Is Kansas a Laughingstock or Do You Not Care?

[StrangeSox]

While I don't agree with him on this, I will say that Jenks made pretty clear that it comes down to how you value different Constitutional rights. He values them equally. No one save for illinilaw has really done a good job of responding to him on that main point. Like it or not, the Second Amendment exists and isn't going anywhere. Since it's admitted that there are restrictions on that right, the question really becomes what restrictions are reasonable.

 

What court ruling says you have a right, guaranteed by the second amendment, to carry a gun wherever you want (barring some exclusions like government buildings and airports)?

[StrangeSox]

And really, on top of all of this is the fact that I could say I don't want to serve you in 20 different ways that would be acceptable and not a violation of the law. You don't have to be "eww, you're gay! get out of here!"

 

Which sort of brings us back around to my point a couple of weeks ago about how difficult it can be to actually enforce anti-discrimination laws and claims.

[Soxbadger]

While I don't agree with him on this, I will say that Jenks made pretty clear that it comes down to how you value different Constitutional rights. He values them equally. No one save for illinilaw has really done a good job of responding to him on that main point. Like it or not, the Second Amendment exists and isn't going anywhere. Since it's admitted that there are restrictions on that right, the question really becomes what restrictions are reasonable.

 

Well as everyone knows I dont care what the current laws are/were. At one point (insert your favorite minority) couldnt vote. If we sat and simply said "the law is what it is" wed be a s***ty backwards country.

 

So the question right now isnt about what the 2nd amendment is (its entirely irrelevant), its about whether the Kansas law is appropriate/necessary.

 

As Ive clearly stated multiple times, the Kansas law is superfluous because you can already refuse to serve gay people in Kansas.

 

Jenks response has been "its proactive", to what end Ive asked. If Kansas creates a law that says you cant discriminate services based on lgbt, then this current law has clearly been overturned. Unless we just think that Kansas will have 2 conflicting laws?

 

Its nothing more than a distraction. A better comparison is actually abortion. While abortion is legal, no Dr has to perform an abortion. Its the exact same thing. While being gay is legal, no one is forcing you to cater their wedding.

 

And honestly, I dont care if you want to be a racist bigot. Just own it. Id be fine with this law if it required each store to put a sign on the front that says "We dont serve gay people." That way they dont get my straight people money either. Want to be a racist bigot, just own it, just man up. Its just cowardly.

 

I mean what happens if they serve a gay person unknowingly? Can they then sue because they were damaged?

 

It just opens up nonsense, its stupid.

[farmteam]

What court ruling says you have a right, guaranteed by the second amendment, to carry a gun wherever you want (barring some exclusions like government buildings and airports)?

If I had to guess, Jenks is coming at it from the point that unless the applicable court says you do not have a right to carry a gun in a certain place, then you do have a right to carry a gun in that place. You seem to want the opposite -- a baseline of not having a right to have generally have guns in public, unless specifically allowed.

[Jenksismyhero]

What court ruling says you have a right, guaranteed by the second amendment, to carry a gun wherever you want (barring some exclusions like government buildings and airports)?

 

Um, all of them that say concealed carry is legal? The rule is you can carry a gun wherever you want, except for some exceptions. The rule isn't "here is where you can have guns" but it's excluded everywhere else.

[Jenksismyhero]

Which sort of brings us back around to my point a couple of weeks ago about how difficult it can be to actually enforce anti-discrimination laws and claims.

 

Right, but that doesn't negate the economic impact of them either. Businesses never win a discrimination case. They either pay a judgment, pay a settlement, or pay attorneys.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well as everyone knows I dont care what the current laws are/were. At one point (insert your favorite minority) couldnt vote. If we sat and simply said "the law is what it is" wed be a s***ty backwards country.

 

So the question right now isnt about what the 2nd amendment is (its entirely irrelevant), its about whether the Kansas law is appropriate/necessary.

 

As Ive clearly stated multiple times, the Kansas law is superfluous because you can already refuse to serve gay people in Kansas.

 

Jenks response has been "its proactive", to what end Ive asked. If Kansas creates a law that says you cant discriminate services based on lgbt, then this current law has clearly been overturned. Unless we just think that Kansas will have 2 conflicting laws?

 

Its nothing more than a distraction. A better comparison is actually abortion. While abortion is legal, no Dr has to perform an abortion. Its the exact same thing. While being gay is legal, no one is forcing you to cater their wedding.

 

And honestly, I dont care if you want to be a racist bigot. Just own it. Id be fine with this law if it required each store to put a sign on the front that says "We dont serve gay people." That way they dont get my straight people money either. Want to be a racist bigot, just own it, just man up. Its just cowardly.

 

I mean what happens if they serve a gay person unknowingly? Can they then sue because they were damaged?

 

It just opens up nonsense, its stupid.

 

Well, to preserve their right but also to prevent lawsuits. They're worried about a court deciding that sexuality is a protected class, which has happened in a couple other states. They're preventing that decision from happening.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm really struggling to see why a perfect world enables explicit racial discrimination.

 

Because those people would be outed and out of business quickly. As I said a while ago, the "market" and society would drive the change, not the government forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

[Balta1701]

Because those people would be outed and out of business quickly. As I said a while ago, the "market" and society would drive the change, not the government forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

I was almost waiting for you to say this, because it needs to be pointed out that this completely, utterly, 100% failed. We waited 100 years for Jim Crow laws to go "out of vogue". They didn't collapse because of the market, they collapsed because the government imposed their collapse (with significant violence provoked in response, btw). Quite similarly, the only reason why anti-sodomy laws aren't still enforced in multiple states is the Supreme Court ending them (they remain on the books, unchallenged, in several states btw).

 

This statement completely disagrees with every bit of American History on this subject.

[Jenksismyhero]

I was almost waiting for you to say this, because it needs to be pointed out that this completely, utterly, 100% failed. We waited 100 years for Jim Crow laws to go "out of vogue". They didn't collapse because of the market, they collapsed because the government imposed their collapse (with significant violence provoked in response, btw). Quite similarly, the only reason why anti-sodomy laws aren't still enforced in multiple states is the Supreme Court ending them (they remain on the books, unchallenged, in several states btw).

 

This statement completely disagrees with every bit of American History on this subject.

 

Which is why I said in a perfect world.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

If I had to guess, Jenks is coming at it from the point that unless the applicable court says you do not have a right to carry a gun in a certain place, then you do have a right to carry a gun in that place. You seem to want the opposite -- a baseline of not having a right to have generally have guns in public, unless specifically allowed.

 

In several (most?) states, business owners are allowed to post "no firearms" signs on the doors, and anyone who carries one onto the premise is trespassing. It's no different from me having the right to wear shorts but a fancy restaurant having a dress code for diners.

 

So the right to carry is generally allowed, but owners of individual businesses or homes have the right to exclude them from their property.

[StrangeSox]

Because those people would be outed and out of business quickly. As I said a while ago, the "market" and society would drive the change, not the government forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

 

I wonder why s***head racists simply don't exist in your perfect world?

 

In the real world, the "market" historically has always done a horrible job of fighting against this sort of discrimination whereas government intervention has been incredibly effective.

[StrangeSox]

Um, all of them that say concealed carry is legal? The rule is you can carry a gun wherever you want, except for some exceptions. The rule isn't "here is where you can have guns" but it's excluded everywhere else.

 

The rule in some (most?) states is you're allowed to carry unless the property owner says you aren't. There's no jurisprudence that says you are constitutionally entitled to carry again over the objections of the owner of the property you're on.

[Iwritecode]

They're worried about a court deciding that sexuality is a protected class, which has happened in a couple other states.

 

I’m surprised this hasn’t happened at the federal level yet.

[Jenksismyhero]

In several (most?) states, business owners are allowed to post "no firearms" signs on the doors, and anyone who carries one onto the premise is trespassing. It's no different from me having the right to wear shorts but a fancy restaurant having a dress code for diners.

 

So the right to carry is generally allowed, but owners of individual businesses or homes have the right to exclude them from their property.

 

True but I know in Florida the signs don't mean anything and I thought I read a story that the trespassing angle didn't work.

 

As I said this morning, this is the new area of the law that will be litigated. Seems to me though that you're restricting a constitutional right on the basis of what, a fear of shooting, which is an argument that hasn't gone over well with the courts in any other public area (other than airports, schools, courthouses, etc.).

[Jenksismyhero]

The rule in some (most?) states is you're allowed to carry unless the property owner says you aren't. There's no jurisprudence that says you are constitutionally entitled to carry again over the objections of the owner of the property you're on.

 

Yet. The current SC ruling (the DC case) left it open: "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

[Jenksismyhero]

I wonder why s***head racists simply don't exist in your perfect world?

 

In the real world, the "market" historically has always done a horrible job of fighting against this sort of discrimination whereas government intervention has been incredibly effective.

 

You'll never get rid of morons. There will always be racists, sexists, fascists, etc. So long as they're the 1% and are largely ignored.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here you go, just from a few days ago. And Florida, of course:

 

http://tbo.com/news/crime/bank-manager-fir...-suit-20140221/

[Iwritecode]

Somebody can correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the point of the law not to allow business owners to discriminate against gays but to protect them from being sued for discriminating against gays?

[StrangeSox]

What's the distinction there?

[StrangeSox]

True but I know in Florida the signs don't mean anything and I thought I read a story that the trespassing angle didn't work.

 

As I said this morning, this is the new area of the law that will be litigated. Seems to me though that you're restricting a constitutional right on the basis of what, a fear of shooting, which is an argument that hasn't gone over well with the courts in any other public area (other than airports, schools, courthouses, etc.).

 

You do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun onto my property. Some states have passed laws saying that you have the legal right to do so, at least in some fashion (e.g. leave the gun locked in your car in the company parking lot). This is distinctly different from a federal constitutional right to do so. The second amendment doesn't apply to Wells Fargo's rights to limit what is brought onto their property any more than the first amendment limits their rights to fire someone for shouting political propaganda at customers.

 

Refusing service to someone because of their protected class status is a violation of the Civil Rights Act (among other laws), but it isn't unconstitutional. Constitutional rights really aren't at question here.

 

To emphasize the point here: Heller, McDonald and the case that forced Illinois to allow concealed carry were all about state or local laws. They were not about a non-government entity banning firearms from the premises. Nobody has come close to a legal ruling that says your right to bear arms trumps another individual's (or company's) property rights.

Edited February 27, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

You'll never get rid of morons. There will always be racists, sexists, fascists, etc. So long as they're the 1% and are largely ignored.

But you were talking about a hypothetical perfect world where free markets would actually solve problems of bigotry. If we're going that far into fantasy land, why not just one more step of magicking bigotry away all together?

[Jenksismyhero]

You do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun onto my property. Some states have passed laws saying that you have the legal right to do so, at least in some fashion (e.g. leave the gun locked in your car in the company parking lot). This is distinctly different from a federal constitutional right to do so. The second amendment doesn't apply to Wells Fargo's rights to limit what is brought onto their property any more than the first amendment limits their rights to fire someone for shouting political propaganda at customers.

 

Refusing service to someone because of their protected class status is a violation of the Civil Rights Act (among other laws), but it isn't unconstitutional. Constitutional rights really aren't at question here.

 

To emphasize the point here: Heller, McDonald and the case that forced Illinois to allow concealed carry were all about state or local laws. They were not about a non-government entity banning firearms from the premises. Nobody has come close to a legal ruling that says your right to bear arms trumps another individual's (or company's) property rights.

 

As I've said: yet. We'll see how the courts decide this issue. The Wells Fargo one is a bit different since it is employer based, but that was what I found in 2 seconds of googling.

 

Edit: and the Constitution provides you with the right to bear arms, and as I've said this is nearly without restriction (criminal, mentally ill, in a school or courthouse, etc). For CC, in most states you have the right to take it anywhere except for certain zones, and then its up to individual businesses to post a sign or not, and from there some laws are more strict about wording, size, placement, etc. So you have the right to take it anywhere and then it's the obligation of the private owner to tell you to leave. And that's where the litigation will come. You have the right, it's being restricted by state law, is that constitutional. I dunno why you think the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply there.

 

Speech and employment are a little different. I'm sure there's case law that talks about at-ill employment trumping free speech rights. But for example, IIRC employers can't fire you for some speech, such as posting messages on a bulletin board regarding unionization.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Nothing remotely close to a finding that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to carry a gun onto a property over the objection of that property's owner has happened. At best, you're talking about a hypothetical future finding of a constitutional right that there's no indication of today. Heller made reference to federal, state and local laws barring the possession of guns, not to any private restriction.

 

Think through the implications here. If it's found that the 2nd amendment means you can carry your gun into a store or to work over the objections of the store owner or your employer, how does this apply to first amendment rights? Is your employer barred from ever firing you for your speech because of the first amendment? Can a store owner not refuse you service because you are using a bunch of racial slurs? Is SoxTalk's language filter unconstitutional because is suppresses my free speech? Was it unconstitutional to ban duke?

 

How does this apply to equal protection? Public accommodations laws are found in things like the CRA, not in the Constitution, so are these suddenly redundant and it's now unconstitutional for a private actor to racially discriminate? On that note, how does it even make sense to find that your employer saying "don't bring guns" is unconstitutional? The Constitution defines what the government may do, not private actors. A state law saying that a gun cannot be carried into grocery stores could very well be found unconstitutional, but how would Jewel saying "no guns" be found unconstitutional? Does it even make sense to talk about something like Jewel committing unconstitutional acts?

 

eta: if the day ever comes that we have a constitutional right to carry guns almost anywhere, even over the objections of private property owners, I'll send you a 12 pack of your favorite beer.

Edited February 27, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Well, to preserve their right but also to prevent lawsuits. They're worried about a court deciding that sexuality is a protected class, which has happened in a couple other states. They're preventing that decision from happening.

 

If the court determines that, no amount of laws besides an amendment can overcome it. So Im still not sure what the point is.

 

If the Supreme Court says "You cant discriminate against people who marry goats" and Kansas has a law that says "You dont have to serve at a goat marriage", Supreme Court wins, right?

 

Or if Kansas has a law that says "You can discriminate against goat marriage" and then passes a law "You cant discriminate against goat marriage" the second law naturally overturns the first...

 

So this just seems to be hatred for the sake of hatred.

 

Thats my problem with it, that they could already do this, so there was no need to create a law.