I've heard multiple people express the idea that shop owners cannot discriminate against people because they've opened their shops to the public. They believe that you cannot refuse service to people based upon race, religion, sexuality, gender, and probably a few other innate qualities. Most agree that you can throw out people for other reasons such as the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" rule, for being intoxicated, and of course carrying a weapon (lawfully).
What I would like to know is if businessmen should be able to demand that a person of one of the protected groups who carries a weapon to leave his store (or surrender his property for the duration of the stay) while allowing other people who are not of that group but also carry a weapon to continue shopping as they were. The obvious example would be if one were to disallow the carrying of handguns by black people in an area where the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by black people, but one could also stop all men from carrying a weapon while allowing women to do so, prevent people who appear to be in a gang from carrying, or allow Sikhs to carry daggers while barring others from doing so.
I'd also like those who claim that firearms should be banned or heavily restricted in the interest of saving lives to tell me if it's acceptable for the government to discriminate against those who are statistically most likely to commit crimes. We already prevent felons and those with restraining orders from owning weapons which leads to disproportionate discrimination against black males. Should there be barriers preventing the poor from obtaining weapons? How about all black males? What about everyone besides Native Americans and Asians? Would you accept such restrictions if it led to a decline in mortality rates and provided the groundwork for tighter restrictions on the rest of the population?
*Before I'm called a racist, please remember I believe everyone (including felons who've served their time and been judged safe to reenter society) should be allowed to freely purchase and own firearms.
What I would like to know is if businessmen should be able to demand that a person of one of the protected groups who carries a weapon to leave his store (or surrender his property for the duration of the stay) while allowing other people who are not of that group but also carry a weapon to continue shopping as they were. The obvious example would be if one were to disallow the carrying of handguns by black people in an area where the vast majority of violent crime is perpetrated by black people, but one could also stop all men from carrying a weapon while allowing women to do so, prevent people who appear to be in a gang from carrying, or allow Sikhs to carry daggers while barring others from doing so.
I'd also like those who claim that firearms should be banned or heavily restricted in the interest of saving lives to tell me if it's acceptable for the government to discriminate against those who are statistically most likely to commit crimes. We already prevent felons and those with restraining orders from owning weapons which leads to disproportionate discrimination against black males. Should there be barriers preventing the poor from obtaining weapons? How about all black males? What about everyone besides Native Americans and Asians? Would you accept such restrictions if it led to a decline in mortality rates and provided the groundwork for tighter restrictions on the rest of the population?
*Before I'm called a racist, please remember I believe everyone (including felons who've served their time and been judged safe to reenter society) should be allowed to freely purchase and own firearms.
