Army reservist sues ‘Muslim free’ gun range after allegedly being asked to leave

[PaintMyHouse]

In the end I hope he owns the place. Stupid rednecks hatin' on the Ssand *******...

"A U.S. Army reservist is suing the owners of a gun shop and range in Oklahoma who allegedly asked him to leave after he told them he was Muslim.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, accuses Chad and Nicole Neal of violating the Civil Rights Act and Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to allow Raja’ee Fatihah to use their gun range last October because of his religion. At the time, the Neals’ business, Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range in Muskogee County, reportedly had a sign outside saying it was a Muslim-free business, according to the lawsuit."

So the guy went there just so he could instigate a lawsuit. If business owners don't want to cater to muzzie savages, they shouldn't be forced to.

Doesn't work that way, in the real world, just in your fantasy world.

No...your world is the fantasy world and you have enough left wing nutjobs sitting on the bench to make your fantasies reality......President Cruz or Trump may fix that...

Public Accommodation laws have been found constitutional time and again. Give it up.

True, but they were found Constitutional by political hacks who despise the Constitution. Your claim is meaningless. All you've said is that the law is the law.

Reality and the law are on my side. What you got? Oh right, nothin'.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

....Bloom rules that Hallinan was within his First Amendment rights to make the statement against Muslims, according to the American Freedom Law Center who represented Hallinan in the case.

And then the judge threw out CAIR’s lawsuit.

“The general desire of [CAIR] in this case to have Muslims able to access [Florida Gun Supply’s] shooting range someday in the future is insufficient . . . There are simply no facts grounding the assertion that [CAIR] and/or one of its constituents will be harmed—[CAIR] has failed to allege when and in what manner the alleged injuries are going to occur,” the court ruled.

In the statement released Tuesday by AFLC it declared “Florida Gun Supply will not serve “[a]nyone who is either directly or indirectly associated with terrorism in any way.”

“As our motion and now the court’s ruling make clear, CAIR’s lawsuit was patently frivolous if not outright dangerous. No firearms dealer or gun range owner for that matter should be required to sell weapons to or train anyone that the dealer or owner has reason to believe is a terrorist threat. We all have a civic responsibility to prevent the next terrorist attack. CAIR’s lawsuit was an effort to prevent business owners from doing so,” AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel Robert Muise said in the statement.

One big difference, he only talked about turning a Sand ****** away, they actually did and that, is illegal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I do care, the law is just...

Wrong. The law is unjust. Private businesses should not be forced to serve people they don't want to serve. It's their property. They should be able to do what they want with it.

Doesn't work that, even if it's totally private. Why bother making this argument, it's nonsense.

5 years ago marriage didn't work the way that allowed queers to get married. I love this theory that if liberals are satisfied with the law, then it's settled. and if the right doesn't agree wit it then "it doesn't work that way." On the other hand if the right is satisfied with the law and the left isn't, then it's a crime against humanity.

Hypocrisy is built into your genes.

Nothing hypocritical about treating all people as equals.

You attitude towards the law is what's hypocritical. Forcing people to comply with your demands is fascist.

Try being a grownup for a change. They do lots of things they'd rather not, and they learn to deal with it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This might be a gold mine to minorities. Find a restsurant that is closed because of a gas leak, water heater goes out, or patio dining is closed because of rain and sue.

As long as no one could use that range on that day, the plaintiff's will lose. The range could be plastered with notices about not serving muslims. It would not change a thing. No one could use the range, the muz was treated just like everyone else.

It was not closed, just to Muslims, like their sign said...

You aren't dealing with reality. The outdoor gun range was closed because of pouring rain.

I read the lawsuit. That's not what happened.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How to get sued, and lose...

 

[Tilly]

Robert Muise, a lawyer with with the American Freedom Law Center, is representing the owners of the gun range, Chad and Nicole Neal, and said that Fatiha has no case because the store owners threw him out for acting “belligerently,” not because he was a Muslim.

“The only thing the law prohibits is if somebody denies services strictly on the basis of religion, and that didn’t happen here,” Muise said.

Muise also stated that having the “Muslim-Free” zone sign outside the store is protected under the First Amendment, regardless of whether or not it hurts someone’s feelings...

Muslim Claims Gun Range Hurt His Feelings... Gun Range Fires Off EPIC Reply

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Robert Muise, a lawyer with with the American Freedom Law Center, is representing the owners of the gun range, Chad and Nicole Neal, and said that Fatiha has no case because the store owners threw him out for acting “belligerently,” not because he was a Muslim.

“The only thing the law prohibits is if somebody denies services strictly on the basis of religion, and that didn’t happen here,” Muise said.

Muise also stated that having the “Muslim-Free” zone sign outside the store is protected under the First Amendment, regardless of whether or not it hurts someone’s feelings...

Muslim Claims Gun Range Hurt His Feelings... Gun Range Fires Off EPIC Reply

Good luck with that, after posting that sign, you'll need it.

 

[Tilly]

Raja ‘ee Fatihah (CAIR) v. Neal (Save Yourself Survival & Tactical Gun Range)

..But the facts will prove otherwise. On October 23, 2015, Fatihah entered the Neal’s facility with an AK-47 over his shoulder, magazine inserted. The firing range is an outdoor range, and it was pouring rain that day—no one in their right mind (at least no one without an agenda) would even consider shooting on a day like this. Consequently, Fatihah was the only one at the range that day (in fact, there was an indoor range available to him in Tulsa if he was truly interested in only shooting).

These facts alone raise enough suspicion for the owner of a gun range (an inherently dangerous business) to ask the person to leave. But there was more.

While no one at the range ever asked Fatihah what his religion was, he became confrontational with the owners over his religion and his adherence to sharia, further raising the owners’ concerns about this man’s motives and intent. In fact, the owners seriously feared for their personal safety.

Consequently, they asked Fatihah to fill out a form and then told him that they would get back with him regarding whether he could fire at the range. The owners then promptly (and rightfully so) did a background check on Fatihah and found out that he was a board member of CAIR—an organization with strong ties to terrorism—confirming the owners’ suspicions

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Raja ‘ee Fatihah (CAIR) v. Neal (Save Yourself Survival & Tactical Gun Range)

..But the facts will prove otherwise. On October 23, 2015, Fatihah entered the Neal’s facility with an AK-47 over his shoulder, magazine inserted. The firing range is an outdoor range, and it was pouring rain that day—no one in their right mind (at least no one without an agenda) would even consider shooting on a day like this. Consequently, Fatihah was the only one at the range that day (in fact, there was an indoor range available to him in Tulsa if he was truly interested in only shooting).

These facts alone raise enough suspicion for the owner of a gun range (an inherently dangerous business) to ask the person to leave. But there was more.

While no one at the range ever asked Fatihah what his religion was, he became confrontational with the owners over his religion and his adherence to sharia, further raising the owners’ concerns about this man’s motives and intent. In fact, the owners seriously feared for their personal safety.

Consequently, they asked Fatihah to fill out a form and then told him that they would get back with him regarding whether he could fire at the range. The owners then promptly (and rightfully so) did a background check on Fatihah and found out that he was a board member of CAIR—an organization with strong ties to terrorism—confirming the owners’ suspicions

He could be ISIS and it wouldn't matter a damn. They broke the law.

 

[Tilly]

Raja ‘ee Fatihah (CAIR) v. Neal (Save Yourself Survival & Tactical Gun Range)


...The law does not require a gun shop or gun range owner—owners of an inherently dangerous business—to equip or train the next jihadist. CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation criminal trial—the largest terrorism financing trial prosecuted to date, the FBI has severed all ties with CAIR, and the UAE has declared CAIR a terrorist organization. Consequently, our clients’ public safety concerns were entirely justified. Not only do our clients have a right to refuse to serve someone they believe to be a public safety risk, they have an obligation to their other customers, employees, and the community to do so. This type of litigation by CAIR and the ACLU weakens our local and national security. People should be outraged by their filing of this lawsuit. ...

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If your business is serving the public then you have to serve the public. I would have thought that the sign itself was illegal.I hope that the case bankrupts them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If your business is serving the public then you have to serve the public. I would have thought that the sign itself was illegal.I hope that the case bankrupts them.

The sign is allowed, their actions are not.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

If your business is serving the public then you have to serve the public. I would have thought that the sign itself was illegal.I hope that the case bankrupts them.

The sign is allowed, their actions are not.

So you have to test the sign ? Mad. The local authority should ensure that this shouldnt happen.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If your business is serving the public then you have to serve the public. I would have thought that the sign itself was illegal.I hope that the case bankrupts them.

The sign is allowed, their actions are not.

So you have to test the sign ? Mad. The local authority should ensure that this shouldnt happen.

They are off to court now but there's not much point, the sign is the only nail this coffin needs. They're fucked.

 

[Weatherman2020]

In the end I hope he owns the place. Stupid rednecks hatin' on the Ssand *******...

"A U.S. Army reservist is suing the owners of a gun shop and range in Oklahoma who allegedly asked him to leave after he told them he was Muslim.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, accuses Chad and Nicole Neal of violating the Civil Rights Act and Oklahoma’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to allow Raja’ee Fatihah to use their gun range last October because of his religion. At the time, the Neals’ business, Save Yourself Survival and Tactical Gun Range in Muskogee County, reportedly had a sign outside saying it was a Muslim-free business, according to the lawsuit."

But...but...but....you told us private institutions could do whatever they wanted.

DID YOU LIE TO US AGAIN?

I would have said this (and I'm quite sure that I did:

Private.
Private, open to the public.
Public.

The the last two cannot refuse service just for the hell of it. Now you know.

Nope. You claimed universities could discriminate.
So which time did you lie? Or do the lies just flow naturally and you don't know?

Color Me Shocked!!!

They can, if they're private. They aren't Denney's but even they are going to be in trouble if they allow all faiths but Muslims. This gun range, Denney's. It serves all, by law.

Universities don't serve all? But gun ranges do?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Oklahoma public accommodations statute prohibiting, among other things, discrimination of patrons based on religion is necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

The statute in no way 'violates' the property rights, religious rights, or freedom of assembly rights of the business owners – owners who willfully violated the law by refusing to accommodate a Muslim patron for no other reason than his religious beliefs; the business owners have no one else to blame but themselves should they be required to pay damages.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Universities don't serve all? But gun ranges do?

Yep.

 

[Wildman]

...he told them he was Muslim.

stupid fucktard.., why did he even blurt that out ?

he will lose his law suit, and i hope the owners counter sue him, all they ned to do is quote the koran where it commands muslimes to kill all infidels.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...he told them he was Muslim.

stupid fucktard.., why did he even blurt that out ?

he will lose his law suit, and i hope the owners counter sue him, all they ned to do is quote the koran where it commands muslimes to kill all infidels.

You are not allowed to say no Muslims in a Public Accommodation.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

...he told them he was Muslim.

stupid fucktard.., why did he even blurt that out ?

he will lose his law suit, and i hope the owners counter sue him, all they ned to do is quote the koran where it commands muslimes to kill all infidels.

You are not allowed to say no Muslims in a Public Accommodation.

No muslims. My Church would allow mooooslims as long as they behave themselves. They start acting like the satan worshiping retards they truly are they will get booted out real quick.