"No Guns" signs violation of civil rights?

[Armymutt]

With the recent decision in Colorado against a baker for not making a wedding cake for a same sex marriage as a civil rights violation, it sounds like the door is open for making the same assertion about the right to carry. After all, isn't it discrimination against a carrier by denying that individual the ability to carry?

 

[oneounceload]

No as gun owners are not a protected class

 

[Willie Sutton]

Again: Civil Rights define your relationship with the Government.

So.... unless you are in a protected class (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc), private parties can do exactly as they please.


Willie

.

 

[eldon519]

Unless it changed recently, at the federal level sexual identity and orientation were not protected either for employment purposes.

 

[Agsalaska]

No.

 

[pj777]

When it comes to other people's right to say who is/isn't allowed on their property, no. Their place, their rules. I wouldn't agree with the baker getting in trouble either.

 

[Deus Machina]

I believe there should be a cutoff. Start a chain, lose the ability to deny people or common acts.
But a privately owned single store? They could decide not to serve gun owners, homosexuals, or people with orange skin and a Jersey accent for all I care. Their property, their loss
Excluding anyone means they won't be getting my business, though.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Just to play devil's advocate, is it not a violation of property owners' rights to tell them they can't prohibit carry on their own property? (Of course, what they don't know won't hurt them. )

 

[Robert]

Keep it firearms related, the baker is only an example and is not a topic for discussion on THR.

 

[Lantern]

edit.....I think my post was too much soapbox and not enough gun talk to be high road. So I'm deleting.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...isn't it discrimination against a carrier by denying that individual the ability to carry?

Yes it is discrimination, but unless on a basis specifically prohibited by statute or court decision, discrimination by a private actor is legal.

1. Unless we're talking about government property, the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
   
   The Constitution does not regulate private conduct. See Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614, 1 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added:

   "....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ...

   
   
2. Yes, barring people from carrying guns on one's property is discrimination, but in general discrimination is perfectly legal.
   
   Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.
   
   Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurants discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge.
   
   Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property. Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal.
   
   
3. To the extent it may be illegal for a business to discriminate, it's because of a statute and not the Constitution.
   
   There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases such as race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and some others, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category. These various anti-discrimination laws only prohibit discrimination on those various specified grounds. Having a gun isn't one of them.
   
   [*] Conflicting rights often rub against each other, and when they do, it's been customary in our system for a legislative body to decide priorities and enact laws to ameliorate the rubbing.
   
   Businesses open to the public are subject to numerous regulations and requirements limiting the business' freedom to use its property and conduct business as it chooses. These various requirements, regulations and rules to which a business open to the public is subject arose through the political process in which interested parties can participate; and they therefore reflect a considered determination by a legislative body or authorized administrative agency that as a matter of public policy the public interest served by the requirement, regulation or rule was sufficient to justify impairment of the property rights of the business.
   
   Of course there's a conflict between the rights of an honest citizen to lawfully carry a gun and the right of a business to control its property and exclude people carrying a gun, if it so chooses. So far, to the extent that state legislatures have acted on the question, they have usually recognized the business' property rights and at least have provided some mechanism by which business can require that gun carriers leave on request or be charged with criminal trespass.
   
   
4. Market forces, however, can have an impact.
   
   An interesting side issue that seems to be getting missed is that while business can bar guns, and some do, many do not. And some businesses which have done so in the past, have, because of pressure from customers, reversed their policies. And so whether a business chooses to bar guns is another thing susceptible to the forces of the free market.

 

[benEzra]

Declaring that no one can carry would not violate equal-protection laws, but saying that straight people could carry, but gay people could not, would be a violation.

That's no different than if a restaurant said that same-race couples could be served but multiracial couples could not, or if nonwhites or non-straight people had to sit in a special segregated section.

Personally (and I say this as someone who supports gay marriage), I think that going after the confectioner may have been an overreach *if* the confectioner had not already agreed to make them a cake prior to finding out they were a same-sex couple, because backing out after plans have been made raises other issues. I don't know the whole story here, so I don't know if that was the case or not.

 

[shafter]

Unless the store has metal detectors and pat down searches a sign isn't going to stop me from carrying. The worst they can do is ask me to leave (which I would do) if discovered.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Unless the store has metal detectors and pat down searches a sign isn't going to stop me from carrying. The worst they can do is ask me to leave (which I would do) if discovered.

It depends on where you are. In some States entering a properly posted premises while carrying a gun is itself a crime and makes you subject to immediate arrest.

 

[texasgun]

No. "Gun owners" are not a protected group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

So why a business CANNOT say "No Blacks allowed" or "No women allowed", they can say "No guns allowed" or "No demonstrations allowed".

So in short: private business' can restrict your 1A or 2A rights or 4A rights pretty well.

Example: if you work for Boeing the security team there CAN search your car without a warrant on their property AND they can prohibit you from carrying on their property as well. However - they cannot fire you because you are a woman or over the age of 50.

 

[eldon519]

Usually discrimination pertains to one's identity and things they cannot change. For instance I can't change my race or sex willy nilly. Restrictions on having a gun is almost more akin to a dress code. It is an accessory you can add or remove at will to comply.

 

[Armymutt]

I disagree that one can change their orientation toward firearms any more than they can their sexual orientation. In the case example, the baker didn't refuse to make a cake because they were gay, but because it was for a gay wedding. Orientation vs. action. Unless sexual orientation is a protected class in CO, this case should open the door to discrimination suits against establishments that refuse to serve people bearing firearms.

 

[eldon519]

Ugh, you can take off your gun and leave it at home or in the car. You can't just change your sexual orientation for 15 minutes while you run into the bakery? What would you do? Hook up with a chick to become straight, run into the bakery, and then come back out and hook up with a guy to become gay again? Your inability to see the difference concerns me.

 

[marv]

You should know that gun owners/carriers have very few rights, civil or otherwise.

 

[jim243]

This strikes me as one of those silly "What if" posts. Most State CCW laws enumerate the property owners rights to restrict CCW guns.

So are you saying it is illegal for the State to make the law or for the baker to follow the law???

Jim

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Your inability to see the difference concerns me.

Don't be too surprised, ArmyMutt's response is not atypical of how many gun owners view themselves.

But, yes, you nailed it. A person can easily switch between carrying/not carrying. It is a physical accessory, nothing more.

Now, if a store owner said "No service for CCW Holders" or "No service for NRA members" or "No service for republicans" or something like that, then there that might be a little closer to a "No service for gay couples," but still not the same.

 

[Gallstones]

It is up to the state.

“No Firearm” signs in Montana have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

Off Limits Property even with concealed permit (no permit needed for open carry) MCA 45-8-328, 45-8-339, 45-8-361

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Most State CCW laws enumerate the property owners rights to restrict CCW guns.

So are you saying it is illegal for the State to make the law or for the baker to follow the law???...

1. Well the baker's case doesn't really have anything directly to do with CCW law.
   
   BTW, it anyone had bothered to research the case he'd find, as outlined in this ABC News article, that it was a decision of an Administrative Law Judge. An ALJ's decision really doesn't set precedent. The baker may also appeal, although it's uncertain whether he will.
   
   
2. I suspect that state laws specifically allowing business to bar persons lawfully carrying a gun was part of a political trade-off in connection with the enactment of "shall issue" CCW laws. Without that business opposition to "shall issue" might have been significant.

...Unless sexual orientation is a protected class in CO,...

Again, with all the wonderful on-line research tools available to us, it seems a shame that folks don't seem to be willing to bother. In any case, as noted in the ABC News article I linked to above (emphasis added):

...Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation...

 

[BullfrogKen]

That baker is out of business. Heard the update in an interview this morning.

He was forced out. The GBLT groups also called his local suppliers non-stop and told them if they supplied him, they'd get the same treatment he did.


I don't think I want to see us manhandle and threaten a business they way they did him and his. - no I'm certain I don't want to see that.

 

[InkEd]

I think the baker had the right to refuse service to ANYONE because it is a private business. Also, I feel businesses should have the right to not permit firearms of they want. Private property/enterprise issues.