‘Muslim Free Zone’ stands: Fla gun store owner vindicated, CAIR lawsuit DISMISSED

[tyroneweaver]

The suit might be gone, for now, until he denies a Muslim a gun. No worries, he'll be back in court soon enough.

So you're cheering for more gun sales apparently

Nope, I'm cheering for Public Accommodation laws. and for assholes like that store owner to get what he deserves, a new career at McDonalds.

you'll cheer for anything if you can stick it to us on the right.

 

[FJO]

Most places deny entry for people with no shoes and/or no shirt and pretty much all places deny entry for dogs.

but they treat all people the same and not based on illegal classifications like race.

poor loser.

A person who is not a vengeful prick, who has no chip on the shoulder, who realizes that life sometimes sucks, who comes to terms with occasional rejections, who does not cry over minutiae, who has a spine, who has eyes to see and intelligence to use those eyes to his advantage, will find another store where he/she can find what he/she wants.

A brainless, crybaby liberal bitches and sues and runs to the ACLU.

Now, there is a real poor loser for you.

 

[Faun]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia

A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...


BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

Poor, bigoted, vagisil. Denying the sale/training of guns to people based on their religion is still unconstitutional in the U.S.. The case wasn't dismissed because Hallinan has the right to deny Muslims service -- it was dismissed because the plaintiff was not injured as they were not denied buying a gun or the training on the use of one. i.e., CAIR (plaintiff) had no standing to file the case.

In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact, therefore, depriving it of standing to sue. See, e.g., Dermer v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Standing for Article III purposes requires a plaintiff to provide evidence of an injury in fact, causation and redressibility.”); Kelly v. Harris, 331 F.3d 817, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2003) (“To have standing, a plaintiff must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to conduct of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, not just merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”). “The battle over standing in this case centers on the first requirement, and specifically on whether the injury the plaintiffs suffered was imminent.” American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009). “Immediacy requires only that the anticipated injury occur with[in] some fixed period of time in the future.” Florida State Conferences of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008). “Immediacy, in this context, means reasonably fixed and specific in time and not too far off.” ACLU of Florida, 557 F.3d at 1193-94.

see: full defendant's motion to dismiss​

 

[idb]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia
A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...

BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

If it's true that a 'gun free zone' is a magnet for nutters with guns...wouldn't a 'muslim free zone' be a magnet for Islamic terrorists?
I wouldn't go into one...too much risk.

 

[Vigilante]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia

A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...


BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

Poor, bigoted, vagisil. Denying the sale/training of guns to people based on their religion is still unconstitutional in the U.S.. The case wasn't dismissed because Hallinan has the right to deny Muslims service -- it was dismissed because the plaintiff was not injured as they were not denied buying a gun or the training on the use of one. i.e., CAIR (plaintiff) had no standing to file the case.

In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact, therefore, depriving it of standing to sue. See, e.g., Dermer v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Standing for Article III purposes requires a plaintiff to provide evidence of an injury in fact, causation and redressibility.”); Kelly v. Harris, 331 F.3d 817, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2003) (“To have standing, a plaintiff must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to conduct of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, not just merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”). “The battle over standing in this case centers on the first requirement, and specifically on whether the injury the plaintiffs suffered was imminent.” American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009). “Immediacy requires only that the anticipated injury occur with[in] some fixed period of time in the future.” Florida State Conferences of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008). “Immediacy, in this context, means reasonably fixed and specific in time and not too far off.” ACLU of Florida, 557 F.3d at 1193-94.

see: full defendant's motion to dismiss​

I'm sure that SOMETHING can be found on a background check of a muslim, so that a gun would NOT be sold.... No fly list, FBI terrorist check, see if the guy is a personal friend of the Obomanation.... lots of loopholes to be found if one knows where to look!

 

[Vigilante]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia
A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...

BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

If it's true that a 'gun free zone' is a magnet for nutters with guns...wouldn't a 'muslim free zone' be a magnet for Islamic terrorists?
I wouldn't go into one...too much risk.

Cowardice is an unpleasant trait!

 

[idb]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia
A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...

BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

If it's true that a 'gun free zone' is a magnet for nutters with guns...wouldn't a 'muslim free zone' be a magnet for Islamic terrorists?
I wouldn't go into one...too much risk.

Cowardice is an unpleasant trait!

Don't beat yourself up about it...you might grow out of it.

 

[Vigilante]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia
A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...

BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

If it's true that a 'gun free zone' is a magnet for nutters with guns...wouldn't a 'muslim free zone' be a magnet for Islamic terrorists?
I wouldn't go into one...too much risk.

Cowardice is an unpleasant trait!

Don't beat yourself up about it...you might grow out of it.

But apparently YOU never will!

 

[Faun]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia

A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...


BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

Poor, bigoted, vagisil. Denying the sale/training of guns to people based on their religion is still unconstitutional in the U.S.. The case wasn't dismissed because Hallinan has the right to deny Muslims service -- it was dismissed because the plaintiff was not injured as they were not denied buying a gun or the training on the use of one. i.e., CAIR (plaintiff) had no standing to file the case.

In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact, therefore, depriving it of standing to sue. See, e.g., Dermer v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Standing for Article III purposes requires a plaintiff to provide evidence of an injury in fact, causation and redressibility.”); Kelly v. Harris, 331 F.3d 817, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2003) (“To have standing, a plaintiff must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to conduct of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, not just merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”). “The battle over standing in this case centers on the first requirement, and specifically on whether the injury the plaintiffs suffered was imminent.” American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009). “Immediacy requires only that the anticipated injury occur with[in] some fixed period of time in the future.” Florida State Conferences of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008). “Immediacy, in this context, means reasonably fixed and specific in time and not too far off.” ACLU of Florida, 557 F.3d at 1193-94.

see: full defendant's motion to dismiss​

I'm sure that SOMETHING can be found on a background check of a muslim, so that a gun would NOT be sold.... No fly list, FBI terrorist check, see if the guy is a personal friend of the Obomanation.... lots of loopholes to be found if one knows where to look!

Pretty fucking rightarded, even for a vagisil like you. Anybody who fails a background check is legally denied a firearm, regardless of religion. If the day comes when Hallinan denies a firearm or training to a Muslim for no reason other than their religion and he could very well find himself in court again. Only then, it would be by an individual with standing.

Of course, that would be a windfall for Hallinan because imbeciles like you will be flooding him with donations.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The suit might be gone, for now, until he denies a Muslim a gun. No worries, he'll be back in court soon enough.

So you're cheering for more gun sales apparently

Nope, I'm cheering for Public Accommodation laws. and for assholes like that store owner to get what he deserves, a new career at McDonalds.

you'll cheer for anything if you can stick it to us on the right.

When you're being un-American assholes, you bet.

 

[Vigilante]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia

A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...


BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

Poor, bigoted, vagisil. Denying the sale/training of guns to people based on their religion is still unconstitutional in the U.S.. The case wasn't dismissed because Hallinan has the right to deny Muslims service -- it was dismissed because the plaintiff was not injured as they were not denied buying a gun or the training on the use of one. i.e., CAIR (plaintiff) had no standing to file the case.

In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact, therefore, depriving it of standing to sue. See, e.g., Dermer v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Standing for Article III purposes requires a plaintiff to provide evidence of an injury in fact, causation and redressibility.”); Kelly v. Harris, 331 F.3d 817, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2003) (“To have standing, a plaintiff must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to conduct of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, not just merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”). “The battle over standing in this case centers on the first requirement, and specifically on whether the injury the plaintiffs suffered was imminent.” American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009). “Immediacy requires only that the anticipated injury occur with[in] some fixed period of time in the future.” Florida State Conferences of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008). “Immediacy, in this context, means reasonably fixed and specific in time and not too far off.” ACLU of Florida, 557 F.3d at 1193-94.

see: full defendant's motion to dismiss​

I'm sure that SOMETHING can be found on a background check of a muslim, so that a gun would NOT be sold.... No fly list, FBI terrorist check, see if the guy is a personal friend of the Obomanation.... lots of loopholes to be found if one knows where to look!

Pretty fucking rightarded, even for a vagisil like you. Anybody who fails a background check is legally denied a firearm, regardless of religion. If the day comes when Hallinan denies a firearm or training to a Muslim for no reason other than their religion and he could very well find himself in court again. Only then, it would be by an individual with standing.

Of course, that would be a windfall for Hallinan because imbeciles like you will be flooding him with donations.

Did you know there is a religious test for citizenship?

 

[Faun]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia

A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...


BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

Poor, bigoted, vagisil. Denying the sale/training of guns to people based on their religion is still unconstitutional in the U.S.. The case wasn't dismissed because Hallinan has the right to deny Muslims service -- it was dismissed because the plaintiff was not injured as they were not denied buying a gun or the training on the use of one. i.e., CAIR (plaintiff) had no standing to file the case.

In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact, therefore, depriving it of standing to sue. See, e.g., Dermer v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Standing for Article III purposes requires a plaintiff to provide evidence of an injury in fact, causation and redressibility.”); Kelly v. Harris, 331 F.3d 817, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2003) (“To have standing, a plaintiff must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to conduct of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, not just merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”). “The battle over standing in this case centers on the first requirement, and specifically on whether the injury the plaintiffs suffered was imminent.” American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009). “Immediacy requires only that the anticipated injury occur with[in] some fixed period of time in the future.” Florida State Conferences of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008). “Immediacy, in this context, means reasonably fixed and specific in time and not too far off.” ACLU of Florida, 557 F.3d at 1193-94.

see: full defendant's motion to dismiss​

I'm sure that SOMETHING can be found on a background check of a muslim, so that a gun would NOT be sold.... No fly list, FBI terrorist check, see if the guy is a personal friend of the Obomanation.... lots of loopholes to be found if one knows where to look!

Pretty fucking rightarded, even for a vagisil like you. Anybody who fails a background check is legally denied a firearm, regardless of religion. If the day comes when Hallinan denies a firearm or training to a Muslim for no reason other than their religion and he could very well find himself in court again. Only then, it would be by an individual with standing.

Of course, that would be a windfall for Hallinan because imbeciles like you will be flooding him with donations.

Did you know there is a religious test for citizenship?

Your deflection is noted. Despite your bigotry, Halligan cannot deny selling firearms or training to Muslim for no reason other than they are Muslim.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia
A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...

BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

So he can legally deny entry or a sale to a person based solely on their religion now?

No. He can well up with tears and scream " no Muslims allowed " into his camoflage themed megaphone while he is required to permit Mohammed and Mustafa into his store and sell them whatever they are legally permitted to buy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So he can deny a person service based on the customers religious beliefs....but....a baker cannot deny a faggot wedding service because of his own religious beliefs???

Hmmm. Pretty fucked up right there.

You stupid, stupid man.

 

[Vigilante]

Bizpac Review ^ | 11/28/2015 | Carmine Sabia

A Florida gun shop owner who was sued by the Council on American-Islamic Relations for declaring his store a “Muslim Free Zone” has been vindicated by a federal court.Andrew Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply in Inverness, was sued by CAIR’s Florida chapter after he made the declaration in a YouTube video in July.On Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Beth Bloom said Hallinan, who teamed up with George Zimmerman to raise funds for his legal defense, was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case. “The...


BUT the Obumanation can give weapons AWAY to muslim terrorists!

Poor, bigoted, vagisil. Denying the sale/training of guns to people based on their religion is still unconstitutional in the U.S.. The case wasn't dismissed because Hallinan has the right to deny Muslims service -- it was dismissed because the plaintiff was not injured as they were not denied buying a gun or the training on the use of one. i.e., CAIR (plaintiff) had no standing to file the case.

In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff has not suffered an injury-in-fact, therefore, depriving it of standing to sue. See, e.g., Dermer v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 599 F.3d 1217, 1220 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Standing for Article III purposes requires a plaintiff to provide evidence of an injury in fact, causation and redressibility.”); Kelly v. Harris, 331 F.3d 817, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2003) (“To have standing, a plaintiff must show (1) he has suffered an injury in fact that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to conduct of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, not just merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”). “The battle over standing in this case centers on the first requirement, and specifically on whether the injury the plaintiffs suffered was imminent.” American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009). “Immediacy requires only that the anticipated injury occur with[in] some fixed period of time in the future.” Florida State Conferences of N.A.A.C.P. v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008). “Immediacy, in this context, means reasonably fixed and specific in time and not too far off.” ACLU of Florida, 557 F.3d at 1193-94.

see: full defendant's motion to dismiss​

I'm sure that SOMETHING can be found on a background check of a muslim, so that a gun would NOT be sold.... No fly list, FBI terrorist check, see if the guy is a personal friend of the Obomanation.... lots of loopholes to be found if one knows where to look!

Pretty fucking rightarded, even for a vagisil like you. Anybody who fails a background check is legally denied a firearm, regardless of religion. If the day comes when Hallinan denies a firearm or training to a Muslim for no reason other than their religion and he could very well find himself in court again. Only then, it would be by an individual with standing.

Of course, that would be a windfall for Hallinan because imbeciles like you will be flooding him with donations.

Did you know there is a religious test for citizenship?

Your deflection is noted. Despite your bigotry, Halligan cannot deny selling firearms or training to Muslim fir no other reason than they are Muslim.

Doesn't have to.... STAND UP for his personal rights, he can get arrested, BUT it's time for DECENT PEOPLE to stand up to government and for causes they are against! You scum on the left do it all the time, it's about time THOUSANDS of respectable citizens join in....after all that's how the FIRST AMERICAN REVOLUTION got started.... from LESS BULLSHIT than American's have to put up with today!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Most places deny entry for people with no shoes and/or no shirt and pretty much all places deny entry for dogs.

That is unrelated to the issue at hand. Serving the public is not optional based on religion, not for a PA that is.

A business owner should be able to serve or not serve whomever he/she wants to serve or not serve. PERIOD.

A Christian in a restaurant owned by Muslims demanding ham or bacon of pork is like a gay person demanding a wedding cake for his wedding to another guy, from a Christian baker.

All based on religious convictions and beliefs.

The brain of the average nutter cannot work past such simple thoughts. So fucking boring.

 

[Vigilante]

Most places deny entry for people with no shoes and/or no shirt and pretty much all places deny entry for dogs.

That is unrelated to the issue at hand. Serving the public is not optional based on religion, not for a PA that is.

A business owner should be able to serve or not serve whomever he/she wants to serve or not serve. PERIOD.

A Christian in a restaurant owned by Muslims demanding ham or bacon of pork is like a gay person demanding a wedding cake for his wedding to another guy, from a Christian baker.

All based on religious convictions and beliefs.

The brain of the average nutter cannot work past such simple thoughts. So fucking boring.

Nothing would suit this moron better than being introduced to Hussein, and his 8 inch knife!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Most places deny entry for people with no shoes and/or no shirt and pretty much all places deny entry for dogs.

That is unrelated to the issue at hand. Serving the public is not optional based on religion, not for a PA that is.

A business owner should be able to serve or not serve whomever he/she wants to serve or not serve. PERIOD.

A Christian in a restaurant owned by Muslims demanding ham or bacon of pork is like a gay person demanding a wedding cake for his wedding to another guy, from a Christian baker.

All based on religious convictions and beliefs.

The brain of the average nutter cannot work past such simple thoughts. So fucking boring.

Nothing would suit this moron better than being introduced to Hussein, and his 8 inch knife!

Say what?

 

[Vigilante]

Most places deny entry for people with no shoes and/or no shirt and pretty much all places deny entry for dogs.

That is unrelated to the issue at hand. Serving the public is not optional based on religion, not for a PA that is.

A business owner should be able to serve or not serve whomever he/she wants to serve or not serve. PERIOD.

A Christian in a restaurant owned by Muslims demanding ham or bacon of pork is like a gay person demanding a wedding cake for his wedding to another guy, from a Christian baker.

All based on religious convictions and beliefs.

The brain of the average nutter cannot work past such simple thoughts. So fucking boring.

Nothing would suit this moron better than being introduced to Hussein, and his 8 inch knife!

Say what?

Sorry, I can't fix your stupid!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The suit was likely dismissed for a lack of a plaintiff. "He might deny the sale of a gun to a Muslim" is not quite the same as "He denied the sale of a gun to a Muslim." Hopefully it gets to that point because I'd like to see the unconstitutional "public accommodation laws" thrown out in court. You Leftwats don't know what you're asking for.