Shooting range owner refuses Muslims

[5GallonBucket]

"Rights Group ask for probe into shooting range that refuses to cater to Muslims" is the title to the article.

 

It would let me copy and paste.....or I couldn't figure it out.

 

Yall will have to search for it.....I saw it on Yahoo

 

What say yall......

 

I agree with the owner

 

 

[CraigS]

I saw that a week or so ago......I AGREE with the owner! 

 

I'm always reading on here about prayer, well, Christian prayer...what would you do IF it were a muslim prayer...blah blah blah....well, they want it both ways...the reason they...muslims.. even have rights here is the US is because of the argument or interpretation of "separation of church and state" ....however, they...muslim's are one in the same....sharia law - I say, when THEY start using the "separation" rule/law we will reconsider our stance on the right....kick them all out of everything up to and including our country!

 

Back on topic - as long as they (the ones living here) are not standing on the rooftops denouncing and offering their blood to protect this country against jihad and the slaughter of the infidels then WHY would anyone feel comfortable around any of them with guns......they could end up a victim of "work place violence"

[tvc184]

I saw that a week or so ago......I AGREE with the owner! 

 

I'm always reading on here about prayer, well, Christian prayer...what would you do IF it were a muslim prayer...blah blah blah....well, they want it both ways...the reason they...muslims.. even have rights here is the US is because of the argument or interpretation of "separation of church and state" ....however, they...muslim's are one in the same....sharia law - I say, when THEY start using the "separation" rule/law we will reconsider our stance on the right....kick them all out of everything up to and including our country!

 

Back on topic - as long as they (the ones living here) are not standing on the rooftops denouncing and offering their blood to protect this country against jihad and the slaughter of the infidels then WHY would anyone feel comfortable around any of them with guns......they could end up a victim of "work place violence"

 

Huh?

 

They only have rights because of separation of church and state? 

 

I am not sure that means and then I don't see where it enters into this topic. 

[mat]

I haven't read the article but unfortunately they probably have the right to go there. As a business you can't, and probably shouldn't, refuse service to Muslims.

[baddog]

Back in the day, lots businesses had signs hung on their walls that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" . It should still hold true today.

[bullets13]

Back in the day, lots businesses had signs hung on their walls that read, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" . It should still hold true today.

And if they're refusing because the person is black?

[TROJANSWIN]

And if they're refusing because the person is black?

Then everyone should take that into account when they patronize that business. If you don't agree with it then don't shop there.
A business should have the right to decide who it lets in. They should also be responsible for that choice if they choose to make it. Should nudists be allowed in a restaurant? No shirt, no shoes, no service. There are plenty of places that are banning concealed carry on their property. I choose not to support those places, just like they choose to ban the legal carry of firearms on their property. If they hang a sign up that says "no blacks allowed", the. I will choose not to do business with them also. If they still have enough customers to stay open then so be it, but if they go bankrupt, it is their own fault.
Howany Muslims were actually wanting to go to this shooting range? I bet it was a very small number, and it is probably more the owner trying to make a political statement or score some brownie points with a few of the other customers. Do they really think it will stop a shooting or keep some radical idiot from killing people if they don't practice at their range? Hopefully they are not that dumb.
All I am saying is that we should have choices. Sometimes those choices have consequences. A business should be able to run its business the way it wants, and we as consumers should decide if we like the choices they make. If they want to ban white people or christians or women or little green men from outer space, that should be their choice. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to shop there either. Where does political correctness end and when can we finally just be honest with each other and quit trying to fix or change everyone? We can't all be offended all the time. If we all take care of the one person we can control, ourself, nd quit telling everyone else what to do the world would be a better place.

[77]

very well said!

[stevenash]

Political correctness is slowly ( not slowly any more) but surely destroying us.

[CraigS]

Huh?

 

They only have rights because of separation of church and state? 

 

I am not sure that means and then I don't see where it enters into this topic. 

simple actually - THEY, the muslims do not practice separation - their religion is their law....so until they start practicing separation, why should they benefit from our laws that do....the last part speaks for itself...

 

as far as entering into THIS topic, I admitted that I was off course by stating: Back on Topic: then again it does all work together as far as - does the gun range owner have the right to keep them out - sure they should, as well as we as a country should keep them out until THEY defeat the so called "radicals" - they are ALL radicals, even the so called "peaceful" ones....just some more so than others,

 

Bottom line is we are at war with islam....play the political game of calling it "radical" islam if you want to, or act like most are nice people if you want to.....but I believe the "nice people" part is an act to allow infiltration and playing against the "tolerance" of the western civilized nations.

 

If you remember, not that long ago, our government spoke of "cells" within the USA...terms like "sleepers" were used, and we didn't know who they were until they were "called" upon to serve their duties.........I don't believe that has changed...

[5GallonBucket]

being black and being a muslim is different.   Black is a reference of color, muslim is a follower of the religion.

[5GallonBucket]

Here is some Verses in the Quran against other religions

Sura 2 verse 191

         4 verse 131

         9 verse 30

         5 verse   51

         9 verse   123

         48 verse 13

Verse against muslims that turn away from the Quran

 Sura 4 verse 89

[Eagle11]

That business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. Sometimes you do it a your own peril but she can let in who she wants and keep out those she doesn't want.

[tvc184]

simple actually - THEY, the muslims do not practice separation - their religion is their law....so until they start practicing separation, why should they benefit from our laws that do....the last part speaks for itself.................

 

Where do they practice separation? 

 

You can have any belief that you want but it doesn't trump the law. Let a Muslim try to beat his wife and say that it is okay by Sharia law. Sorry but he is going to jail. They just had a guy behead a person in OK under his belief of Sharia law. Is he not being held for murder? 

 

That is why I can't make any sense of your argument. Christians can believe anything they wish but must still comply with state and federal laws. 

 

We can only compare what they do in this country and the laws in this country. What other countries allow is up to them but there is no special status for a Muslim here under Sharia law. That is also why I can't understand how the separation of church and state (an American constitutional freedom) has anything to do with their beliefs. 

[CraigS]

Where do they practice separation? 

 

You can have any belief that you want but it doesn't trump the law. Let a Muslim try to beat his wife and say that it is okay by Sharia law. Sorry but he is going to jail. They just had a guy behead a person in OK under his belief of Sharia law. Is he not being held for murder? 

 

That is why I can't make any sense of your argument. Christians can believe anything they wish but must still comply with state and federal laws. 

 

We can only compare what they do in this country and the laws in this country. What other countries allow is up to them but there is no special status for a Muslim here under Sharia law. That is also why I can't understand how the separation of church and state (an American constitutional freedom) has anything to do with their beliefs. 

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/judge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/16/oklahoma-ban-on-sharia-law-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules/

 

I'm sure there is more to come...

[tvc184]

That business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. Sometimes you do it a your own peril but she can let in who she wants and keep out those she doesn't want.

 

 

That is not entirely correct. 

 

You have the right to refuse service to anyone except if it is based on race, religion or national origin (maybe some others). Toss in the EEOC and employment and you can add in things like sex, age, sexual harassment, disability, etc. 

 

You can require people to wear shoes in your establishment, lay down safety rules, require people to not get rowdy, have some other form of dress code, etc. You can't legally say, "We don't allow blacks in here". 

 

Hence your statement that we have the right to refuse service to anyone is not correct. Basically you can if it is not discriminatory against a protected class and we all belong to some protected class. 

[tvc184]

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/transcript/judge-rules-american-courts-can-use-sharia-law

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/08/16/oklahoma-ban-on-sharia-law-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules/

 

I'm sure there is more to come...

 

You are stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point. 

 

Your first example is a Muslim suing a Muslim organization in basically contract law. They are required in their own organization to arbitrate the issue in front of church clerics. From what I have seen in contract law (written and verbal) is that an agreement to use another form of mediation exists, that must happen. I know that if you buy certain things like vehicles, manufactured homes, etc., you often sign a contract says you cannot use the court system for a complaint and must use an arbitrator around the right to sue in a normal court. The only way it will get to a court of law is if the agreed upon contract (verbal or written) was not followed. 

 

The judge in that case said that it is their church law to go to arbitration in front of the church first. If that is correct then that is no different than any other contract law where you agree to a means of mediation. I know that our union has such a contract and we cannot sue for many things unless our agreed upon process is not followed and therefor the contract violated. In fact we have sued but only to make the court get our employer back to the arbitration table, not to settle the lawsuit. We have to comply with the agreement to use arbitration. 

 

In the second case you cite, the case was overturned on the First Amendment. The law specifically banned the use of Sharia law but did not mention any others. I did not say to ban any religion law but to ban the use of "international" or "Sharia" law. 

 

The problem is the discriminatory nature of the amendment that spells out one specific religion but does not spell out others. Apparently by that OK constitutional amendment, you could use Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or other church doctrine to determine a lawsuit but not Sharia law. Explain to me how that does not violate the First Amendment where a single religion is named in a constitutional amendment. 

 

How under a state constitution or the US Constitution can you spell out a single religion as the law applies to and not violate the First Amendment? I think they might have an easier job passing constitutional muster if they had said something like, judges cannot consider any religion precept in determining a court case. OK chose not to put that on the ballot but chose to single out someone that they didn't like and are shocked when someone calls them on it. 

[CraigS]

You are stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point. 

 

Your first example is a Muslim suing a Muslim organization in basically contract law. They are required in their own organization to arbitrate the issue in front of church clerics. From what I have seen in contract law (written and verbal) is that an agreement to use another form of mediation exists, that must happen. I know that if you buy certain things like vehicles, manufactured homes, etc., you often sign a contract says you cannot use the court system for a complaint and must use an arbitrator around the right to sue in a normal court. The only way it will get to a court of law is if the agreed upon contract (verbal or written) was not followed. 

 

The judge in that case said that it is their church law to go to arbitration in front of the church first. If that is correct then that is no different than any other contract law where you agree to a means of mediation. I know that our union has such a contract and we cannot sue for many things unless our agreed upon process is not followed and therefor the contract violated. In fact we have sued but only to make the court get our employer back to the arbitration table, not to settle the lawsuit. We have to comply with the agreement to use arbitration. 

 

In the second case you cite, the case was overturned on the First Amendment. The law specifically banned the use of Sharia law but did not mention any others. I did not say to ban any religion law but to ban the use of "international" or "Sharia" law. 

 

The problem is the discriminatory nature of the amendment that spells out one specific religion but does not spell out others. Apparently by that OK constitutional amendment, you could use Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or other church doctrine to determine a lawsuit but not Sharia law. Explain to me how that does not violate the First Amendment where a single religion is named in a constitutional amendment. 

 

How under a state constitution or the US Constitution can you spell out a single religion as the law applies to and not violate the First Amendment? I think they might have an easier job passing constitutional muster if they had said something like, judges cannot consider any religion precept in determining a court case. OK chose not to put that on the ballot but chose to single out someone that they didn't like and are shocked when someone calls them on it. 

You answered your own question. They are the ONLY ones who consider their religion to be law....which is why I said (which you made fun of) until they use separation (at least in our country) they do not get any consideration....because if we rule against their law, in essence we rule against their religion...then they can say what you just said....discrimination....all I'm saying is I...me...CraigS...is calling BS on this!

[stevenash]

You are stretching that rubber band beyond the breaking point. 
 
Your first example is a Muslim suing a Muslim organization in basically contract law. They are required in their own organization to arbitrate the issue in front of church clerics. From what I have seen in contract law (written and verbal) is that an agreement to use another form of mediation exists, that must happen. I know that if you buy certain things like vehicles, manufactured homes, etc., you often sign a contract says you cannot use the court system for a complaint and must use an arbitrator around the right to sue in a normal court. The only way it will get to a court of law is if the agreed upon contract (verbal or written) was not followed. 
 
The judge in that case said that it is their church law to go to arbitration in front of the church first. If that is correct then that is no different than any other contract law where you agree to a means of mediation. I know that our union has such a contract and we cannot sue for many things unless our agreed upon process is not followed and therefor the contract violated. In fact we have sued but only to make the court get our employer back to the arbitration table, not to settle the lawsuit. We have to comply with the agreement to use arbitration. 
 
In the second case you cite, the case was overturned on the First Amendment. The law specifically banned the use of Sharia law but did not mention any others. I did not say to ban any religion law but to ban the use of "international" or "Sharia" law. 
 
The problem is the discriminatory nature of the amendment that spells out one specific religion but does not spell out others. Apparently by that OK constitutional amendment, you could use Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or other church doctrine to determine a lawsuit but not Sharia law. Explain to me how that does not violate the First Amendment where a single religion is named in a constitutional amendment. 
 
How under a state constitution or the US Constitution can you spell out a single religion as the law applies to and not violate the First Amendment? I think they might have an easier job passing constitutional muster if they had said something like, judges cannot consider any religion precept in determining a court case. OK chose not to put that on the ballot but chose to single out someone that they didn't like and are shocked when someone calls them on it.

TVC- regarding your comments on contract law- I have very little knowledge about the intracacies of the law. But am curious about this- when you sign a contract and agree to arbitration, arent you effectively waiving your right to sue? I always thought that a person could not be forced to waive basic rights and I always thought the right to sue was one of them. What am I missing?

[tvc184]

TVC- regarding your comments on contract law- I have very little knowledge about the intracacies of the law. But am curious about this- when you sign a contract and agree to arbitration, arent you effectively waiving your right to sue? I always thought that a person could not be forced to waive basic rights and I always thought the right to sue was one of them. What am I missing?

 

The problem is that suing is not a right. 

 

Civil law, like criminal law, is specific on what it covers. It includes what you can sue for and in some cases, what you cannot sue for, what the limits are  and what circumstances that allow a suit.

 

You mention waiving "rights" but the most intrusive laws on our lives are criminal laws where the state can take away everything up to your life yet under those laws, you can "waive your rights". You have the right to remain silent but you can certainly talk if you wish. You have the right to privacy in your home, on your person and in your papers and effects but if you wish to allow a search, you can do so. 

 

Those are just examples but you can see that you can waive a true right that is guaranteed under the US and various state constitutions. You can definitely waive a legal ability (not right) to bring a lawsuit. It is a common phrase that you can sue someone for anything and while I understand the sentiment (meaning you can make an accusation), you can only sue for what the law "allows" you to sue for. 

 

In Texas that is a set of laws called Civil Practice and Remedies Code that covers most of civil laws as it relates to lawsuits. 

[stevenash]

thanks for the clarification