I have. Mostly because I moved out of Austin though.
Welcome to Texas!
I have. Mostly because I moved out of Austin though.
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.
I'm not a sprouts guy myself. I'll keep supporting heb or Kroger.
I don't think that a property owner that is licensed as a publicly accessible business has the right to deny access to specific social groups.
If you're open to the public, you're open to all the public.
Does this do anything to change your opinion?
I never said that a business owner shouldn't have the right to eject anyone who is disruptive. That's very different than unilaterally prohibiting entry by an entire social class.
Does this do anything to change your opinion?
I never said that a business owner shouldn't have the right to eject anyone who is disruptive. That's very different than unilaterally prohibiting entry by an entire social class.
define "social group" and "social class" You used both.
I never said that a business owner shouldn't have the right to eject anyone who is disruptive. That's very different than unilaterally prohibiting entry by an entire social class.