Plus, the owner called gun owners losers and douche bags. Such a hater.
It's clear the owner does not want business from gun owners even though they have concealed carry permits simply because they choose to exercise their rights.
It's like refusing to bake someone a cake because you disagree with them. I mean, if you have a business license, you have to serve everybody regardless of your own opinion, right? That's what the courts have decreed.
Read more.
59 comments:
Wait, this was in *Texas*? Not the best marketing strategy there, fella.
South Carolina, Clemson, actually.
The push back was pretty good.
It's easy enough to take one's business elsewhere, so no biggie.
That sign needs to be read as "No one here will defend themselves, so come on in, perps", because that's what it really means.
Like Rev says, I guess he has a right upset and refuse a potential market. Not very smart.
Thinking with his... wishful thinking and not his head.
"No one here will defend themselves, so come on in, perps"...
Exactly. It's about the dumbest thing a business could do.
The Cuban bar I sometimes frequent has a sign admonishing would-be robbers that the regular patrons are all armed, trained and carrying.
It's in a rough neighborhood and has never been robbed.
Niche marketing. He'll get all the customers that consider gun owners douchebags. It's similar to the way MSNBC markets itself exclusively to douchebags and thereby gains not good ratings but better ratings than CNN. I think such a strategy might work for a vegan restaurant, but it's not the way to go for a BBQ joint.
I would eat there in preference to a restaurant without that policy. Why risk the chance of being shot by some senile lunatic with a gun as happened in the movie theater a while back, when all I want to do is to enjoy a meal in peace.
Exactly. It's about the dumbest thing a business could do.
Well, "the customers are unarmed" doesn't imply "the staff is unarmed
Whoops! Senile lunatic strikes in Milwaukee.
"I would eat there in preference to a restaurant without that policy. Why risk the chance of being shot by some senile lunatic with a gun as happened in the movie theater a while back, when all I want to do is to enjoy a meal in peace."
How cute! You think that the senile lunatic cares about a sign.
IF the weapons are concealed.....who would know?
Isn't that the point of ....'concealing'
:-)
A lot of restaurants have a "no guns" sign, but this really does go beyond that. Usually people just shrug at those, maybe don't eat there... but not a big deal.
Maybe someone said, hey, you're refusing my business because of the normal sign... and the owner had a hissy-fit and put up the personally insulting sign.
Sure... the owner has a right to not serve law abiding citizens who have training and permits to carry concealed. Business owners ought to have the right to refuse service to anyone.
But by being so insulting it's not just CCW people who aren't going to go there, it's going to be anyone who is even a little bit in sympathy of the 2nd Amendment, if they even own a gun or not.
And sure... maybe it will be a magnet for like-minded people and they'll stay in business no problem.
Nicely put, Synova.
Sure... the owner has a right to not serve law abiding citizens who have training and permits to carry concealed. Business owners ought to have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Does he?
Unless they are gay, transgendered or part of some non-white grievance group, that is. Just try to put up a sign that says you won't serve Scientologists, Southern Baptists. They are exercising their first amendment rights. Why should those who are exercising their second amendment rights be discriminated against?
I think that there is a lawsuit in the offing here.
@Aridog - Thanks for posting the video of a George Webb restaurant in Milwaukee being robbed.
Here's another story. Also a George Webb restaurant, in a different part of Milwaukee. An employee escorting a disruptive customer to the door was shot and killed by the customer.
The customer was a recently released felon who had a gun and of course, no carry permit.
Link.
Business owners ought to have the right to refuse service to anyone.
Be sure to tell that to the people who lost their business and face jail time for declining to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Reviews.
The internet fights back. Is that one of our old friends in the picture near the bottom?
Does the sign mean that guns, knives and Hunga Munga are permitted if they are open carry? That's how I read it.
AReasonableMan's comment is perfect illustration of delusion.
Michael... this is why I used the word "ought".
I would eat there in preference to a restaurant without that policy. Why risk the chance of being shot by some senile lunatic with a gun as happened in the movie theater a while back, when all I want to do is to enjoy a meal in peace.
Yes, more likely to happen than not.
Actually, that's not right at all. Protected classes are those who were discriminated against through no fault of their own for centuries. But even an exercise of one's first amendment rights in an objectionable way doesn't give you an absolute right to someone else's business. "No shirt, no shoes no service" is only the tip of it.
So of course a business owner has every right to discriminate against someone exercising their 2nd amendment zealotries in the same way as they would against someone taking just as many liberties with the 1st.
If you don't believe me, go in to a business and cuss out the owner while maintaining that as much verbal abuse as you want to give him is "simply your own opinion". We'll see how much relief the courts give you when he throws you out.
Since when did you guys become so anti-business?
Be sure to tell that to the people who lost their business and face jail time for declining to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
No one faced jail time for such an action. Cite a link.
Clemson, about 20 miles from me, is part of the NPR archipelago. It's like Austin, Madison, Ashville, or Chapel Hill. An island of strangeness in the sea of America.
Just try to put up a sign that says you won't serve Scientologists, Southern Baptists. They are exercising their first amendment rights. Why should those who are exercising their second amendment rights be discriminated against?
Again, more BS. No one knows what people believe religiously. But it's still a 1st amendment right to say whatever you want, and one that doesn't protect you from a business owner throwing your ass out for holding a protest in his store (Freedom of association, anyone?). Come on. You guys can't seriously be either this dense or this self-martyrdom loving.
Talk about judicial activism and finding rights that don't apply. And from the comforts of one's own armchair, no less...
I would eat there in preference to a restaurant without that policy. Why risk the chance of being shot by some senile lunatic with a gun as happened in the movie theater a while back, when all I want to do is to enjoy a meal in peace.
As you would probably prefer to attend a religious service in a place that bans weapons, as most sensible people would do and as had been the law of the land for as long as Scalia didn't get his hands on it. But that's the newest thing they're also trying to riot against.
Just try to put up a sign that says you won't serve Scientologists, Southern Baptists
Again, more BS. No one knows what people believe religiously.
If you are concealed carrying, no one knows that you have a gun either. Just as no one knows what your beliefs are as long as you shut the hell up in the restaurant.
Same thing. Prejudicial bigotry based on what you THINK people are doing or what you think that they think.
A business owner does have the right to refuse service to someone who is disruptive, causing business to be harmed by their disruptive behavior or who is purposely trying to harm the business. Merely being a concealed carry licensed gun holder is not disruptive.
Actually, that's not right at all. Protected classes are those who were discriminated against through no fault of their own for centuries
By that standard, people desiring to keep and bear arms most assuredly qualify as a protected class. For most of history, the right to do so was restricted to the upper classes.
Again, more BS. No one knows what people believe religiously.
Nobody knows what your sexual preferences are, either.
So how can the government claim that people refusing service to same-sex marriages are engaged in sexual orientation discrimination? Maybe the two men are heterosexuals looking to cash in on the government benefits married couples get.
How 'bout one what say you won't serve the LGBTUIOPWRCBXGJ crowd?
Michelle Malkin knows clickbait, but her twiter followers don't seem to know their Chesterton:
And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.
Odds that some bar owner just spontaneously decided to post a sign telling prospective customers he didn't want any gun-toters in his joint: minimal.
Odds that some guy packing heat acted like a total douchebag in this bar, thereby prompting the posting of the sign: high
I'm sure the bar owner is just devastated to know that people from East Bumfuck, Wyoming, won't be making the trek to his fucking bar in the middle of nowhere.
How would he know?
How would who know what?
"...As you would probably prefer to attend a religious service in a place that bans weapons, as most sensible people would do..."
Which... brings to mind the crazy person active shooter who went to a church and started killing people (Colorado, I believe) and was shot by a woman member of the congregation who was armed. She *may* have been working security at the time, but I'm sure that a whole lot of people did NOT prefer to have gone to a church where weapons were banned.
By that standard, people desiring to keep and bear arms most assuredly qualify as a protected class. For most of history, the right to do so was restricted to the upper classes.
We're not talking about most of recorded (European, as you assume) history. We're talking about U.S. history. Even the Heller case noted that place exceptions have been commonplace and have no reason to be discontinued. Just as the 1st amendment allows time, place and manner restrictions on speech, gun-nuts, if they're intelligent, have to understand and allow that place restrictions on guns are absolutely constitutional. Over-reaching on this is stupid folly. Guns weren't only restricted from churches and other places in the wild west because it was harder to conceal them - that has nothing to do with place restrictions.
OT, but I have a feeling a number of you are too cowardly, uncreative or intellectually clumsy to fathom defending yourselves through natural means. You over-interpret the 2nd amendment to appeal to a paranoia that says you must always have some sort of projectile advantage over others, even in places where impeding access, even "equally/freely" available access, to unnatural methods of violence is precisely the point.
The 2nd amendment isn't a paranoia-everywhere/violence-at-any-time code. That's in your imagination. Your incredibly paranoid, distrusting and ever-fearful imagination.
Stop filling that imagination with such fear and you might actually have some space in your minds for creativity, fearlessness, bravery, and, God forbid, enlightenment.
Which... brings to mind the crazy person active shooter who went to a church and started killing people (Colorado, I believe) and was shot by a woman member of the congregation who was armed. She *may* have been working security at the time, but I'm sure that a whole lot of people did NOT prefer to have gone to a church where weapons were banned.
Oh, Dear Lord! Now we must ALL carry weapons with us at all times everywhere to protect against the pervasive violence monster! Insanity alert! Insanity alert! More fear of and less voluntary and civilized restrictions of our fellow citizens is in order! Arm now arm first no mercy, Sir!
Chip, I figured that *probably* someone objected to the normal little "no guns" decal so the guy put the insulting rant up there...
But I was mostly being nice, as it's my habit to try to imagine a scenario that puts someone in as best light as possible.
However... realistically? It's more than a minimal chance that the owner is simply a liberal political junkie with an attitude and an agenda and totally spontaneously decided to share that with the world.
Oh boy. Now asking for the same civilized norms in your place of business that churches in the wildest parts of America have taken for granted is now an "agenda" and "political junkie" behavior.
Let's assume, solely for the sake of argument, of course, that the objection of the gun-toter was in itself let loose in the form of an insulting rant.
Nah…. Who would believe that. Gun-toters are always perfectly behaved gentle people. They never go on rants. They never harangue. They simply want to carry their metal, projectile-firing security blankets with them in peace.
Ok.
So an owner would be justified in saying it's a safety issue.
Behold the peaceful, life-affirming impulses of the metal/projectile-firing security blanket toter.
Can we just admit that, psychologically at least, the concealed-carry-fanatics simply want access to a munitions self-pacifier?
Rhythm and Balls said...
OT, but I have a feeling a number of you are too cowardly, uncreative or intellectually clumsy to fathom defending yourselves through natural means. You over-interpret the 2nd amendment to appeal to a paranoia that says you must always have some sort of projectile advantage over others, even in places where impeding access, even "equally/freely" available access, to unnatural methods of violence is precisely the point.
Ritmo, of course, has never encountered such things as the knockout game, psychotic mass murderers, or wilding in his gated community.
"Can we just admit that, psychologically at least, the concealed-carry-fanatics simply want access to a munitions self-pacifier?"
Only if we just admit that, psychologically at least, you're motivated by the fact your mama didn't nurse you long enough.
Or whatever other insulting, infantalizing, pseudo-psychological condition you'd prefer.
Ritmo, of course, has never encountered such things as the knockout game, psychotic mass murderers, or wilding in his gated community.
I've always assumed that Ritmo lives an urban, mostly black & mostly gay neighborhood. That how he roles.
As usual, Chickie is onto something (although I don't think it's mostly black, but >10%) whereas eddie and Synnie are way off base.
I was never aware of any anti-concealed carry policy at any church I've ever attended in my entire life.
Why would it even come up?
And yes... it would be *weird* if a church made a point of treating law abiding members of the congregation as unhinged threats and I would trust them less about other things.
At the risk of being rude, I could always suggest that Synnie nurse me while I offer her a free shot or two of me at the paint-ball ring to let out those aggressions and fear of all the American meanies. ;-)
Hey, I'm just trying for market-friendly barters!
But seriously, the psychologizing was a little off.
And yes... it would be *weird* if a church made a point of treating law abiding members of the congregation as unhinged threats and I would trust them less about other things.
Presumption alert! Presumption alert! (Being unhinged and not yet threatening does not mean law-breaking).
Irony alert! Irony alert! (You assume the church should trust you to do more good with your concealed gun than you believe it should assume to trust anyone else coming in with their gun).
Ironic!
"But seriously, the psychologizing was a little off."
Glad you figured that out.
The assumptions are all yours, Ritmo.
Particularly the one where the sign on the door, or the church policy, stops someone with a gun.
It's *magic paper*... whoooo ooo ooo... (and more ghosty noises)
It's like the magic no-gun policy on my university campus... the only people it disarms are those who are well adjusted law-abiders. Why anyone would entertain a fantasy that an unhinged person would so much as hesitate... well, denial is a strong force in the world.
Why would it even come up?
It came up because it was a rhetorical extreme.
What the gun control crowd doesn't realize is that we just don't have as much mistrust of other Americans as we should.
They're so naive. So unpatriotic.
Clearly, Synova, we haven't proliferated enough. If only there were more gun proliferation then obviously more of them would go to the LaPierriean "good guys" than to the "bad guys".
In reality, encouraging further proliferation only increases guns in the hands of the paranoid, and an increase in paranoia. But conservatives apparently think that's a good thing.
What the gun control crowd doesn't realize is that we just don't have as much mistrust of other Americans as we should.
Effective CC doesn't requite 100% gun toting -- anymore than everyone be a plane marshall on a flight.
What deadly is the situation in Blighty where everyone is afraid to confront some beheading kooks in a street armed with just machetes.
And yet, their kill rate is still much lower.
Chickie - you have a point. I see it now… You only want enough CC to ensure every situation has a CC'er. Not that everyone CC.
As for the London comment, to follow-up, it seems your real fear is lack of needed retaliation. When in reality however, apart from retaliation in the middle of an admittedly sensational and charged event, they're still a safer society insofar as overall violence and murders go.
Isn't there more intrigue over the association of suicides with gun ownership? Don't you feel that an association between the motivation leading to said ownership and whatever leads one to take such actions out on oneself suggest something tawdry and worth understanding?
"How would who know what?"
How would the owner know if someone brought in a concealed weapon?
Post a Comment