TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote: Texas I think is ugly friendly there ares ome famous exclusive night clubs in NYC and LA that only let the pretty people in.

So true...I've tried to go to a Jazz bar in NYC and was turned away because I was wearing Ariat boots...the place was full of 'pretty' young people who probably don't know the difference between Louie Armstrong and Neal Armstrong.

I'll just stick with the Elephant Room in Austin thank you!

Liberty wrote:

rdcrags wrote:

There are night clubs that won't let ugly people in .. I know a few places that won't let people in wearing beards..

That's 2 strikes on me. No wonder I'm insecure and feel unwanted.

TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005

The places I was thinking of that won't allow people in with beards are some refinarys and chemical plants.

Texas I think is ugly friendly there ares ome famous exclusive night clubs in NYC and LA that only let the pretty people in.

Or any other place where you are required to be prepared to wear a respirator. This is because a beard can compromise the seal between the wearer's face and the mask, letting nasty stuff in.







That being said, I have no problem with businesses refusing service based on whatever views held by the owner. As it is (or should be) their right to chose who they do business with it is the right of everyone else to do the same. And if someone gets really upset about it they have every right to protest/boycott the business and try to peacefully persuade others to do the same so long as they don't impede willing customers from the business.

But of course these types of issues are so important to most people that they immediately jump to the use of government's force, funding by other people's money, to do their bidding. This is much too important for folks to get off of their own rear ends and do something with their own money; righteous indignation seems to come more easily when it requires no following effort.

Oldgringo wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone...

It started way back in the early 1960's and was called among other things, "The Civil Rights Movement". Perhaps you don't remember it, but it was about a whole lot of things, not the least of which was that shopowners could not decide who they were going to serve, or who rode where on the bus, or who could use which drinking fountain or toilet, etc., etc.

I believe the laws resulting from that 'movement' are still in effect?

Business don't have a right to discriminate based race, creed religion or physical handicaps but they can indiscriminately discriminate for almost any other reason. Some places discriminate based on the clothing worn, There are night clubs that won't let ugly people in .. I know a few places that won't let people in wearing beards.. The civil rights movement had nothing to do with letting LEO into your place of business.

Really? Well, I guess it's true, you can learn something every day.

It started way back in 6000 bc...it's called the real world. Maybe you don't remember it.

JK - just firing back after your failed attempt at calling me out. All in fun.

So, now I'm wondering if they also prohibit concealed weapons. If they do, I wonder if they would call the police if someone were to be discovered violating that.

I didn't say that I was for, or against "Owner's Rights". I was just sayin....

While I don't remember the 6,000 BC thing too well, I do remember the 60's AD. Those were some bad times, real bad times.

This discussion brings up a couple of interesting questions; e.g., bans on ugly people in public places definitely could use a little more study.

C-dub wrote:So, now I'm wondering if they also prohibit concealed weapons. If they do, I wonder if they would call the police if someone were to be discovered violating that.

It's a VEGAN shop, so perhaps they'd call 911 and request a Constable/Sheriff's Deputy with Nylon holster/belt/shoes instead of leather..... poor animals.

bnc wrote:But of course these types of issues are so important to most people that they immediately jump to the use of government's force, funding by other people's money, to do their bidding. This is much too important for folks to get off of their own rear ends and do something with their own money; righteous indignation seems to come more easily when it requires no following effort.

Fine. Then I promise that I will never again drive over to Seattle (from DFW) to buy a cup of their commie coffee.

Are you suggesting that righteous indignation is out of place because that business is 2,122 miles from here? Please. People are entitled to their opinions, all of which are worth exactly what yours is worth. My worthless opinion is that people like the collectivist worker hive who own that coffee shop would not be able to have and express their opinions about collectivism, to be safe in their persons and their property, or to have any success in their enterprise, if it were not done on the backs of people like the cops they refuse service to, and on the backs of capitalist ship owners who sell them space on their capitalist ships to import their "fair market" coffee which they sell for a capitalist profit, etc., etc.

I'm not advocating government interference. I am advocating that they be allowed to die out just like every other bad idea. But that doesn't stop me from being righteously indignant at their lack of a moral center, which is based on a parochial attitude about economics, and which is demonstrated in discrimination against people about whom they know nothing.

TAM,

Did you intentionally leave out the part about "ugly people" for any particular reason?

Oldgringo wrote:

TAM,

Did you intentionally leave out the part about "ugly people" for any particular reason?

Yes, I did. I am ugly, and I have tender feelings about that.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

bnc wrote:But of course these types of issues are so important to most people that they immediately jump to the use of government's force, funding by other people's money, to do their bidding. This is much too important for folks to get off of their own rear ends and do something with their own money; righteous indignation seems to come more easily when it requires no following effort.

Fine. Then I promise that I will never again drive over to Seattle (from DFW) to buy a cup of their commie coffee.

Are you suggesting that righteous indignation is out of place because that business is 2,122 miles from here? Please. People are entitled to their opinions, all of which are worth exactly what yours is worth. My worthless opinion is that people like the collectivist worker hive who own that coffee shop would not be able to have and express their opinions about collectivism, to be safe in their persons and their property, or to have any success in their enterprise, if it were not done on the backs of people like the cops they refuse service to, and on the backs of capitalist ship owners who sell them space on their capitalist ships to import their "fair market" coffee which they sell for a capitalist profit, etc., etc.

I'm not advocating government interference. I am advocating that they be allowed to die out just like every other bad idea. But that doesn't stop me from being righteously indignant at their lack of a moral center, which is based on a parochial attitude about economics, and which is demonstrated in discrimination against people about whom they know nothing.

I got this right off their website:

"The Red and Black is dedicated to providing delicious, wholesome foods at the lowest prices possible. We use organic, local and seasonal ingredients whenever possible.

We strive to provide a community space that is safe and welcoming to all. We hope this space is used for local voices to bring awareness and education on the issues facing us today. We work to be an example of ethical, non-hierarchal business. The cafe is worker-run and worker-owned. Our space and our community are always growing and changing. We evolve based on the energy, enthusiasm and direction of our fellow workers and our neighborhood in accordance with our ideals."

---------------------------------------------------------
So... they provide a community space that is safe and welcoming to ALL? I guess that only means that they provide a place that is welcoming to ONLY communists with the same ideals as they do?

I guess the only time that the police would be welcomed is when there was a crime involved and their communist behinds were in danger. I love how they preach tolerance and acceptance and yet act in a manner that discriminates...

I read all that last night, and of course their ideas are nonsense. The very idea of "nonhierarchical" is baloney. Some people are natural born leaders. Others are not. There is no judgement in that; it just is. Therefore, some of those individuals are more likely to exhibit leadership characteristics than others. Those individuals will stand out, and thus, there is suddenly a hierarchy where non existed previously. Hierarchies are a biological imperative. Communist/collectivist ideals generally ignore the biological imperative, and these children in a grown up world are no exception. Capitalism, on the other hand, obeys and celebrates the biological imperative, and is what gives natural leaders a forum for leadership, and natural born followers a choice of leaders to follow.

On Planet TAM, collectivists are treated just like cancer.

The Annoyed Man wrote: On Planet TAM, collectivists are treated just like cancer.

Chemo, radiation, surgery or all three?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Are you suggesting that righteous indignation is out of place because that business is 2,122 miles from here?

I don't know about bnc but I would suggest that there are targets for your righteous indignation much closer to home.
Any business in Texas that posts 30.06 signs.
Any business in Texas that prohibits employees from carrying legally.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make professional sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make school sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make schools off limits for CHL.
Any Texas cop who needlessly disarms a CHL during a traffic stop.

tacticool wrote: Any Texas legislator that voted to make professional sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make school sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make schools off limits for CHL.

Hmm these would be all the pro CHL folks in the state house in `95 and `97 along with George W.
The guys who voted against it were trying to kill CHL and concealed carry.

Now it's 10-15 years later the Texas legislators still haven't fixed it. I think that's a better cause for "righteous indignation" than some left coast counter-culture shop that doesn't like "The Man" but that's just my opinion. You're free to tilt at windmills.