Talk about controversial!

[TheDan]

He can probably get his ass in a sling by limiting what religion can use his services, just like he could if he said he would not teach the class to a particular race.

He might get in trouble in today's overly PC world, but religion is a choice; not something you're born with like race. Choices are fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I prefer a guy who tells you exactly where he stands to one that stands for nothing. Even if you disagree with him, he doesn't leave you guessing.

+1... I don't agree with the guy and think he's making a poor business decision, but I'll support his freedom to run his business how he wants.

If it were a CHL instructor excluding Red Necks and Christians wonder what the take would be here?

That's why I like threads like these. Let's you know where folks stand.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

He might get in trouble in today's overly PC world, but religion is a choice; not something you're born with like race. Choices are fair game as far as I'm concerned.

Everything should be fair game as far as I'm concerned. You should be able to deny people business because you hate their face or their girlfriend is fat and you don't want her in your store. I wouldn't agree with those decisions either, but yeah they should be your decision to make as the property/business owner.

 

[Renegade]

His class his choice on who he teaches. I'm agnostic so I guess even though I'm military I'm out. Doesn't bother me when my time comes for renewal next year I know where I won't be spending my money.

Maybe, maybe not. He is quasi-selling an Govt benefit and is licensed by the state. That puts it into a gray area. If it was Fed, he would be hosed, but I do not think Texas addresses this. He risks losing a lawsuit though.

If the DPS officer who gives him his CHL Certification is a Muslim or Arab Jew, bet he would not have the sack to tell them what he thinks.

 

[Renegade]

I prefer a guy who tells you exactly where he stands to one that stands for nothing. Even if you disagree with him, he doesn't leave you guessing.

+1.

And he tells he is a ignorant jackass. NO CHL for folks like Shaquil O'Neal, or Steve Jobs, but no problem for Timmy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph.

 

[Jakashh]

So who else here isn't allowed to take his CHL class?

 

[TexasRedneck]

If it were a CHL instructor excluding Red Necks and Christians wonder what the take would be here?

Got to add this is a good example that demonstrates why this 2nd Amendment as a right shouldn't be licensed. I believe the course and even the practical are as bigoted as this advertisement in discriminating against age, homelessness, various medical disorders and social economical reasons.

I'd be fine w/it, personally. Just as those businesses that post 30.06 don't need my business - but I don't try to get them shut down for it. Folks, we've gone way too far in the "there ought to be a law" department IMO. If you want to say that you don't want ugly, stupid ikjits in your store then Alan an' Travis can always find someplace else to shop. It's SUPPOSED to be a free country - and that means free for ALL of us to do as we wish. If he were the ONLY one offering such services within that county, then I'd be inclined to say "dude, you need to come to some kind of accomodation", but that's not the case - so let him do HIS business as HE wishes!

 

[Renegade]

Maybe, maybe not. He is quasi-selling an Govt benefit and is licensed by the state. That puts it into a gray area. If it was Fed, he would be hosed, but I do not think Texas addresses this. He risks losing a lawsuit though.

My bad.

Look like it is a violation of Federal Law. Specifically

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[London]

Apu doesn't get a license but Mr. Burns does? Seems silly.

 

[TheDan]

So who else here isn't allowed to take his CHL class?

You're of Asian decent, right? You wouldn't be disqualified

 

[nitronate33]

i figure if you are prejudiced (and we all are to some degree or another), you've got real balls admitting it publicly. kudos to him! when it comes to prejudice, everyone is a player and how you fit in all depends on what society deems as "acceptable" prejudice.

 

[Vaquero]

His store, his call, his ass.

 

[Dcav]

He can lose his instructor credentials for that actually I do believe.

While I could not find any reg, we had a similiar discussion/comment come up during the first 30 minutes of the instructor class. and they stated as instructors we could not discriminate on race/religion etc etc. Now looks like DPS is investigating him:

Quote from the article:

"The Department of Public Safety said in a statement that certified instructors of handgun training are required to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, and added: "Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion would place that instructor's certification by the Department at risk of suspension or revocation." The department has said it has begun an investigation."


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ad-gun-training-bars-muslims-obama-voters-153954962.html

 

[TheDan]

Everything should be fair game as far as I'm concerned. You should be able to deny people business because you hate their face or their girlfriend is fat and you don't want her in your store. I wouldn't agree with those decisions either, but yeah they should be your decision to make as the property/business owner.

Well yeah, I agree that on private property (which would include a place of business) you aught to be able to exclude on whatever basis you want. I personally just draw the line between choices and constants. When I find myself criticizing someone based on something they were born with, I think to myself "hold on, they can't change that, so I shouldn't criticize it." Kind of like making fun of a disabled person... it's just not cool.

Religion is 100% a choice, tho... So your's is dumb, and mine is awesome. Na na, nanny freakin' boo boo

 

[cfell]

Well, here is a 'canned' reply I received after submitting an "I support Mr. Keller" note to the DPS Concealed Carry folks... I receive a reply in inder 5 minutes.. ya think this is gonna get bigger?

---

The Texas Department of Public Safety certifies individuals to teach coursework and provide training required to be taken by individuals seeking to qualify for a Texas concealed handgun license. Certified instructors are required to comply with all applicable state and federal statutes. Conduct by an instructor that denied service to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity or religion would place that instructor’s certification by the Department at risk of suspension or revocation. The Department became aware of the statements in question yesterday and has begun an investigation into the matter. The Department will take appropriate administrative action based on the findings from the investigation.


Best regards,
Concealed Handgun Program
Customer Relations Section

Our mailing address:
Texas Department of Public Safety
Concealed Handgun License Program, MSC 0245
PO Box 4087
Austin, TX 78773-0245

 

[cfell]

Mr. Keller would be hung out to dry if someone he 'teaches' the course ends up doing something bad with a firearm... Do you recall how much heat the Flight Schools received for teaching the 911 TERRORISTS?

 

[Dcav]

Mr. Keller would be hung out to dry if someone he 'teaches' the course ends up doing something bad with a firearm... Do you recall how much heat the Flight Schools received for teaching the 911 TERRORISTS?

Doubtful. As a CHL instructor, all I am doing is teaching the required material and administering a written test and a shooting proficiency test. The Texas department of public safety conducts all background investigations etc. It is not your job as a instructor to weed out anyone unless it involves safety concerns on the range or disruptive in the class room. My .02

 

[cfell]

Dcav.. in a perfect world, even within the confined bureaucracy of the DPS, yeah, I see your point.

As another type of DPS instructor, I had to present material.. and official testing... but, my word also carried weight and some people were not licensed under my watch. Hopefully I saved a few lives.. we'll never know.

Here is the 'law/rules' from teh CHL Instructor Pamphlet.. I have pulled that address "eligibility"..
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/CHLInstrPamphlet.pdf

begin excerpt...

GC §411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to
carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to
the proper use and storage of a handgun

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(7), a person is incapable of exercising
sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of
a handgun if the person:

(D) dissociative identity disorder;
(E) intermittent explosive disorder; or
(F) antisocial personality disorder.

...end excerpt..

It seems "E" directly speaks to the terrorist concern..

 

[winchster]

Too bad we are slowly sliding further into a place where liberty is squashed. This guy should have the right to do as he wants in who he does business with. If you don't agree with the stance he has taken, then take your business elsewhere. I'm with TR on this, it's a lot like 30.06 posted places. If you don't agree, go somewhere else, but the guy should have the "right" to do business as he wants. It will either be a rousing success or an abject failure. His choice.

 

[M. Sage]

Too bad we are slowly sliding further into a place where liberty is squashed. This guy should have the right to do as he wants in who he does business with. If you don't agree with the stance he has taken, then take your business elsewhere. I'm with TR on this, it's a lot like 30.06 posted places. If you don't agree, go somewhere else, but the guy should have the "right" to do business as he wants. It will either be a rousing success or an abject failure. His choice.

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that we have to go to people like him in order to exercise our basic rights. When you're providing a service that the state requires me to partake, you don't get to discriminate any more than the state.

He's acting as an agent of the state.

 

[Vaquero]

I would agree if it weren't for the fact that we have to go to people like him in order to exercise our basic rights. When you're providing a service that the state requires me to partake, you don't get to discriminate any more than the state.

He's acting as an agent of the state.

If the state and fed weren't infringing on your right to keep and bear, we wouldn't care who he will and won't do business with.