Shoes are designed to protect one's feet. Not allowing someone to carry concealed is like forcing people to go into your hardware store with no shoes and assume no responsibility when they step on a nail. I cannot understand how it can be someone else's right to decide if I can protect myself or family.

I'm sure we all of understand that 30.06 mean "criminals welcome to carry weapons without fear of retribution".

Embalmo

Actually, I think it is a pretty good analogy, but backards. If it is my business, and I want to ban you for any reason, I should have that right. If I ban you because you are wearing shoes, I am responsible for any nails puncturing your feet. If i ban you because I don't like leather jackets, I am responsible for any abrasions you might suffer. If I ban you because I don't want you carrying a gun, I am responsible for any incidents where you could not protect yourself.

I own the property and I should have the right to say who or what is allowed on it.