Stand up for your 2A rights - BOYCOTT T.G.I. Fridays!!

[ZeSpectre]

The business has every justification for asking you to leave if you don't abide by their policies (whatever they may be).

We have every justification for letting said business know how we feel.

If you want to protest then by all means take your business elsewhere but don't forget the other part which is a stream of letters to corporate headquarters with receipts showing them the business they are losing with their policy along with a nicely worded letter covering the "no guns no cash" talking points.

That is what tends to get some attention.

[hogdogs]

If you can't figure out how to fry frozen chicken nuggets, cheese sticks and seasoned curly fries from sam's wholesale club and pour a beer into a glass... by all means go to TGI Fridays:barf: But rules is rules... And heck if yer gonna eat "kiddie food" what makes you think yer mature enuff for a pistol...
Easy folks I am just ribbin' and flaming me won't work as I am wearing brand new nomex superman under roos...
Brent

[David Armstrong]

That is legally true. IMHO, that should be changed such that carrying is a civil right and can only be taken away in specific circumstances that can pose a clear and present technical danger.

Would you argue that should be the case with all civil rights?

Thus, carriers should be a protected class. But that's just my view.

Are there any other protected classes based on what you do instead of what you are?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What you do and what you are? Interesting divide - your 'race' (which is an ill-defined concept) might be what you 'are'. Your religion is what you do and that is protected. Your religion is supposedly part of the package of measures you choose to employee to protect you from an unpleasant after-life experience. It is protected. I would protect the right of the citizen not move into that afterlife earlier than expected due to action of a criminal action.

I would agree that private property owners and employers cannot control the exercise of civil rights unless it overtly and clearly disrupts the property or actual operations of the enterprise. Not PR issues.

[David Armstrong]

Your religion is what you do

I think I'd disagree. You are Jewish, you are Muslim, etc. Some of the acts promulgated by the religion may be a "do" concept, but I think the religion itself is what you are. I ask because I always felt that was the essence of civil rights, we protected what you are.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

But not to wax theologically, you can convert to or adopt various religions. Faced with job discrimination or the Inquisition - you could change this for pragmatic reasons. I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).

It is hard to argue that you could change the biology tagged as race or change the basic right of self defense.

Now whether I think there are basic fundamental rights like self-defense and where they came from is another argument set.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn,

You are correct about religion I think. You can change that like socks and no one is the wiser. Maybe the answer is religion is what you proclaim to be.

I think this is a very difficult question. I have debated this issue concerning employer's work rules against CCW on TFL a few times.

So the moral question might be does your right to self defense (which predates the COTUS) trump the rights of employers and private property?

The issue that to me in the defining one is that of true choice. It would seem that if you have a true choice (and that is NOT always a given) then should you simply take your business/employment elsewhere where you can carry and respect the work rule/private property of another?

I have posited the case of the battered woman who is being stalked by ex-hubbie/boyfriend who is not safe anywhere without a firearm. Does her right to self defense get trumped by work rules or private property? Should she just quit her job and not leave the house shopping thru the internet or risk injury/death at the hands of her ex?

If the business/employers does not allow firearms should it then take stronger steps to insure your safety with metal detactors and armed guards? Some businesses do that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have cell phone alert system as our first means of defense.

I suppose I will call the Rabbi so he can smooth my journey to the Afterlife.

[David Armstrong]

But not to wax theologically, you can convert to or adopt various religions. Faced with job discrimination or the Inquisition - you could change this for pragmatic reasons. I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).

But won't you still "be" as opposed to "do". Does one "do" Jewish or is one Jewish? Is one Muslim or does one "do" Muslim? If one "does" muslim but is not a Muslim, does it count?
Carrying is not a status, carrying is always something you do. Just as ones religion may give protected status, some of the religious practices that are done are allowed to be prohibited.

[ftd]

Carrying a gun anywhere you want is not a civil right.

That is legally true. IMHO, that should be changed such that carrying is a civil right and can only be taken away in specific circumstances that can pose a clear and present technical danger.

For example, carrying by the MRI which will cause your gun to go off or be dragged to the machine.

Thus, carriers should be a protected class. But that's just my view. Does this view conflict with the property rights crowd - yes - but some of them still argue for the right to oppose segregation and I have little use for that view.

We are beginning to sound a little like spoiled children - IT's NOT FAIR!

I have a right to keep and bear arms. You have a right of ownership of your property. If I want to go onto/into your property, don't I have an obligation, prior to entering, to accept your permission as you grant it?

Don't we acknowledge the fact that the 2nd amendment is there to enable the keeping of our other inalienable rights?

I have a right to carry a weapon. I do not have a right to come onto your property. I need your permission for that. You get to set the terms of that permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

If I want to carry my weapon more than meet your terms of permission, I may make my choice to not accept your terms. In doing so I am refusing your permission. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

I do not have the right to being a special class, because I am not a special class. You owe me nothing because I carry a filearm, because I are not required to carry a firearm. Carrying a firearm and accepting your terms of entry onto/into your propery are my choices, which I have the right to make. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

Getting permission onto/into your property under my own terms is not my right. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

But I know, it's still not fair.
End of Rant.

[Tom Servo]

Getting permission onto/into your property under my own terms is not my right. There is no "rights" conflict in this.

Bingo. T.G.I. Friday's is not forcing anyone to frequent their establishment (thank goodness), and I'm willing to bet they're not the only place in town at which to procure food.

Simple enough. Don't go there. If you see value in changing their minds about this, contact the right people, in the right ways.

Boy, this one's drifted...

[Hellbilly5000]

I refuse to eat there just because the food is nasty and nothing and i mean nothing is fresh it all comes from bags or boxes (used to work in the kitchen) and the one I worked in no one cared how filthy the kitchen got.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Does one "do" Jewish or is one Jewish?

That David is a core debate in the behaviorial sciences - only observable behavior vs. hypothesized internal processes. I'll let that go for my Fundamentals of Cognition course in the fall.

Needless to say - I will stand on proposing laws that prevent private businesses, public and private schools and governmental buildings that are open to the public from banning carry unless they can come up with the compelling technical reason.

Rights are a social construct and not a physical law of the universe or some abstract principle as in mathematics. I want the social construct of carry to be deemed as worthy as our other restrictions on property rights that forbid segregation and the like.

Let the legislative process enact this and it will be so.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Here is a link of the conference committee in TN debating the provision to allow carry in restaurants (TN does not distinguish between bars and restaurants) and a lot of our arguments here are laid out in the video. The motion passed to allow carry. For those who might be interested:
http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer...0&clip_id=1390

[David Armstrong]

That David is a core debate in the behaviorial sciences - only observable behavior vs. hypothesized internal processes.

I agree, and that is why I bring the issue up in the civil rights context, as that is a big part of the debate. Do we prevent discrimination based on what you are, or do we prevent discrimination based on what you do.

Needless to say - I will stand on proposing laws that prevent private businesses, public and private schools and governmental buildings that are open to the public from banning carry unless they can come up with the compelling technical reason.

And while I would agree with you on public property I would consider such a law an unwarranted extension of government power and intrusion regarding private business, as well as interference with free market capitalism.

Rights are a social construct and not a physical law of the universe or some abstract principle as in mathematics.

Hey now, you can't say that! We all know that rights are granted by God, inalienable, and society and people have nothing to do with them!

I want the social construct of carry to be deemed as worthy as our other restrictions on property rights that forbid segregation and the like.

If one grants such a construct based on what someone does instead of what they are, doesn't that open the door to forcing business to allow other things we "do" that the business might not want done on their property?
From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?

I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference!

[grymster2007]

I know folks who have done such (not the Inquistion though).

Glad to hear you're not quite so old as I thought Glenn!

I can't believe that this thread has gone this far! The property rights vs carry rights issue usually blows up pretty quick. On the down side, I don't think we're any closer to resolving the issue here. On the upside, I think most everyone now knows what to expect out of TGIF's kitchen, as well as their lawyer's offices.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want to see how old I look:

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...olite-society/

I once was young - sigh! Not to thread hijack. Hey - wore that vest to Red Lobster last night. Not posted and I carried without threat to any.

[grymster2007]

If you want to see how old I look:

Ahhhh, you're but a young lad, Glenn!

So, it seems Red Lobster may be more gun friendly than TGIF, but the big question is (in my butter-basted little brain anyway) is the food any better?

[David Armstrong]

I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference!

You are right, that really is about the only difference, as the actual substance is the same.

[upthegov]

not sure but i think in ga you can carry consield if the place makes less than 33% of its sales on the bar where I WOULD THINK would be any tgif.

[ftd]

palmnos,
Are you a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), http://www.vcdl.org/ ? They are very active in getting VA gun laws changed for the good. If you want things to change maybe you should get involved.

[grymster2007]

Kinda ironic that the only places of business I recall seeing "no carry" postings are gun stores.... here in gun-friendly, sunny California.

[ftd]

From the philosophical viewpoint, what difference is there between mandating that all businesses must allow people to carry guns and mandating that all businesses must prohibit people from carrying guns?

I agree with first part and not the second. That's the difference!

You are right, that really is about the only difference, as the actual substance is the same.

I disagree. The substance is specifically very different from a rights point of view. The key word is "mandating", by the government. When rights issues are CONTROLLED by the government, that is called tyranny, and the rights do not exist. The laws concerning rights would always be better if they stipulated "may", in regard to the citizens, and WILL, SHALL, or MUST in regard to thegovernment. As in, "businesses MAY permit legal weapon carriers into the business", versus "businesses SHALL or MUST permit legal weapon carriers into the business" or "businesses SHALL NOT permit legal weapon carriers into the business"
or
"a CCW permit SHALL be granted [by the government] unless...", versus "a CCW permit MAY be granted [by the government] under certain circumstances".

It really makes a difference who may and who shall. If our only goal is to get a certain agenda mandated and in place, we are no better than the rights takers we say we are fighting.

Only thieves deny and violate an owner's property rights.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We shall go off into the void if we try to argue that property rights are inviolate. We've been there before.

The government mandates that you have a toilet in your restaurant. Thus, are they thieves to do such for the good of public health?

When you open for business, you are not in your castle. Also, you expect tax payers to foot the bill for emergency services to come to your place of business. You can't claim splendid isolation and inviolate property rights when you interact with the populace and expect civic services.

But, if we do this again - we've reached the end - same old, same old. Anything else new to say?