Sprouts Market 30.06

[TheDan]

While I respect that Texas law states that Sprouts, or any business, has a right to prohibit concealed carry, I don't agree with that position.

Interesting first post... I welcome you and your opinion to the forum even though it's wrong

 

[TXARGUY]

While I respect that Texas law states that Sprouts, or any business, has a right to prohibit concealed carry, I don't agree with that position. When the Jim Crowe laws that prohibited blacks from certain business establishments (or mandated where blacks could sit when visiting that establishment) came under attack, the courts, and the court of public opinion, stated that a business open to the public must be open and equally welcoming to ALL of the public. It is wrong, our society decided, to prohibit blacks, or any other population group, from entering a business that was open to the public.

Philosophically, I draw a distinction between a private property owner (e.g., a homeowner) and a business establishment. An owner of a property that is not a business that's open to the public has the absolute right to prohibit anyone from the premises, whereas, a business owner assumes certain restrictions on his property rights when he operates a business.

When an establishment is open to the public, I think a business owner's rights should be limited to ejecting any specific individual who, in the business owner's opinion, is acting in an inappropriate manner. Denying access unilaterally to any law-abiding group, should not be allowed.

Nice first post. If you'd done it in an introduction thread it would have been better.

You know what I'm saying.

Full disclosure; I am an honorably discharged former staff Sergeant Cavalry Scout (Army). I've worked hard and have been very successful in life in the 20+ years since I left the military. I have a wife. I have a 15 year old daughter. I own land and I own minerals.

I'm 42 years old and don't have anything more than a few speeding (well earned) tickets on my record.

I have a concealed handgun license which means I have passed a federal background check.

I carry a gun.

I am also a picky eater. I love locally grown organic.

I believe that locally grown foods, no matter where you go, reflect the area you are in much more than any chain restaurant could possibly do.

I'd like to come into Sprouts. I used to.

[END FULL DISCLOSURE]

All that said; what is your affiliation with Sprouts?

No one ever uses their first post on a random thread like this if they weren't somehow affiliated with the party being discussed.

Ever.

Full disclosure.

What is your affiliation?

 

[txinvestigator]

While I respect that Texas law states that Sprouts, or any business, has a right to prohibit concealed carry, I don't agree with that position. When the Jim Crowe laws that prohibited blacks from certain business establishments (or mandated where blacks could sit when visiting that establishment) came under attack, the courts, and the court of public opinion, stated that a business open to the public must be open and equally welcoming to ALL of the public. It is wrong, our society decided, to prohibit blacks, or any other population group, from entering a business that was open to the public.

Philosophically, I draw a distinction between a private property owner (e.g., a homeowner) and a business establishment. An owner of a property that is not a business that's open to the public has the absolute right to prohibit anyone from the premises, whereas, a business owner assumes certain restrictions on his property rights when he operates a business.

When an establishment is open to the public, I think a business owner's rights should be limited to ejecting any specific individual who, in the business owner's opinion, is acting in an inappropriate manner. Denying access unilaterally to any law-abiding group, should not be allowed.

(Oh, and I love farmer's markets and I'm the furthest thing from a hippie freak. I just like fresh, non-GMO foods, produced in a more healthful manner and purchased directly from the people that produce them.)

The glaring fault with your position is that Sprouts is not prohibiting ANYONE from entering. They are not allowing your handgun. That is quite different from telling a black person to stay out. No group is being denied access.

 

[breakingcontact]

The glaring fault with your position is that Sprouts is not prohibiting ANYONE from entering. They are not allowing your handgun. That is quite different from telling a black person to stay out. No group is being denied access.

Certainly get your point but a "group" is being denied access while exercising what it is that puts them into that group. It is discrimination although legal.

 

[txinvestigator]

Certainly get your point but a "group" is being denied access while exercising what it is that puts them into that group. It is discrimination although legal.

Again, that is NOTHING like making someone stay out based on race. At all.

 

[breakingcontact]

Again, that is NOTHING like making someone stay out based on race. At all.

Understand but its still a group. Also to the socialists there is no such thing as race. Its an artificial social construct that is forced upon people or chosen by them. So if we are using their logic...

 

[txinvestigator]

Understand but its still a group

And?


.

Also to the socialists there is no such thing as race. Its an artificial social construct that is forced upon people or chosen by them. So if we are using their logic...

lol I have no idea what that means.

 

[BADJUJU]

Certainly get your point but a "group" is being denied access while exercising what it is that puts them into that group. It is discrimination although legal.

That kinda sounds like "Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I certainly wouldn't call it discrimination, it's more of a stipulation.
If there were a sign that read 'no blacks' that would be exclusion, nothing you could do to alter the outcome.
but the 30.06 give you an option.

 

[breakingcontact]

And?


.

lol I have no idea what that means.

Its what they told my cracker ass in college. They told me a lot of things in college.

 

[JHP]

Actually I have no affiliation with Sprouts, other than I used to enjoy shopping there because I'm increasingly concerned about processed and otherwise adulterated foods. (I'll never shop there again, though.) I shop at my local farmer's market whenever I can and I try to eat local foods, purchased from the growers/ranchers who produce the food. I'm a writer and blogger on the subject of preventive health, thus my interest in healthful foods.

I'm also a CHL holder who, other than a couple of speeding tickets, has never been in trouble with the law. I've carried with a CHL for 19 years in the north Texas area.

This wasn't a random thread. It was the first thread I found when I Googled after seeing the 30.06 sign at Sprouts. I wanted to see if people were outraged as I am over it or if the response was "ho-hum, I'll just leave my gun in the car." Personally, I'd like to see Sprouts tank and close, solely because of this insipid decision. I doubt that a boycott by the few percentage of us who carry will make any difference to their bottom line.

 

[Hoji]

Actually I have no affiliation with Sprouts, other than I used to enjoy shopping there because I'm increasingly concerned about processed and otherwise adulterated foods. (I'll never shop there again, though.) I shop at my local farmer's market whenever I can and I try to eat local foods, purchased from the growers/ranchers who produce the food. I'm a writer and blogger on the subject of preventive health, thus my interest in healthful foods.

I'm also a CHL holder who, other than a couple of speeding tickets, has never been in trouble with the law. I've carried with a CHL for 19 years in the north Texas area.

This wasn't a random thread. It was the first thread I found when I Googled after seeing the 30.06 sign at Sprouts. I wanted to see if people were outraged as I am over it or if the response was "ho-hum, I'll just leave my gun in the car." Personally, I'd like to see Sprouts tank and close, solely because of this insipid decision. I doubt that a boycott by the few percentage of us who carry will make any difference to their bottom line.

Sadly, you are correct. We do not make up a big enough percentage of their customer base.
IIRC, Alamo Drafthouse started posting and a polite, and concerted effort from CHL holders got them to remove the signs. Apparently we do make up enough of their customer base to affect their bottom line.

 

[JHP]

The concept at the root of the difference being discussed here is legally known as "immutability." An immutable characteristic is something that cannot be shed by an individual (e.g., one cannot leave his race in the car) whereas a non-immutable characteristic is one that can shed, discarded, or renounced. As you point out, one can leave his gun in the car, making lawfully caring a gun a non-immutable characteristic.

In short, those rejecting my argument are saying that polices based upon something that's non-immutable cannot be defined as discrimination. (Or stated without all the negatives, only immutable characteristics can define a social group for the purposes of claiming discrimination.)

The trouble with this response to my argument is that there are many protected social groups who are defined based upon characteristics that are not immutable. In fact, the U.S.'s own precedents that define "immutable" define immutable as something that "cannot be changed or should not be required to be changed." An example of social groups that are protected from discrimination under federal law are pregnant women and religious affiliation, both having non-immutable characteristics. Being pregnant or one's religious affiliation, while changeable by the individual, are personal conditions and choices that federal law says should not be required to be changed in order to be afforded the same rights as others in our society, presumably because asking an individual to make such a change violates their fundamental rights as human beings. We would be outraged if a business stated that women are welcome as long as they weren't carrying a fetus or [insert religious group here] were welcome only if they publicly renounced their religion or shed any religious icons.

I argue that carrying a weapon, under the authority of the U.S. Constitution and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, falls under the same umbrella as any other social groups who are practicing a non-immutable personal decision that defines them as a social class. Telling me that even though I'm a law-abiding individual I can enter their store only if I agree to shed my constitutionally protected weapon, lawfully carried, is no different than "stipulating" that a Jewish man can only enter the store if he leaves his kippah in the car or telling a priest that he's welcome only if he removes his collar and cross. Or telling women that they can shop only if they're not carrying a fetus.

 

[Hoji]

The concept at the root of the difference being discussed here is legally known as "immutability." An immutable characteristic is something that cannot be shed by an individual (e.g., one cannot leave his race in the car) whereas a non-immutable characteristic is one that can shed, discarded, or renounced. As you point out, one can leave his gun in the car, making lawfully caring a gun a non-immutable characteristic.

In short, those rejecting my argument are saying that polices based upon something that's non-immutable cannot be defined as discrimination. (Or stated without all the negatives, only immutable characteristics can define a social group for the purposes of claiming discrimination.)

The trouble with this response to my argument is that there are many protected social groups who are defined based upon characteristics that are not immutable. In fact, the U.S.'s own precedents that define "immutable" define immutable as something that "cannot be changed or should not be required to be changed." An example of social groups that are protected from discrimination under federal law are pregnant women and religious affiliation, both having non-immutable characteristics. Being pregnant or one's religious affiliation, while changeable by the individual, are personal conditions and choices that federal law says should not be required to be changed in order to be afforded the same rights as others in our society, presumably because asking an individual to make such a change violates their fundamental rights as human beings. We would be outraged if a business stated that women are welcome as long as they weren't carrying a fetus or [insert religious group here] were welcome only if they publicly renounced their religion or shed any religious icons.

I argue that carrying a weapon, under the authority of the U.S. Constitution and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, falls under the same umbrella as any other social groups who are practicing a non-immutable personal decision that defines them as a social class. Telling me that even though I'm a law-abiding individual I can enter their store only if I agree to shed my constitutionally protected weapon, lawfully carried, is no different than "stipulating" that a Jewish man can only enter the store if he leaves his kippah in the car or telling a priest that he's welcome only if he removes his collar and cross. Or telling women that they can shop only if they're not carrying a fetus.

interesting POV. Well said.

 

[TheDan]

The trouble with this response to my argument is that there are many protected social groups who are defined based upon characteristics that are not immutable.

Just because the federal (and sometimes local) government has created protected classes doesn't make it right. Property owners should have a say in who can and cannot be on their property. The whole concept of "public space" on private property violates property rights. It would be hypocritical of me to advocate for property rights, yet complain that I'm not one of those protected classes that get's to violate them.

If someone doesn't want me on their property due to my self protection choices (or any other reason) they have that right, and I'm more than happy to oblige them by not doing business with them.

 

[Saltyag2010]

I'm not a sprouts guy myself. I'll keep supporting heb or Kroger.

 

[TXARGUY]

The concept at the root of the difference being discussed here is legally known as "immutability." An immutable characteristic is something that cannot be shed by an individual (e.g., one cannot leave his race in the car) whereas a non-immutable characteristic is one that can shed, discarded, or renounced. As you point out, one can leave his gun in the car, making lawfully caring a gun a non-immutable characteristic.

In short, those rejecting my argument are saying that polices based upon something that's non-immutable cannot be defined as discrimination. (Or stated without all the negatives, only immutable characteristics can define a social group for the purposes of claiming discrimination.)

The trouble with this response to my argument is that there are many protected social groups who are defined based upon characteristics that are not immutable. In fact, the U.S.'s own precedents that define "immutable" define immutable as something that "cannot be changed or should not be required to be changed." An example of social groups that are protected from discrimination under federal law are pregnant women and religious affiliation, both having non-immutable characteristics. Being pregnant or one's religious affiliation, while changeable by the individual, are personal conditions and choices that federal law says should not be required to be changed in order to be afforded the same rights as others in our society, presumably because asking an individual to make such a change violates their fundamental rights as human beings. We would be outraged if a business stated that women are welcome as long as they weren't carrying a fetus or [insert religious group here] were welcome only if they publicly renounced their religion or shed any religious icons.

I argue that carrying a weapon, under the authority of the U.S. Constitution and in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, falls under the same umbrella as any other social groups who are practicing a non-immutable personal decision that defines them as a social class. Telling me that even though I'm a law-abiding individual I can enter their store only if I agree to shed my constitutionally protected weapon, lawfully carried, is no different than "stipulating" that a Jewish man can only enter the store if he leaves his kippah in the car or telling a priest that he's welcome only if he removes his collar and cross. Or telling women that they can shop only if they're not carrying a fetus.

I really appreciate your taking the time to answer my question fully.

I think we'd get along. Just had to question your motives for a bit.

Oh, and welcome to TGT. I hope you stick around.

Carry on.

 

[Odiferous]

Completely wrong and advice that can get a person arrested. Carrying past a properly posted and complaint 30.06 sign is a class A misdemeanor. No one has to tell you to leave first. If they suspect you of carry they can call the police, and the police will arrest you for violation of penal code 30.06 on the spot.

That's the difference between a properly posted 30.06 sign and a "gunbuster" sign.

 

[breakingcontact]

So...a Christian bakery has to bake a cake under force of law for some unrepentant sinners but I cant carry a gun into Sprouts? Is this thing not clear yet?

 

[Tejano Scott]

Are you breaking contact with Sprouts or not?

 

[breakingcontact]

Are you breaking contact with Sprouts or not?

I have. Mostly because I moved out of Austin though.