Why not?
Because 'places of public accomodation' includes a short list of entities like restaurants, cinemas and sports arenas. Unless there is a state law against it, some businesses are still free to be assholes to their paying customers.
Why not?
I would love for her to do so, as I would sue and win.
And this is why the country is in the shape it's in...sue happy. If someone doesn't want/allow me access to something that they own, I'm not going to go cry like a little b!$c£ to some lawyer and file a law suit. If that is the owner's decision, so be it. I will politely smile, thank them for their time, and take my a$$ and money where I am welcome. I will be sure to tell others of my encounter and that is it. Why in the h€[[ do people want to spend time and money where they are not welcome? There are things and reasons in which lawsuits are needed and required (gross medical malpractice, constitutional rights etc), but things like spilling hot coffee on one's self or being denied access to someone else's range is asinine. If that is the case, then I want access to your home, vehicle, bank account, guns, and whatever else I want. What do you mean no? Oh it's because I'm white with Irish and Italian ancestry? I don't care how you feel or what you believe I have a right to it anyway because I feel that you are discriminating against me. Let me call my lawyer...I'll be moved in after I sue you and win. See how ridiculous that sounds? People need to get off the "sue train" and the "everybody deserves a trophy mentality.
Amen!And this is why the country is in the shape it's in...sue happy. If someone doesn't want/allow me access to something that they own, I'm not going to go cry like a little b!$c£ to some lawyer and file a law suit. If that is the owner's decision, so be it. I will politely smile, thank them for their time, and take my a$$ and money where I am welcome. I will be sure to tell others of my encounter and that is it. Why in the h€[[ do people want to spend time and money where they are not welcome? There are things and reasons in which lawsuits are needed and required (gross medical malpractice, constitutional rights etc), but things like spilling hot coffee on one's self or being denied access to someone else's range is asinine. If that is the case, then I want access to your home, vehicle, bank account, guns, and whatever else I want. What do you mean no? Oh it's because I'm white with Irish and Italian ancestry? I don't care how you feel or what you believe I have a right to it anyway because I feel that you are discriminating against me. Let me call my lawyer...I'll be moved in after I sue you and win. See how ridiculous that sounds? People need to get off the "sue train" and the "everybody deserves a trophy mentality.
The six men traveled to the Poconos mountains, where they allegedly practiced firing "semi-automatic weapons"[13] at a shooting range in Gouldsboro, Pennsylvania.[10] The shooting range, at Pennsylvania State Game Land 127,[14] is operated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[15] A group of ten men[16] had recorded video footage of themselves shooting weapons and shouting Allahu Akbar ("God is greater").[17]
The Civil Rights Act of 1965 prohibited discrimination in employment and in places of public accommodation. However, some forms of discrimination may be valid when in the public interest (like a shooting range where lethal weapons are being handled) and the courts have devised rational basis test to determine if discrimination has legitimate purpose. The courts also developed a strict scrutiny test to analyze same. If discrimination reflects prejudice, the courts automatically classify as suspect, but require the government to prove that there wasn't compelling reason for discrimination ... thus the DoJ's interest in 'monitoring' Morgan's range.
Common denominators 9/11, Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, ISIS, Spain, London. Want me to keep going. Did four combat tours after 9/11 and the only people that tried to kill me were Muslims with guns. Shes gets no argument from me. Lebanon. Somalia, Libya, Kenya, Afghanistan, Egypt, Paris and on and on and on...........
Alright, so what is she going to do about other religious extremists and terrorists? Plenty of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist terrorists to go around.
And I don't think the surname test will work quite as well here
I have nothing but respect for your service. But lets not pretend there aren't certain Christian groups who wouldn't have danced on your grave if you had been less fortunate in your deployments. All people who think like this are problems, but not all people of that particular religion think like this.
Alright, so what is she going to do about other religious extremists and terrorists? Plenty of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist terrorists to go around.
And I don't think the surname test will work quite as well here
I have nothing but respect for your service. But lets not pretend there aren't certain Christian groups who wouldn't have danced on your grave if you had been less fortunate in your deployments. All people who think like this are problems, but not all people of that particular religion think like this.
I'd boycott this range too. I've known and worked with too many good people who are Muslim, including some serving in the US military, to have any respect for this stunt.
Yes the Christian groups may hold up signs and dance on my grave but I've yet to see them cut off someones head with a knife, set someone on fire in a cage, blow themselves up, fly jets into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, a field in Pa. Shoot up an army fort, shoot girls for going to school, toss people into the ocean to drown and on and on and on……. Ive seen them in action (Really). I have the pictures and memories of what they do. You can't change my views and If we as a country don't take this serious WE are in big trouble. You have only seen the beginning my friend. If only a SMALL percent of Muslims are radical and looking for a jihad that's still a $hit load of bad guys(and girls) that will kill you and really enjoy doing it.
Are you injecting moral equivalency into the discussion. Morgan seems to think that she has a legitimate reason; that being the safety of her patrons. I would imagine if the cretins from Westboro Baptist Church showed up to 'support' her decision, she would deny them access too. Face it, there are fringes in every element of society and religion, but denying them free access to her range and lethal weapons isn't a big blow to anyone's equal access rights. Some may wish to protest her policy, but others will just take their business elsewhere, whether they be Christian, Jew, Sikh, Hindu, or Muslim.
And I shudder to think that the DoJ would step in to force her.
You're right, it is any potential patron's prerogative to boycott, protest, or attend the range anyways. And it is likely that anyone who felt they might be discriminated against would avoid the range. But to institute such a rule on the premise of safety is no different from banning 'assault weapons' guns to make people safe. It does not address the actual problem and is ultimately nothing but a feel-good measure. But in this case, I think it also puts all of us and our sport in a bad light. And as has been said before, we should not be in the practice of turning away anyone who is interested in and supports firearms. How sad would it be if a young person looking to learn more about shooting was turned away just because they did not pass the surname and pork test?
More power to you ... that's called free enterprise.
It's one thing to lose your livelihood to bad business practices. Many have failed for lesser reasons than denying access. But, would you complain if the DoJ forced her to accommodate or shut her doors forever, or if someone sued and won a $135K judgment. Different situation you say, but what if the shoe were on the other foot ?
Media stunt or not, veiled discrimination or not, bigoted or cautionary business practice, Morgan should not be subjected to DoJ 'monitoring'. If people are offended, then don't patronize. THAT's the American way, not gov'mnt oversight, forced compliance or the PC police picketing outside.
Infringing individual rights is probably the main reason most of us are active on this forum, but the government agency angle of this story is not what I was commenting on.
Assuming someone may be predisposed to criminal behavior based solely on their religion (or what their religion may be inferred to be based on their name) makes as much sense to me as banning AR's for sale to Maryland citizens because the criminal element could make use of them to commit crime. That was the angle of the story that grabbed my attention.
Infringing individual rights is probably the main reason most of us are active on this forum, but the government agency angle of this story is not what I was commenting on.
Assuming someone may be predisposed to criminal behavior based solely on their religion (or what their religion may be inferred to be based on their name) makes as much sense to me as banning AR's for sale to Maryland citizens because the criminal element could make use of them to commit crime. That was the angle of the story that grabbed my attention.
THAT angle is so 'last year' ... Sept, 2014 to be exact
The DoJ's involvement is from this month. Despite my headline grabbing OP, Morgan's policy died in an early news cycle. I can empathize with her position, but what troubles me more is the Breitbart.com headline from my OP.
DOJ ‘Monitoring’ Arkansas Gun Range Owner Who Banned Muslims and it's accompanied WaPo write-up. Justice Department will ‘monitor’ the ‘Muslim-free’ gun range in Arkansas both dated last week.
I'm still more interested in how this situation affects support for the second amendment.
It harms 2A because it reinforces the stereotype that gun owners are ignorant racist hicks and rednecks.