A land lord and a Marine's guns...

[billc]

Well, I think the land lord in this case should be able to rent to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants, so if he doesn't want the Marine to have guns in his rental property...I guess the Marine should lose...

However...

I also think that wedding plannners and photographers and land lords should be able to say they don't want to provide services to other people as well, such as gay couples trying to get married and suing photographers who won't work for them...

Soooo...if you support the suing of land lords and wedding photographers who won't provide their services to gays...or others...then this Marine get's to stay because the civil right of the Marine must trump the private property rights of the land lord...right?

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/07/colorado-landlord-to-marine-get-rid-of-your-guns-or-get-out/

Gut-check time for gun-loving conservatives: We’re dealing with a private landlord here, not a state actor, in which case does the Marine have any argument that his Second Amendment rights trump the owner’s property rights? Businesses can ban guns from their premises, no? Why can’t a landlord?

Bottom line: The market should handle this. The Marine will, I bet, have no trouble landing a new pad once gun-rights-supporting property owners in the area hear about it. And his current landlord obviously isn’t keen on the publicity this is getting, per their no-comment to the station. If you’re going to risk the bad PR involved in a gun ban, especially with someone as sympathetic as an elderly serviceman on the other side, be sure that it’ll be good for your bottom line.

 

[arnisador]

Well, I admire your consistency on this issue, and I mean that sincerely. I don't quite agree (because the landlord has a legitimate worry about legal liability if someone is shot on his property) but if you view gun ownership as I know you do then I see the logic.

 

[ballen0351]

I think anyone and everyone should be allowed to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all. Only exception would be Govt entity like police fire EMS education .........

 

[arnisador]

I think I'm glad we no longer have segregated restaurants.

 

[ballen0351]

I think I'm glad we no longer have segregated restaurants.

If someone hates you for no other reason then the color of your skin then why do you want to give them your money? I'd rather know upfront where I'm not wanted so I can not give them my money.

 

[arnisador]

From the point of view of one person, I get that. But the effect on society is greater than that.

 

[ballen0351]

From the point of view of one person, I get that. But the effect on society is greater than that.

I guess but there would be plenty of places that would desegregate themselves to put profit above hate. Maybe not but I would think eventually it would happen.

 

[billc]

I think I'm glad we no longer have segregated restaurants.

The actual problem was that back then there was a law mandating it. ( I won't bring up that the democrats wanted that law...) I have no problem with businesses, privately owned, serving or not serving whoever they want. If the nation of islam decides not to serve whites, or a chain of klan restaraunts doesn't want to serve minorities or Catholics...that is fine by me...as long as the federal and state governments aren't forcing them to do it. Private property is exactly that, private. The market will reward or punish those decisions by the success or failure of those business models...if the market is free and people can serve minorities or whites if they chose to do it...then they will make money from that decision and they will be successful. If they chose to not serve minorities or whites...then those customers will simply go to the restaurants that do serve them...

Government services should not be allowed to do that since it belongs to everyone.

I guess but there would be plenty of places that would desegregate themselves to put profit above hate. Maybe not but I would think eventually it would happen.

That was the very reason they had to make it a law...so that the businesses that did refuse service wouldn't suffer the economic consequences...because all businesses had to segregate their services by law...so the market wasn't allowed to function.

From wikipedia...

History

After Congress passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1870 providing the right to vote, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875 forbidding racial segregation in accommodations, Federal occupation troops in the South assured blacks the right to vote and to elect their own political leaders. The Reconstruction amendments asserted the supremacy of the national state and the formal equality under the law of everyone within it.[SUP][4][/SUP] However this radical Reconstruction era would collapse because of multidimensional racialism related to the spread of democratic idealism (progressivism). What began as region wide passage of ‘Jim Crow’ segregation laws that focused on issues of equal access to public activities and facilities would by 1910 have spread throughout the south, mandating the segregation of whites and blacks in the public sphere.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP]:117[/SUP]
The collapse of the reconstruction amendments and what alluded to racial segregation was also a political move that emerged in the Southern states. Many of the white voters in the south were farmers and opposed to the black man voting for racial reasons, and also because they objected to the possibility of their vote being employed against them.[SUP][6][/SUP] This was during a time of agrarian unrest and the uncertainty of the political importance of the agricultural sector of the south.

Independent challenges to the Democrat power remained endemic in the South until the end of the 19th century.[SUP][4][/SUP] To discourage black voting, Southern Democrats resorted to violence

. The white supremacist group Ku Klux Klan terrorized black political leaders to counter the Republican party's power base. Many blacks were killed (often lynched) for attempting to exercise their right to vote, for being members of political organizations and for attending school. Racialism was also fueled by the ideology of Social Darwinism, which broadly asserted that because of a natural competition among humans and the social evolution driven by the survival of the fittest, the white man not only should but deserved to retain political and economic power. Thus the behavior exhibited towards Negros was not perceived as racism but rather action that was sanctioned by the ‘science’ of Euro-centric racialism.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP]:118[/SUP]

Notice how the article fails to mention the term "Republican." The Radical Republicans were the ones who pushed reconstruction...the democrats created the jim crow laws to create legal segregation in the south...and backed it up with violence...

 

[oftheherd1]

I think anyone and everyone should be allowed to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all. Only exception would be Govt entity like police fire EMS education .........

I like that idea except when it is applied to prevent a class of people from being able to get the service, as opposed to an individual.

If someone hates you for no other reason then the color of your skin then why do you want to give them your money? I'd rather know upfront where I'm not wanted so I can not give them my money.

But suppose you were allowed to go into a store and buy products, but not sit at the lunch counter, or use a "white only" rest room? And suppose there were few if any stores catering to your class by members of your class, because they were successfully prevented from doing so by people and businesses not of your class?

I guess but there would be plenty of places that would desegregate themselves to put profit above hate. Maybe not but I would think eventually it would happen.

As I mentioned above, why would they if it could made difficult for you to take your business elsewhere?

When I was young in the 40s and 50s, I saw those things happening. Where I grew up, the separate but equal schools were in effect. The Separate part was pretty easy to implement. Equal was never quite achieved. I give credit to the black parents and teachers that mostly ensured their students got as equal an education as possible. BTW, does anyone remember that blacks were called colored then, when being polite?

Businesses like department stores would either not allow blacks to sit at the counter and order lunch, or have maybe two or three seats at one end, blocked off by a railing, where they could sit. So they could eat, but service was usually grudging at best. I never saw it, but I understand in the deep south, many eating establishments would sell to blacks, but require them to go to the back door of the kitchen to order food. I have heard people bragg about how good they were because well, blacks had to go to the back, but they got the same food.

After the 1954 court decision, where I lived, the schools were integrated immediately. Separate rest rooms and separate lunch counter areas disappeared as well. Not everyone liked it, but the law was complied with. There were still enough racial jokes to go around, but people began to change. Had it not been for the 1954 decision, who knows how long it would have taken for people to become more accepting?

And it didn't happen everywhere as quickly as where I grew up. I was astounded when I got to Fayetteville, NC in late 1960. I got off the train and walked into the waiting room adjacent to the car I was on, to get some information. As I walked to the ticket counter, I noted only black faces and heard some telling me "You don't belong here boy." The ticket seller quickly told me to get out of there to the other side where I belonged.

And don't think everyone believed that blacks should be treated badly. But there was enough prevailing attitude from a large enough portion of the population, that they would not risk being ostracized as individuals, nor boycotted as businesses, to do anything that looked like they thought it was wrong to discriminate.

So balen0351, while a small and hidden libertarian part of me wants to agree with you, I cannot. Humans aren't that altruistic yet.

 

[ballen0351]

I like that idea except when it is applied to prevent a class of people from being able to get the service, as opposed to an individual.



But suppose you were allowed to go into a store and buy products, but not sit at the lunch counter, or use a "white only" rest room? And suppose there were few if any stores catering to your class by members of your class, because they were successfully prevented from doing so by people and businesses not of your class?



As I mentioned above, why would they if it could made difficult for you to take your business elsewhere?

When I was young in the 40s and 50s, I saw those things happening. Where I grew up, the separate but equal schools were in effect. The Separate part was pretty easy to implement. Equal was never quite achieved. I give credit to the black parents and teachers that mostly ensured their students got as equal an education as possible. BTW, does anyone remember that blacks were called colored then, when being polite?

Businesses like department stores would either not allow blacks to sit at the counter and order lunch, or have maybe two or three seats at one end, blocked off by a railing, where they could sit. So they could eat, but service was usually grudging at best. I never saw it, but I understand in the deep south, many eating establishments would sell to blacks, but require them to go to the back door of the kitchen to order food. I have heard people bragg about how good they were because well, blacks had to go to the back, but they got the same food.

After the 1954 court decision, where I lived, the schools were integrated immediately. Separate rest rooms and separate lunch counter areas disappeared as well. Not everyone liked it, but the law was complied with. There were still enough racial jokes to go around, but people began to change. Had it not been for the 1954 decision, who knows how long it would have taken for people to become more accepting?

And it didn't happen everywhere as quickly as where I grew up. I was astounded when I got to Fayetteville, NC in late 1960. I got off the train and walked into the waiting room adjacent to the car I was on, to get some information. As I walked to the ticket counter, I noted only black faces and heard some telling me "You don't belong here boy." The ticket seller quickly told me to get out of there to the other side where I belonged.

And don't think everyone believed that blacks should be treated badly. But there was enough prevailing attitude from a large enough portion of the population, that they would not risk being ostracized as individuals, nor boycotted as businesses, to do anything that looked like they thought it was wrong to discriminate.

So balen0351, while a small and hidden libertarian part of me wants to agree with you, I cannot. Humans aren't that altruistic yet.

But again why would you want to give these people your money? I'd you force them to serve you then your supporting and giving your money to people that hate you. I'd rater know they hate me and seek service elsewhere.
I'll have to find the story about Oprah just last week or few weeks ago in Sweden and walked into a store to shop. The clerk refused to help her saying she couldn't afford anything. Oprah said at first she wanted to pull out her credit card and buy the entire store but then she decided she didn't want to give them her money.
That's kinda how I think.
As Bill said the only reason stores got away with segregation was because it was the law. If the Govt stays out of private affairs and say Denny's banned minorities how long would they stay in business? Not long. Look at Paula Dean. She's lost almost all her endorsements and all the big stores dropped her products for something she said 20 years ago.

 

[oftheherd1]

The actual problem was that back then there was a law mandating it. ( I won't bring up that the democrats wanted that law...) I have no problem with businesses, privately owned, serving or not serving whoever they want. If the nation of islam decides not to serve whites, or a chain of klan restaraunts doesn't want to serve minorities or Catholics...that is fine by me...as long as the federal and state governments aren't forcing them to do it. Private property is exactly that, private. The market will reward or punish those decisions by the success or failure of those business models...if the market is free and people can serve minorities or whites if they chose to do it...then they will make money from that decision and they will be successful. If they chose to not serve minorities or whites...then those customers will simply go to the restaurants that do serve them...

Government services should not be allowed to do that since it belongs to everyone.



That was the very reason they had to make it a law...so that the businesses that did refuse service wouldn't suffer the economic consequences...because all businesses had to segregate their services by law...so the market wasn't allowed to function.

From wikipedia...



Notice how the article fails to mention the term "Republican." The Radical Republicans were the ones who pushed reconstruction...the democrats created the jim crow laws to create legal segregation in the south...and backed it up with violence...

Please note my answer to ballen0351 above. Businesses will indeed find a way to protect themselves. It doesn't have to be by allowing equality. It can be by forcing more inequality toward competing businesses. That worked pretty well for a lot of them.

I am conservative in more things than I am liberal (but I have both aspects). So I tend to agree with more republican ideals than democratic ideals. But your choice of the words "radical republicans" is unfortunately correct in a way your probably didn't intend. They enforced their ideals on the South with anger and vigor, and a small seasoning of illegal acts. Many southern republicans didn't like themselves associated with those actions by party name. They defected to the democrats in droves. But many still held their republican values, except many still didn't agree with emancipation.

 

[oftheherd1]

But again why would you want to give these people your money? I'd you force them to serve you then your supporting and giving your money to people that hate you. I'd rater know they hate me and seek service elsewhere.
I'll have to find the story about Oprah just last week or few weeks ago in Sweden and walked into a store to shop. The clerk refused to help her saying she couldn't afford anything. Oprah said at first she wanted to pull out her credit card and buy the entire store but then she decided she didn't want to give them her money.
That's kinda how I think.
As Bill said the only reason stores got away with segregation was because it was the law. If the Govt stays out of private affairs and say Denny's banned minorities how long would they stay in business? Not long. Look at Paula Dean. She's lost almost all her endorsements and all the big stores dropped her products for something she said 20 years ago.

You didn't read my answer to you well I guess. Or maybe I didn't explain it as well as I should. There was no law in the state I grew up in saying blacks had to be segregated. And there was no law against it either. The US constitution forbade it. But that wasn't how it played out. The US Supreme court said separate but equal wasn't segregation. As I mentioned, separate was easy. Equal just never seemed to work out.

What you say Oprah wanted would not have been possible in many places in the US when I was young. Where else were they to go? Do you think they preferred to go to stores that treated them as second class citizens?

Now it is different, because enough people have peacefully, or forcefully, found ways to make it different.

 

[ballen0351]

You didn't read my answer to you well I guess. Or maybe I didn't explain it as well as I should. There was no law in the state I grew up in saying blacks had to be segregated. And there was no law against it either. The US constitution forbade it. But that wasn't how it played out. The US Supreme court said separate but equal wasn't segregation. As I mentioned, separate was easy. Equal just never seemed to work out.

What you say Oprah wanted would not have been possible in many places in the US when I was young. Where else were they to go? Do you think they preferred to go to stores that treated them as second class citizens?

Now it is different, because enough people have peacefully, or forcefully, found ways to make it different.

Times are different and people wouldn't stand for that behavior today this isnt the 40's 50's or 60's. If a company in today's times refused service due to race they would be shut down not from Govt intervention but due to public outcry. In the 40s and 50s segregation was not only legal but encouraged by the Govt.
I just dont understand why anyone would want to give money to place that hates you. Not only do you give them your hard earned cash but there is no telling what they are doing to your food behind closed doors. Id just rather know where to go and where not to.

 

[oftheherd1]

Times are different and people wouldn't stand for that behavior today this isnt the 40's 50's or 60's. If a company in today's times refused service due to race they would be shut down not from Govt intervention but due to public outcry. In the 40s and 50s segregation was not only legal but encouraged by the Govt.
I just dont understand why anyone would want to give money to place that hates you. Not only do you give them your hard earned cash but there is no telling what they are doing to your food behind closed doors. Id just rather know where to go and where not to.

Because we have law to back that up, it probably wouldn't happen as quickly, nor peacefully, if at all. But I personally believe there are still enough people who would like to see the "old" ways, that they would indeed try to change it back to the old ways if they could. Hopefully, as you say, they couldn't. But I wouldn't want to test that. Not just yet.

 

[ballen0351]

Because we have law to back that up, it probably wouldn't happen as quickly, nor peacefully, if at all. But I personally believe there are still enough people who would like to see the "old" ways, that they would indeed try to change it back to the old ways if they could. Hopefully, as you say, they couldn't. But I wouldn't want to test that. Not just yet.

So the change isnt real in your opinion. People are only tolerant because the law says so? I think a black president disputes that idea.

 

[oftheherd1]

So the change isnt real in your opinion. People are only tolerant because the law says so? I think a black president disputes that idea.

I didn't say that per se, but I guess you could say I have implied that. Fair enough. However, if you remember I mentioned that I lived in times when not everyone agreed with the way blacks were treated. But many, if not most, weren't willing to stand up and say so, much less act so.

If there were a strong movement to change our current laws, or even just to ignore them, and if you sprinkle in a little violence, do you think there would be any significant amount of people that would accept movement backward?

 

[ballen0351]

I didn't say that per se, but I guess you could say I have implied that. Fair enough. However, if you remember I mentioned that I lived in times when not everyone agreed with the way blacks were treated. But many, if not most, weren't willing to stand up and say so, much less act so.

If there were a strong movement to change our current laws, or even just to ignore them, and if you sprinkle in a little violence, do you think there would be any significant amount of people that would accept movement backward?

If they made it legal to discriminate I'm sure some places would change but in general I think most people are beyond that behavior now. Maybe I give folks too much credit. I never thought we would see a non-white male president and we do. I think we have come farther then you give people credit for.

 

[arnisador]

To me the point is that we wouldn't be where we are now without the legal changes of the 60s. Look at what happened this year after the Voting Rights Act changes.

 

[billc]

To me the point is that we wouldn't be where we are now without the legal changes of the 60s. Look at what happened this year after the Voting Rights Act changes.

Yes, look at what happened...we reelected the first black President...

I don't believe anyone is saying that changes needed to be made, some just think that the law enforcing segregation needed to be ended, but private property rights and freedom of thought, even bad ones should be protected. The market would correct any problem where a business refused to do business with a particular group, especially as time went on.

By the way, exactly what did happen in your opinion?

 

[billc]

Update...

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/...rty-Management-s-Gun-Ban-Overturned-By-Owners

According to Colorado's 9 News, the station that originally broke the story, Ross Management, was overruled by the property's owners late Wednesday and nixed the property management's gun ban. "The apartments in question are public housing and they didn't give the property manager permission to infringe on individual rights," says 9 News. The Denver Housing Authority now wants to know if Ross management is attempting to slip other gun bans upon other public housing properties the company manages.

A controversial gun policy at an apartment complex for seniors has been thrown out after a 9Wants to Know report.


The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.


Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.


The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.

Well, if it is a government run apartment...the Marine gets to keep his guns, since the government cannot infringe on his civil rights...