Florida gun shop owner to make business "muslim free zone."

[manifold]

We are still working with the OP at the moment. There is both legal and illegal discrimination. Now you know.

Nice backpedal Armstrong!

We've been discussing my post that you elected to reply to, apparently not realizing you were going in way over your head.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Nothing more is required. Both the hotel and the gun store are subject to the same PA laws. They are both open to the public, and that includes sand *******.

I'm beginning to suspect you're being obtuse on purpose.

The example you posted is not even remotely germane to this discussion. Not all discrimination cases are alike. But you probably already know that.

Discrimination, based on religion in a Public Accommodation, is illegal. That's all that's necessary to know in this case.

Muslim isn't a religion.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Learn what discrimination means, and while you can take that position you'd better be able to back it up. The guy looked like a felon to me isn't going to cut it.

Translation:
You cannot answer my questions.
How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?
How does refusing to do so violate public accommodation laws when the federal requires me to not sell the gun?
Well?

Discrimination means, in this case,selling to one but not another.

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

Post what you law you believe you are subject to again, and we'll discuss it.

And as I said in the beginning, you'd better hope your reasons will stand up in court.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Muslim isn't a religion.

Oh but it is. Stop ignore reality, like a child would.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We are still working with the OP at the moment. There is both legal and illegal discrimination. Now you know.

Nice backpedal Armstrong!

We've been discussing my post that you elected to reply to, apparently not realizing you were going in way over your head.

I'm nothing like over my head and my position hasn't changed in the slightest, you just can't keep two thoughts in your head at the same time.

 

[ogibillm]

Learn what discrimination means, and while you can take that position you'd better be able to back it up. The guy looked like a felon to me isn't going to cut it.

Translation:
You cannot answer my questions.
How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?
How does refusing to do so violate public accommodation laws when the federal requires me to not sell the gun?
Well?

Discrimination means, in this case,selling to one but not another.

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern. meaning that if you conveniently decide that every muslim that came in to your store was somehow probably a felon without evidence to that fact a reasonable judge and jury would tell you to **** yourself and hand over the keys to the store, the deed to your trailer, and any other assets you had.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Muslim isn't a religion.

Oh but it is. Stop ignore reality, like a child would.

Oh but it's not. Educate yourself, if you're capable.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Translation:
You cannot answer my questions.
How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?
How does refusing to do so violate public accommodation laws when the federal requires me to not sell the gun?
Well?

Discrimination means, in this case,selling to one but not another.

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern. meaning that if you conveniently decide that every muslim that came in to your store was somehow probably a felon without evidence to that fact a reasonable judge and jury would tell you to **** yourself and hand over the keys to the store, the deed to your trailer, and any other assets you had.

He believes, wrongly, that the law protects him, when it does not.

 

[manifold]

I'm nothing like over my head and my position hasn't changed in the slightest, you just can't keep two thoughts in your head at the same time

OK, I'll try to dumb it down for you this time.

Let's say some other gun dealer (who hasn't yet screwed the pooch by announcing his plan to discriminate against Muslims) feels exactly the same way as the guy in this story.

If he's smart, he can get away with it by not copping to the real reason for his discrimination. He can simply say the patron seemed agitated and he believed he may be a danger to himself or others and therefore elected not to sell to him.

You seem to have tremendous faith that he would get sued for discrimination anyway and lose, despite the complete absence of evidence to support your faith. Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Translation:
You cannot answer my questions.
How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?
How does refusing to do so violate public accommodation laws when the federal requires me to not sell the gun?
Well?

Discrimination means, in this case,selling to one but not another.

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern. meaning that if you conveniently decide that every muslim that came in to your store was somehow probably a felon without evidence to that fact a reasonable judge and jury would tell you to **** yourself and hand over the keys to the store, the deed to your trailer, and any other assets you had.

The burden of proof is on the person that is suing.

The muslim has to prove that he was refused service because he was a muslim.

 

[ogibillm]

Discrimination means, in this case,selling to one but not another.

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern. meaning that if you conveniently decide that every muslim that came in to your store was somehow probably a felon without evidence to that fact a reasonable judge and jury would tell you to **** yourself and hand over the keys to the store, the deed to your trailer, and any other assets you had.

He believes, wrongly, that the law protects him, when it does not.

he believes that he could break the law and get away with it by perjuring himself. so basically he wants to spend some time in jail along with losing everything he owns.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Muslim isn't a religion.

Oh but it is. Stop ignore reality, like a child would.

Oh but it's not. Educate yourself, if you're capable.

The Civil rights Act of 1964 states "To be a bona fide religious belief entitled to protection under either the First Amendment or Title VII, a belief must be sincerely held, and within the believer's own scheme of things religious." (USCA Const. Amend 1: Civil Rights Act 1964 701 et seq., 717 as amended 42 USCA 2000-16)

Not too hard to meet that standard, and 1.6 billion Muslims do...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The muslim has to prove that he was refused service because he was a muslim.

Yep, which is a snap in the case of these two bozo gun shop owners.

 

[manifold]

he believes that he could break the law and get away with it by perjuring himself. so basically he wants to spend some time in jail along with losing everything he owns

good luck proving that

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern. meaning that if you conveniently decide that every muslim that came in to your store was somehow probably a felon without evidence to that fact a reasonable judge and jury would tell you to **** yourself and hand over the keys to the store, the deed to your trailer, and any other assets you had.

He believes, wrongly, that the law protects him, when it does not.

he believes that he could break the law and get away with it by perjuring himself. so basically he wants to spend some time in jail along with losing everything he owns.

Seems so.

 

[ogibillm]

Discrimination means, in this case,selling to one but not another.

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern. meaning that if you conveniently decide that every muslim that came in to your store was somehow probably a felon without evidence to that fact a reasonable judge and jury would tell you to **** yourself and hand over the keys to the store, the deed to your trailer, and any other assets you had.

The burden of proof is on the person that is suing.

The muslim has to prove that he was refused service because he was a muslim.

and when all other possibilities are eliminated?

 

[manifold]

and when all other possibilities are eliminated?

Never happen.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How is not selling a gun to someone I believe cannot legally own a gun a form of discrimination?

I just told you. Look up what the word means. In this case it can be, but not necessarily is, legal discrimination.

You aren't soundly addressing my questions - clearly you understand that you haven't a leg to stand on here, and you have no hope of showing my position to be unsound.

Fact is that I am required by law to not sell a gun to anyone I believe cannot legally own a gun.

Fact is that if you want to claim that I did not sell you the gun not because I believed you were unable to legally own a gun but rather because I wanted to discriminate against you because of your status as a protected class, the onus is completely and fully on you to prove that I did so.discriminate -- including the burden to prove that I indeed had no reason to believe that you were unable to legally own a gun.

Fact is you know you have no chance of that happening because you cannot prove that I did NOT see whatever I said I saw to make me believe you were unable to legally own a gun.

Eat it and smile.
I eagerly await your response that will only serve to prove you know all of what I just said is true.

this is dumb, and you know it. yes, the individual would have a rough time proving their case, although when deposed as to why you thought the person could not legally buy the seller would either have to perjure themselves or admit their deed. they would also surely be required to support the reason they made up - something that isn't easy to do.

next, if that was the policy, the accuser would be able to show a pattern. meaning that if you conveniently decide that every muslim that came in to your store was somehow probably a felon without evidence to that fact a reasonable judge and jury would tell you to **** yourself and hand over the keys to the store, the deed to your trailer, and any other assets you had.

The burden of proof is on the person that is suing.

The muslim has to prove that he was refused service because he was a muslim.

and when all other possibilities are eliminated?

Lack of evidence isn't evidence.

 

[ogibillm]

he believes that he could break the law and get away with it by perjuring himself. so basically he wants to spend some time in jail along with losing everything he owns

good luck proving that

you think it would be hard? maybe for an individual, but if that's the policy there will be a pattern. then there's the world we live in - if the bigot is going to have such a policy it's likely that they'll be visiting anti-muslim websites, posting anti-muslim stuff online. then there's going to be the fact that they will be asked why they denied the sale, and when you're making up a lie - like claiming without reason that you believe the person to be a felon - you will get caught.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Muslim isn't a religion.

Oh but it is. Stop ignore reality, like a child would.

Oh but it's not. Educate yourself, if you're capable.

The Civil rights Act of 1964 states "To be a bona fide religious belief entitled to protection under either the First Amendment or Title VII, a belief must be sincerely held, and within the believer's own scheme of things religious." (USCA Const. Amend 1: Civil Rights Act 1964 701 et seq., 717 as amended 42 USCA 2000-16)

Not too hard to meet that standard, and 1.6 billion Muslims do...

Nowhere does it state muslim is a religion. FAIL!