The Answer Is *NOT* Thug Tactics

[Fivestring63]

Using your logic, they could allow you to smoke if they wanted to. They could exclude blacks or gays if they wanted to. There's lots of stuff business owners don't have the right to do. Why should WE be the only ones that it's okay to single out?

I can see where you're going. I think the smoking thing is right in line with carrying. It should be the owners decision. But yet again they made laws not allowing smoking. There's way too much government intrusion.

I'm not going to touch the gay and black thing.

[Guest HexHead]

I can see where you're going. I think the smoking thing is right in line with carrying. It should be the owners decision. But yet again they made laws not allowing smoking. There's way too much government intrusion.

So there you go, precedent. They can also make laws not allowing posting.

[macville]

Using your logic, they could allow you to smoke if they wanted to. They could exclude blacks or gays if they wanted to. There's lots of stuff business owners don't have the right to do. Why should WE be the only ones that it's okay to single out?

See, this is where the argument about incorporation of the 2d gets interesting. Why has the Federal Government allowed some of the bill of rights to be incorporated and some (the 2d!), to NOT be incorporated? Seems like fair would be to force ALL states AND the Federal Gov to respect the entire Constitution and not just SOME of it. I say if they they (the Fed Gov) doesn't want to respect the entire Constitution (with all amendments) then the states shouldn't have to follow any of the amendments. Therefore, I say that the state of TN and all the residents of it refuse the 16th amendment, the 23rd, the 24th, the 26th, and whatever WE feel like at the time WE want to respect.

My point with that rant is to show that by allowing somethings we are on a slippery slope. The left in this country keep yammering on how it's "not fair" that poor people haven't bothered to get an education, get a job, get off their butts (I'm not criticizing anyone who truly is on hard times, it's just all the poor people I know, including people in my family, are just BUTT LAZY), but is it not fair to say that if we force people who own businesses to put in handicap stuff to not allow us to force the same business owners to allow us to defend ourselves with the tools that we believe are best suited for the job?

Matthew

[strickj]

Using your logic, they could allow you to smoke if they wanted to. They could exclude blacks or gays if they wanted to. There's lots of stuff business owners don't have the right to do. Why should WE be the only ones that it's okay to single out?

Because you cant take your gay off,but you can take your gun off.

Using your logic,I could come go somewhere naked and that no shoes,no shirt sign would be meaningless

[macville]

Because you cant take your gay off,but you can take your gun off.

Using your logic,I could come go somewhere naked and that no shoes,no shirt sign would be meaningless

Ummm....last time I checked you could chose who to have sex with.

Matthew

[DaveTN]

So there you go, precedent. They can also make laws not allowing posting.

Certainly they can. They chose not to. Many support it; I know I do. I don’t support pushing anything down the throat of business owners. I didn’t agree with taking the choice of smoking away from the owners and I won’t support taking away this choice either.

I will be more than willing to side with you when Tennessee recognizes your right to carry. But you are arguing about a right you do not have.

[Guest HexHead]

Certainly they can. They chose not to. Many support it; I know I do. I don’t support pushing anything down the throat of business owners. I didn’t agree with taking the choice of smoking away from the owners and I won’t support taking away this choice either.

I will be more than willing to side with you when Tennessee recognizes your right to carry. But you are arguing about a right you do not have.

Speaking of which, I just read in the Tennessean this morning, there's a move afoot to ban smoking in all restaurants now, getting rid of the 21-over restrictions (along with all the other exemptions to the no-smoking law). Guess who's supporting the bill?

That's right our old friend Rayburn, citing that he has to compete on an un-level playing field since customers can choose to go to places that allow smoking instead of his restaurants.

I hope this ****ing guy dies in a fire.

[JayC]

Using your logic, they could allow you to smoke if they wanted to. They could exclude blacks or gays if they wanted to. There's lots of stuff business owners don't have the right to do. Why should WE be the only ones that it's okay to single out?

Well the smoking law does allow a restaurant owner to having smoking in his place of business but sets up certain rules by which he may do so, doesn't mean it's a good law just means that it is not a smoking ban, there is choice.

As for the gay and black issue, technically those laws violate the constitution, we have freedom of association. You can read about the 2000 Boy Scout case where SCOTUS ruled that states can not force you to allow a gay scoutmaster.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is why you don't see gay rights activists going to interviews at churches and winning EEOC cases for not being hired.

We should attempt to support the Constitution all parts of it. We should not try and force businesses to allow carry if they don't want it. Just like the government should not force smoking bans, nor force you to associate with any class of people if you choose not to.

With that said, smoking is disgusting IMHO and having a smoke free location to eat dinner is nice, but shouldn't be required by law, I'm smart enough to know if I want to eat around smokers or not.

Now, it would be very valid for the state to just remove the posting enforcement in 1359 and require that the owner or manager asks you to leave, it's not required that we give a sign the force of law to allow business owners to regulate who they serve in their business.

[Guest HexHead]

Mine is a vengeful God. I would much rather a new bill that makes these asshats wish they'd left well enough alone.

[Guest don_m]

+1000

Why do the owners get so mad about it when all they have to do is put the little sign up. I think they should allow carry everywhere and make them post if they don't want you to.

True enough. As a former (and likely future) Tennessean, I'll offer a couple of observations:

1) Boycotting is unlikely to be very effective. At this point it can only alienate those who do not object to our carrying. Don't expect them to publicly support us -- they stand to scare away more clueless soccer moms/dads who've drunk the Brady kool-aid than they'll gain from us. What we want is for them to ignore the issue (no signs) when the law is fixed -- because it is really a non-issue to them. If you want to boycott personally, that's your right. Just don't think that it's a strategy to correcting the situation.

2) Contrary to the spin from the other side, Tennessee isn't a pioneer here. Do some research and capitalize on the experience of many other states that have allowed this for many years. Use it to educate the legislators and counter the nonsense from Rayburn & Co. and get the law done right. The Brady bunch will show up with the usual "blood in the streets" stuff. The fact that it just doesn't happen is irrelevant to to their religious crusade. Here in PA, carry in restaurants and even bars is legal. Also true in many other states, even in the gun-hating northeast. Outside of courthouses and schools, "no guns" signs have no legal standing here and I've never seen one. No incidents, and nobody is proposing new restrictions. The experience is out there. Take advantage of it.