No Muslims Allowed

[Path_Finder]

That doesn’t answer my questions. Are all those actions I listed perfectly ok for a woman threatened by a Christian racist group with a history violence ok for her to do if she honestly believes she is in danger?

Please show me where Ms. Morgan has threatened to kill Muslims.

 

[Path_Finder]

Underlying this, apparently having a license to sell firearms, the kind she has at least, is regulated by the ATF, hence, she has leeway to refuse service to those she has mere questions about. Perhaps this pertains to the shooting range as well.Similar to bartenders having a right to refuse serving someone drinks if they feel they are impaired.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Businesses have signs such as “No more than 3 students in the store at a time”, this sign is discriminating but apparently it is permitted so people still have some rights to their own businesses. Students apparently are seen as a risk to the store, maybe shoplifting.

Discriminating according to age is entirely legal and moral.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Please show me where Ms. Morgan has threatened to kill Muslims.

Oh, I claimed Ms. Morgan has threatened to kill Muslims? Please cite for me where I did that. Thanks.

While I wait for you to do that, let’s discuss how you do apparently hold that there the use of self-defense does actually have to meet a criteria of reasonable action. Why else would you just reply to the scenario in which the woman threated by a white racist Christian group would kill some random white guy she comes across.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Underlying this, apparently having a license to sell firearms, the kind she has at least, is regulated by the ATF, hence, she has leeway to refuse service to those she has mere questions about. Perhaps this pertains to the shooting range as well.Similar to bartenders having a right to refuse serving someone drinks if they feel they are impaired.

So being a Muslim is an impairment? Or legitimate grounds to deny someone service? Could you cite the portion of US regulations that classifies just being a Muslim as some sort of criminal act and/or grounds for denying someone their civil rights?

 

[Path_Finder]

Discriminating according to age is entirely legal and moral.

Not per the EEOC

eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

Representing Employees in Discrimination Claims Regarding Gender, Race, Age, Disability, Religion, Creed, National Origin or Ethnicity

esflawfirm.com/Practice-Areas/Race-Gender-Age-Disability-National-Origin-and-Ethnicity-Discrimination.shtml

Honestly, everyone knows age is one of the things we are protected against via discrimination along with gender, race, national origin, ethnicity, disability, etc.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Underlying this, apparently having a license to sell firearms, the kind she has at least, is regulated by the ATF, hence, she has leeway to refuse service to those she has mere questions about. Perhaps this pertains to the shooting range as well.Similar to bartenders having a right to refuse serving someone drinks if they feel they are impaired.

Yes, if a person appears unstable or acts suspiciously or is otherwise reasonably considered to be a risk, she has a right, and even a duty, to deny them access to a gun. And while there is plenty of leeway in this judgement, no reasonable person would judge someone to be a risk solely based on the information that they attend a mosque.

Besides, how does she know if someone is a Muslim? Does she ask them? What if they lie? I submit there is no practical way she can enforce her rule. In fact it appears that the only reason to declare her shooting range a “Muslim free zone” was to spark this very controversy and gain notoriety. The declaration surely does not enhance her safety. If anything it makes her and her establishment even more of a target. But that is probably just what she wanted.

 

[Path_Finder]

So being a Muslim is an impairment? Or legitimate grounds to deny someone service? Could you cite the portion of US regulations that classifies just being a Muslim as some sort of criminal act and/or grounds for denying someone their civil rights?

No I can’t cite a US regulation that classifies just being a Muslim as some sort of criminal act and/or grounds for denying someone their civil rights.

No, no one said being a Muslim is an impairment.

“Or legitimate grounds to deny someone service” Bingo, it sounds like it in this unique case.

The ATF informed us when we received the license that if we feel any reason for concern about selling someone a firearm, even sense that something is not right about an individual, or we are concerned about that persons mental state, even if they pass a background check, we do not have to sell that person a gun.

In other words, a federal agency has given us this kind of discretion for service based on the nature of the business. I can and have turned people away if I sense an issue with their mental state. So… its difficult to imagine how the DOJ could have issues with this when ATF gave us this discretion.

thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/officially-declare-business-gun-cave-indoor-shooting-range-muslim-free-zone/

Game over, it is up to her discretion. Looks like you have to take it up with the ATF and Federal Gun Laws.

Now, you can argue that she is being prejudicial and many would agree with you and you can argue that she is in the right and many would agree with that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Not per the EEOC

eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm

Representing Employees in Discrimination Claims Regarding Gender, Race, Age, Disability, Religion, Creed, National Origin or Ethnicity

esflawfirm.com/Practice-Areas/Race-Gender-Age-Disability-National-Origin-and-Ethnicity-Discrimination.shtml

Honestly, everyone knows age is one of the things we are protected against via discrimination along with gender, race, national origin, ethnicity, disability, etc.

Come on. You know better than that. That link you cited is about age discrimination in employment. We were talking about discriminating customers in a store. Try to stay on topic.

 

[Path_Finder]

Yes, if a person appears unstable or acts suspiciously or is otherwise reasonably considered to be a risk, she has a right, and even a duty, to deny them access to a gun. And while there is plenty of leeway in this judgement, no reasonable person would judge someone to be a risk solely based on the information that they attend a mosque.

Besides, how does she know if someone is a Muslim? Does she ask them? What if they lie? I submit there is no practical way she can enforce her rule. In fact it appears that the only reason to declare her shooting range a “Muslim free zone” was to spark this very controversy and gain notoriety. The declaration surely does not enhance her safety. If anything it makes her and her establishment even more of a target. But that is probably just what she wanted.

Game over, the ATF and Federal Law leave it to her discretion as to whom she serves. It’s not just a duty, it’s a responsibility. You can say she is being prejudicial, others would say she’s being prudent and it acting righteously for the safety of everyone.

The ATF informed us when we received the license that if we feel any reason for concern about selling someone a firearm, even sense that something is not right about an individual, or we are concerned about that persons mental state, even if they pass a background check, we do not have to sell that person a gun.

In other words, a federal agency has given us this kind of discretion for service based on the nature of the business. I can and have turned people away if I sense an issue with their mental state. So… its difficult to imagine how the DOJ could have issues with this when ATF gave us this discretion.

thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/officially-declare-business-gun-cave-indoor-shooting-range-muslim-free-zone/

 

[Path_Finder]

Come on. You know better than that. That link you cited is about age discrimination in employment. We were talking about discriminating customers in a store. Try to stay on topic.

You aren’t citing anything. All you are saying is she has to serve Muslims. I haven’t seen a law that this is so.

In fact, it is up to her discretion as a gun salesperson and owner of a gun range. It’s like people who sell alcohol don’t have to sell to someone they think may be impaired.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From her web page;

Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative.
She is closely aligned with the Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian, and other Conservative based organizations nationally.

Why am I not surprised.

Jim

 

[oldcatholicguy]

No I can’t cite a US regulation that classifies just being a Muslim as some sort of criminal act and/or grounds for denying someone their civil rights.

No, no one said being a Muslim is an impairment.

“Or legitimate grounds to deny someone service” Bingo, it sounds like it in this unique case.

thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/robert-farago/officially-declare-business-gun-cave-indoor-shooting-range-muslim-free-zone/

Game over, it is up to her discretion. Looks like you have to take it up with the ATF and Federal Gun Laws.

Now, you can argue that she is being prejudicial and many would agree with you and you can argue that she is in the right and many would agree with that.

Game over? Sure if the foundation of a person’s moral belief system is the US legal system or think the US legal system has a stronger claim on morality than say, the faith that person belongs to. Are you claiming the US legal system holds some sort of moral authority?

Also, said discretion given to her applies to individuals who a) actually enter her place of business and b) present a legitimate cause for concern. Mind citing for us where just a person’s faith has been held to be considered a legitimate cause for concern?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You aren’t citing anything. All you are saying is she has to serve Muslims. I haven’t seen a law that this is so.

In fact, it is up to her discretion as a gun salesperson and owner of a gun range. It’s like people who sell alcohol don’t have to sell to someone they think may be impaired.

You mean other than the Federal Civil Rights Act? Or the state laws of Arkansas?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You can say she is being prejudicial, others would say she’s being prudent and it acting righteously for the safety of everyone.

Clearly she is acting much more for the notoriety than for anyone’s safety.

 

[Path_Finder]

Game over? Sure if the foundation of a person’s moral belief system is the US legal system or think the US legal system has a stronger claim on morality than say, the faith that person belongs to. Are you claiming the US legal system holds some sort of moral authority?

No, no one is claiming the US legal system holds some sort of moral authority but by the laws of this nation, she is acting legally. And I would say ethically and conscientiously as well.

Though it might not bother us, what if we owned a gun shop and someone bought guns there and massacred 10 people or so??

Also, said discretion given to her applies to individuals who a) actually enter her place of business and b) present a legitimate cause for concern. Mind citing for us where just a person’s faith has been held to be considered a legitimate cause for concern?

You seem to set traps for trying to interpret things a certain way, therefore I think her words answer this best:

1. **My life has been threatened repeatedly **by muslims who are angry that I have studied their koran and have, over the past two years, been exposing the vileness of the Koran and its murderous directives.

…

This is more than enough loss of life on my home soil at the hands of muslims to substantiate my position that muslims can and will follow the directives in their Koran and kill here at home.

…

1. Islam allows Muslims to kill their own children, (honor killing) if the behavior of those children embarrasses or dishonors the family name.

…

1. In the 14 hundred year history of Islam, muslims have murdered over 270 million people. Not all muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists in the world right now are muslim. Since you can’t determine by visual assessment, which ones will kill you and which ones will not, I am going to go with the line of thought that ANY HUMAN BEING who would either knowingly or unknowingly support a “religion” that commands the murder of all people who refuse to submit or convert to that religion, is not someone I want to know or do business with. I hold adults accountable for the religion they align themselves with.

You don’t have to agree with it. Her logic is solid. She is indeed being patriotic.

Her assertion that she has been threatened may only be her own word, the rest of the statement is fact.

 

[Path_Finder]

Clearly she is acting much more for the notoriety than for anyone’s safety.

I think she is acting patriotically, a lot of Americans feel this way when the USA allows Muslims to come to this country but in Muslim countries, Christians are imprisoned or worse.

Well, we certainly don’t hear complaints about these violations of civil rights from some persons.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Though it might not bother us, what if we owned a gun shop and someone bought guns there and massacred 10 people or so??

Well if that was what really bothered her, she wouldn’t let Christians or white men use her business since the vast majority of mass shootings in this country are undertaken by Christian white males.

You mind explaining how, given the actual facts of mass shootings in the US, you came to the conclusion that it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that a Muslim going to a fire range or gun store is training on and/or buying firearms in order to go out and massacre people?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think she is acting patriotically, a lot of Americans feel this way when the USA allows Muslims to come to this country but in Muslim countries, Christians are imprisoned or worse.

Well, we certainly don’t hear complaints about these violations of civil rights from some persons.

Yeah, because the only people around the world we Americans should care about are Christians.

 

[Path_Finder]

Well if that was what really bothered her, she wouldn’t let Christians or white men use her business since the vast majority of mass shootings in this country are undertaken by Christian white males.

Please cite your facts, Dylan and Kleibold, no. James Holmes? No. Please cite your source and I will look at it. This seems like a very inflammatory broadbrush. It has been shown however that a great number of those committing those crimes are from Democratic families.

You mind explaining how, given the actual facts of mass shootings in the US, you came to the conclusion that it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that a Muslim going to a fire range or gun store is training on and/or buying firearms in order to go out and massacre people?

Nobody said this. Do you deny that there are Terrorist Muslims that would drop nuclear bombs on America if they had a chance?

It’s clear Radical Terrorist organizations have made no qualms they wish to destroy the USA or conquer it at least, raise the flag of ISIS over the White House. I haven’t heard any white Christian organizations declaring they wish to destroy the US.

As Morgan said, no one says all Muslims are Terrorists but the vast majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims.