Abbot says he will sign OC bill.

[breakingcontact]

yes, if you follow Obama's new way of thinking, you just ignore the actual vote and those voters who went out and cast them and seek the acknowledgment of the registered voters who didn't vote, but wait, it they didn't vote are they still voters or just bystanders?

He said "if you dont like how things are then go out and win an election". That happened. Now as per usual we have to make sure the GOP doesnt snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Ill see what I can dig up later regarding any potential OC bills that are ready to go in January. Id also like to see campus carry and CLEO signatures for NFA items.

 

[Dash Riprock]

They are not violating your right because you don't have a right to enter their property or buy their things.


I don't know of any law that requires an employer to allow employees to park on the employers property. Although the employer should have the ability to choose which employees can and can not park on their property. It is their right to do so, although the laws say otherwise.

Again, it comes down to not having any right to work for them, so if you have an employer you are agreeing to their rules. In some cases, if you are valuable enough, they will agree to yours.

So you're against the parking lot bill because employers aren't "required" to provide you with parking? Even if it was realistic to run a business without providing your employees with some rational mechanism for getting to and from said business, could the business owner say "my black employees can't park here but the white ones can", or, "you can park here but you can't have a Bible in your car"?

Either you can or you can't control everything on your property. And since you already can't, it is increasingly baffling to me that the one area where we allow rank discrimination is when it conflicts against a clearly enumerated constitutional right.

 

[Younggun]

So you're against the parking lot bill because employers aren't "required" to provide you with parking?

That's not what I said at all.

Even if it was realistic to run a business without providing your employees with some rational mechanism for getting to and from said business, could the business owner say "my black employees can't park here but the white ones can"? Either you can or you can't control everything on your property. And since you already can't, it is increasingly baffling to me that the one area where we allow rank discrimination is when it conflicts against a clearly enumerated constitutional right.

You have no right to be there. It's that simple. And because you have no right to be there you have no foundation for making demands of what you think you should be allowed to do while you are there.

I also never said that having the right to do something meant it was a smart thing to do, such as saying "blacks can't park here but whites can". Businesses do have that right, but the law doesn't allow it. Pretty stupid IMO.


Infringing rights will not help to stop the infringement of rights. That's just ridiculous logic.

By asking the gov to step in and force someone to do something they have every right not to do, we are no better than the liberals. And the end result will be no different. An even more bloated and out of control government and a society where everything is against the rules because somebody cried about it.

It's not your property, you have no right to be there, so you have no right to carry there. You are ALLOWED to do what they say or you have the right to no go there.


There's already enough nanny state, we don't need any more.

 

[Charlie]

Winner ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (especially the "nanny state" crap)

 

[Dash Riprock]

Fair enough, if a bit naive. The theory, which is not entirely unreasonable, is that by opening your doors to the public in order to attract business, or by engaging in principal/agent contracts through employment of others, you agree to abide by certain parameters. I'm willing to accept that but I insist that the parameters be consistent. Right now they aren't, and it's a huge problem that's about to get a lot worse.

 

[breakingcontact]

Fair enough, if a bit naive. The theory, which is not entirely unreasonable, is that by opening your doors to the public in order to attract business, or by engaging in principal/agent contracts through employment of others, you agree to abide by certain parameters. I'm willing to accept that but I insist that the parameters be consistent. Right now they aren't, and it's a huge problem that's about to get a lot worse.

Just came back from church. Sermon related to this conversation in that we first must recognize what is so we can recognize what can be.

 

[Dash Riprock]

Watch out, that sermon is likely to be subpoenaed (sp ?).

 

[breakingcontact]

Have to admit where we are first in terms of "rights" and that is in a bad spot. Then we can identify where we want to go. Id hate to see OC trigger 3006 all over so it may need to be worded carefully and/or 3006 examined for revision.

 

[seeker_two]

I understand your point stewie however Muslim, Christian, homosexual, black, stupid Liberal etc. is something you are, carrying OC or CC is something you do. It's just a bad comparison and doesn't hold up to critical observation. I agree it's discriminatory but tend to fall on the side of property owner rights and agree property owners should be permitted to refuse service to anyone. I think the market sorts such things out in short order, right or wrong aside. Just my opinion, I know you're asking txi but an example might be "no shirt, no shoes, no service" which is acceptable and a more direct comparison.

Question to all: How does one be Christian, Muslim, homosexual, liberal, or stupid without doing actions that conform to that belief?

Another question: If you believe in concealed carry as a citizen's right, how are the businesses that post 30.06 not discriminating against your beliefs?

Last question: How does one decide which beliefs are OK to discriminate against and which ones must be protected from discrimination?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Business have the right to discriminate, there are just stupid laws that prevent them from doing so in some areas.

Work to get those laws repealed instead of working to get more infringements passed.

 

[txinvestigator]

Have to admit where we are first in terms of "rights" and that is in a bad spot. Then we can identify where we want to go. Id hate to see OC trigger 3006 all over so it may need to be worded carefully and/or 3006 examined for revision.

The last bill would have added penal code 30.07 that was similar to 30.06, but for open carry. A business had to post 30.06 to ban concealed carry, and 30.07 to ban open carry.

 

[Younggun]

I don't see any reason that bill won't be resubmitted. It really just ran out of time.

I would be interested to hear why I would be wrong about that, if there is a reason it couldn't be.

 

[seeker_two]

Business have the right to discriminate, there are just stupid laws that prevent them from doing so in some areas.

Work to get those laws repealed instead of working to get more infringements passed.

I doubt you'll get much support from the special-interest communities for that.....

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[kusai]

Sign it

 

[breakingcontact]

http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62531

 

[TheDan]

Private property rights give businesses every right to deny someone entry for basically any reason

That just isn't true and I hope you know that.

Ah, so you support our socialist leaning governemnt and don't belive in private property. Thanks for clarifying.

Laws may say otherwise, but laws and rights are not the same thing. The use of laws which violate a persons rights as justification for more laws which violate people's rights is sickening.

By asking the gov to step in and force someone to do something they have every right not to do, we are no better than the liberals. And the end result will be no different. An even more bloated and out of control government and a society where everything is against the rules because somebody cried about it.


It's not your property, you have no right to be there, so you have no right to carry there. You are ALLOWED to do what they say or you have the right to no go there.


There's already enough nanny state, we don't need any more.

 

[kotetu]

Younggun I'm a libertarian and I agree on property rights. A strong point to make is that it is my choice as to where I go shopping, which businesses I support, etc. I do wonder though, if all owners of some commodity - gasoline, groceries, etc., chose to disallow firearms on their properties, does that constitute a need for relief? For example, I basically favor striking any law that compels a business to open their doors to everyone. The property owner should be able to do business with whomever he wishes. However, if all gas stations in a town wouldn't do business with black people, I see that as a problem. So then I think that perhaps necessities, energy, transportation, food, should be "protected commodities," etc. I'm not totally set on it, but just thinking.

 

[AustinN4]

Younggun I'm a libertarian and I agree on property rights. A strong point to make is that it is my choice as to where I go shopping, which businesses I support, etc. I do wonder though, if all owners of some commodity - gasoline, groceries, etc., chose to disallow firearms on their properties, does that constitute a need for relief? For example, I basically favor striking any law that compels a business to open their doors to everyone. The property owner should be able to do business with whomever he wishes. However, if all gas stations in a town wouldn't do business with black people, I see that as a problem. So then I think that perhaps necessities, energy, transportation, food, should be "protected commodities," etc. I'm not totally set on it, but just thinking.

Did you maybe post this in the wrong thread? Looks like it belongs in the property rights thread, not the OC thread.

 

[kotetu]

Did you maybe post this in the wrong thread? Looks like it belongs in the property rights thread, not the OC thread.

I'm responding to these several posts about property rights within this thread.

I gave an example about race, groceries and gasoline, but my thinking is the same on firearms. Should a property owner be able to keep out firearms? I say yes, though I despise that behavior. But again, if all property owners, say all grocery stores, took this stance, would that mean we should apply to the government for legal relief? I don't know. I am conflicted.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Property rights are the basis of capitalism. If you don't believe in property rights you are a communist.

If you're kind of half ass in the middle (99% of people) then you're probably a socialist or a ddemocrat.

Its a real easy question. People just need to decide what they want to be when they grow up.