Stand up for your 2A rights - BOYCOTT T.G.I. Fridays!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
But not to wax theologically, you can convert to or adopt various religions. Faced with job discrimination or the Inquisition - you could change this for pragmatic reasons. I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).

It is hard to argue that you could change the biology tagged as race or change the basic right of self defense.

Now whether I think there are basic fundamental rights like self-defense and where they came from is another argument set. :D
 
Glenn,

You are correct about religion I think. You can change that like socks and no one is the wiser. Maybe the answer is religion is what you proclaim to be.

I think this is a very difficult question. I have debated this issue concerning employer's work rules against CCW on TFL a few times.

So the moral question might be does your right to self defense (which predates the COTUS) trump the rights of employers and private property?

The issue that to me in the defining one is that of true choice. It would seem that if you have a true choice (and that is NOT always a given) then should you simply take your business/employment elsewhere where you can carry and respect the work rule/private property of another?

I have posited the case of the battered woman who is being stalked by ex-hubbie/boyfriend who is not safe anywhere without a firearm. Does her right to self defense get trumped by work rules or private property? Should she just quit her job and not leave the house shopping thru the internet or risk injury/death at the hands of her ex?

If the business/employers does not allow firearms should it then take stronger steps to insure your safety with metal detactors and armed guards? Some businesses do that.
 
We have cell phone alert system as our first means of defense. :D

I suppose I will call the Rabbi so he can smooth my journey to the Afterlife.
 
But not to wax theologically, you can convert to or adopt various religions. Faced with job discrimination or the Inquisition - you could change this for pragmatic reasons. I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).
Click to expand...
But won't you still "be" as opposed to "do". Does one "do" Jewish or is one Jewish? Is one Muslim or does one "do" Muslim? If one "does" muslim but is not a Muslim, does it count? :confused:
Carrying is not a status, carrying is always something you do. Just as ones religion may give protected status, some of the religious practices that are done are allowed to be prohibited.
 
Carrying a gun anywhere you want is not a civil right.
Click to expand...
That is legally true. IMHO, that should be changed such that carrying is a civil right and can only be taken away in specific circumstances that can pose a clear and present technical danger.

For example, carrying by the MRI which will cause your gun to go off or be dragged to the machine.

Thus, carriers should be a protected class. But that's just my view. Does this view conflict with the property rights crowd - yes - but some of them still argue for the right to oppose segregation and I have little use for that view.
Click to expand...

We are beginning to sound a little like spoiled children - IT's NOT FAIR!

I have a right to keep and bear arms. You have a right of ownership of your property. If I want to go onto/into your property, don't I have an obligation, prior to entering, to accept your permission as you grant it?

Don't we acknowledge the fact that the 2nd amendment is there to enable the keeping of our other inalienable rights?

I have a right to carry a weapon. I do not have a right to come onto your property. I need your permission for that. You get to set the terms of that permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

If I want to carry my weapon more than meet your terms of permission, I may make my choice to not accept your terms. In doing so I am refusing your permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

I do not have the right to being a special class, because I am not a special class. You owe me nothing because I carry a filearm, because I are not required to carry a firearm. Carrying a firearm and accepting your terms of entry onto/into your propery are my choices, which I have the right to make. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

Getting permission onto/into your property under my own terms is not my right. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

But I know, it's still not fair.
End of Rant.
 
Getting permission onto/into your property under my own terms is not my right. There is no "rights" conflict in this.
Click to expand...
Bingo. T.G.I. Friday's is not forcing anyone to frequent their establishment (thank goodness), and I'm willing to bet they're not the only place in town at which to procure food.

Simple enough. Don't go there. If you see value in changing their minds about this, contact the right people, in the right ways.

Boy, this one's drifted...
 
I refuse to eat there just because the food is nasty and nothing and i mean nothing is fresh it all comes from bags or boxes (used to work in the kitchen) and the one I worked in no one cared how filthy the kitchen got.
 
Does one "do" Jewish or is one Jewish?
Click to expand...

That David is a core debate in the behaviorial sciences - only observable behavior vs. hypothesized internal processes. I'll let that go for my Fundamentals of Cognition course in the fall. :D

Needless to say - I will stand on proposing laws that prevent private businesses, public and private schools and governmental buildings that are open to the public from banning carry unless they can come up with the compelling technical reason.

Rights are a social construct and not a physical law of the universe or some abstract principle as in mathematics. I want the social construct of carry to be deemed as worthy as our other restrictions on property rights that forbid segregation and the like.

Let the legislative process enact this and it will be so.
 
That David is a core debate in the behaviorial sciences - only observable behavior vs. hypothesized internal processes.
Click to expand...
I agree, and that is why I bring the issue up in the civil rights context, as that is a big part of the debate. Do we prevent discrimination based on what you are, or do we prevent discrimination based on what you do.
Needless to say - I will stand on proposing laws that prevent private businesses, public and private schools and governmental buildings that are open to the public from banning carry unless they can come up with the compelling technical reason.
Click to expand...
And while I would agree with you on public property I would consider such a law an unwarranted extension of government power and intrusion regarding private business, as well as interference with free market capitalism.
Rights are a social construct and not a physical law of the universe or some abstract principle as in mathematics.
Click to expand...
Hey now, you can't say that! We all know that rights are granted by God, inalienable, and society and people have nothing to do with them!:p
I want the social construct of carry to be deemed as worthy as our other restrictions on property rights that forbid segregation and the like.
Click to expand...
If one grants such a construct based on what someone does instead of what they are, doesn't that open the door to forcing business to allow other things we "do" that the business might not want done on their property?
From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?
 
From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?
Click to expand...

I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference! :D
 
I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).
Click to expand...
Glad to hear you're not quite so old as I thought Glenn! :p

I can't believe that this thread has gone this far! The property rights vs carry rights issue usually blows up pretty quick. On the down side, I don't think we're any closer to resolving the issue here. On the upside, I think most everyone now knows what to expect out of TGIF's kitchen, as well as their lawyer's offices.
 
If you want to see how old I look:
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, you're but a young lad, Glenn!

So, it seems Red Lobster may be more gun friendly than TGIF, but the big question is (in my butter-basted little brain anyway) is the food any better?
 
carreing in ga

not sure but i think in ga you can carry consield if the place makes less than 33% of its sales on the bar where I WOULD THINK would be any tgif.:rolleyes:
 
palmnos,
Are you a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), http://www.vcdl.org/ ? They are very active in getting VA gun laws changed for the good. If you want things to change maybe you should get involved.
 
Kinda ironic that the only places of business I recall seeing "no carry" postings are gun stores.... here in gun-friendly, sunny California.
 
From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?
Click to expand...
I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference!
Click to expand...
You are right, that really is about the only difference, as the actual substance is the same.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The substance is specifically very different from a rights point of view. The key word is "mandating", by the government. When rights issues are CONTROLLED by the government, that is called tyranny, and the rights do not exist. The laws concerning rights would always be better if they stipulated "may", in regard to the citizens, and WILL, SHALL, or MUST in regard to thegovernment. As in, "businesses MAY permit legal weapon carriers into the business", versus "businesses SHALL or MUST permit legal weapon carriers into the business" or "businesses SHALL NOT permit legal weapon carriers into the business"
or
"a CCW permit SHALL be granted [by the government] unless...", versus "a CCW permit MAY be granted [by the government] under certain circumstances".

It really makes a difference who may and who shall. If our only goal is to get a certain agenda mandated and in place, we are no better than the rights takers we say we are fighting.

Only thieves deny and violate an owner's property rights.
 
We shall go off into the void if we try to argue that property rights are inviolate. We've been there before.

The government mandates that you have a toilet in your restaurant. Thus, are they thieves to do such for the good of public health?

When you open for business, you are not in your castle. Also, you expect tax payers to foot the bill for emergency services to come to your place of business. You can't claim splendid isolation and inviolate property rights when you interact with the populace and expect civic services.

But, if we do this again - we've reached the end - same old, same old. Anything else new to say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top