Saturday, October 29, 2011

Crockett Keller, Concealed Carry Instructor of Mason Texas

Dan Zimmerman on TTAG said this video is "going viral." I guess he has his own definition for that.

The discussion over there is quite fascinating. The Armed Intelligentsia is divided between those who think this guy is a rare anomaly and we shouldn't post his video and those who think he's a rare anomaly and we should post his video. Spin doctors one and all. Here's what I said about it.

...as much as you try to insist this guy has nothing to do with you and the gun-rights movement, I’m afraid it just ain’t so. He’s representative af a very large percentage of gun owners. You intelligent, non-biased guys may be in the minority yourselves.


What's your opinion? Is this guy an anomaly or a representative? Please leave a comment.

65 comments:

  1. No shame is incorrect, no ability to feel ashamed is what he's suffering from. I know that Texas is not all that strong on the 10th amendment as it pertains to doin' bidness with folks they don't like, but the feds might be interested.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How about if you are just a non-christian? I mean Jews would fall under his definition since they are semitic, non-chrsitians.

    I'm glad he shot his mouth off.

    Ferrago was incredulous that some Jews may have supported Hitler, or just been complacent enough to have ignored his anti-semitism. But here we have an example of a blatantly anti-semitic pro-gunner. Not to mention the KKK is pro-gun (despite Clayton Claymer's beliefs). For the most part, the religious right are the proponents of "gun rights".

    But for all that, someone like Ferrago will get into bed with them, because "gun rights" blind him to their belief in the US as a "Christian Nation".

    "Oh, that Mr. Hitler, he doesn't really mean all those things he says about the Jews! And Streicher likes the Comedian Harmonists!. Anyway, we've weathered this type of thing before."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Would this person teach Christian Arabs?

    How about Muslim whites? I mean there are European Muslims (Albania, Bulgaria, Former Yugoslavia, and so on).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow. It's pitiful and shameful, but clearly he feels comfortable enough with those living around him sharing his views that he is willing and able to make such statements without fear of reprisal. Also, shame on the radio station for airing such bigoted and ignorant statements.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is encouraging to see a business operated in an honest way. If the market doesn't like his conditions and feels strongly enough, those Christians don't have to take his class, they can go somewhere else and he'll go out of business.

    I see no problem in the guy exercising his free speech and his right to associate with whomever he chooses. Are you folks against those rights?

    Should I be offended by a sign that says No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service. Ferchrissakes they're discriminating against nudists.
    LOL!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. We do not allow discrimination by business under the civil rights legislation of the 60s on the basis of ethnicity/race or religion. If you are a christian and if you would object to being denied access because you are a christian to a gas station, restaurant, grocery store, clothing store, hotel, theater or any other place which operates by being open to the public - as this place clearly does in addressing the town and surrounding counties where it is located, this is ILLEGAL. If someone can discriminate in your favor in this way they can equally discriminate against you. Would it be acceptable to you jackasses if this man said that Jews or blacks cannot access his retail establishment?

    And it is discriminatory, it is unethical, it is immoral, and it is damn well not genuinely christian and it is UNamerican.

    It is also effing stupid, and anyone who agrees with it is demonstrating they are reactionary bigots.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read a quote from the guy on another site that he doesn't include Jews in his bigotry. He says ours is a Judeo-Christian society and the Muslims have only been in the news for 10 or 20 years and it's all been bad news.

    Ann Barnhardt, Texas style.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "And it is discriminatory, it is unethical, it is immoral, and it is damn well not genuinely christian and it is UNamerican."

    Absolutely.

    Wrong? Definitely. Illegal? Not so sure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. re:"I read a quote from the guy on another site that he doesn't include Jews in his bigotry. He says ours is a Judeo-Christian society and the Muslims have only been in the news for 10 or 20 years and it's all been bad news.

    Ann Barnhardt, Texas style."


    The asshat christian theocrats have it wrong. Freedom of religion that makes any one religion or religions - i.e. judeo-christian - preferred in any way means that we do not have equal freedom of religion. It means that some religions, to borrow a paraphrase from Animal Farm 'are more equal' than others.

    Further it doesn't matter if we have only one muslim or millions of muslims in this country; they are free and have equal rights of access to anyone else, including liberals, atheists, agnostics,and pagans.

    And further than that, Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions; it has the same roots and origins as Judaism and Christianity, and overlaps many of the same beliefs. It is inconsistent, not to mention profoundly offensive, to include Jews but exclude Muslims in this context. Turn it around - would you find it as acceptable if they included Muslims - who acknowldge Jesus Christ - but excluded Jews who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ, as a condition of doing business?

    No.

    Rather one's religion, whatever that religion is, has no business in business; it is not an acceptable basis for discrimination, not in doing business, not in hiring, not in any way shape or form.

    And given that an overwhelming percentage of blacks voted for Obama.... isn't there a racial component to this discrimination as well? Or do you really believe that it is exclusively political? I don't.

    One's politics like one's religion should not be allowed in any way to be a criteria. Further, so long as the class being offered is to qualify for a government license, NO person taking the class from this guy should have any qualification for those licenses recognized. Whoever has taken this class and test from this jerk should be required to retake it elsewhere, including paying for the privilege. Otherwise government is de facto, partnering in, condoing, and encouraging the discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I should have added, government would also be benefiting improperly from the discrimination, through any fees for such licensing on the basis for these classes and tests, which should be totally rejected.

    I hope someone goes to this class, stands up and says they are a liberal, or Muslim, and or they voted for Obama, and then if this guy acts on his ad, sues his behind off, hitting him in the pocket.

    And if there are any criminal sanctions against this activity, I hope his ass ends up in jail for it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. to answer the original question of is this guy representative of the gun community at large? my personal response is no he does not represent the greater gun community from my personal experience. do plenty of people like him exist in the great wide world of firearms owners sure, but there are plenty of people who don't own guns that share the same view. it is worth while to call out bigotry but his bigotry does not stem from gun ownership his bigotry stems from being ignorant about the world around him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am not 'pooch', I am not Laci, I am dog gone.

    "Anon wrote:
    Really?!?!??!
    You want to go with that argument?
    "

    Yes, I do.

    "Then tell me what is not discriminatory, unethical, immoral, and anti-Christian about people being denied university admittance or jobs because they are white and the government says preference must be given to Hispanics, blacks, or Asians?"

    Absolutely. First of all, admittance or emplyment is never ONLY on color or ethnicity, it is on merit. Further, it is about trying to achieve social justice and fairness and equality. There is no pretense of that, much less real accompishment of anything of the kind in what the Texas asshole is doing. Beyond that, it is not a case of a few qualified people being given a minor amount of preference, where there are clearly overwhelmingly MORE people in the categories of white, economically more advantaged, and men compared to women. If there were NO men,no white people, no economically advantaged over disadvantaged, you would have a point - but you don't because there are clearly MORE of the category of people you see as discriminated against than otherwise.

    More than that, increasing the number of people who fit any description of minority status enhances the diversity of the group by making it more inclusive. The Texas ten gallon asshat is not in any way or shape making his group of students more inclusive, but rather more exclusionary, which is the opposite effect of his full discrimination.

    AND there is absolutely NO religion or political affiliation included in the affirmative action scenario you mention, again, unlike the Texas Six-gunner bigot.

    And then we have affirmative action having been vetted through our court system, while nothing the Texas sized bigot is doing has been so approved for being legal.

    All of these things are significantly different, and illustrate why your analogy is terribly flawed, a comoparison of apples to asphalt, not apples to apples or even apples to other fruit.

    "You simply have no moral standing in this case. Morals either apply to everyone, or they don't. Wrongo,ignoramus, and I would put my grade in ethics classes up against anything like either logic or ethics you have ever studied in proof of that. You clearly have failed to understand what is fundamentally at issue here.

    Tell me, Anonyymous - do YOU favor preference being given to veterans in local, state, or federal civil service jobs over straight merit, or is that kind of preferential treatment discrimination in your eyes? Is that not discrimination? I think it is an excellent benefit to offer those whomake that excellent sacrifice of service to this country. Perhaps you consider it discrimination.

    And beyond that, what valid metric for discrimination is there being used by the asshole in Texas? It sure as hell is not based on anything except bigotry, it is entirely on a hateful bias basis, not on any genuine merit whatsoever, unlike the instances you cite. Affirmative action is not preference without merit.

    That zing, btw anonymous, was the sound of you losing the argument, completely and devestatingly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "while nothing the Texas sized bigot is doing has been so approved for being legal."

    Again, perhaps not ethical or moral but it doesn't have to be "approved legal", it has to be prohibited as illegal and I am not sure that it is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tht's hilarious little miss snotty snark.
    Start out with a false premise, expound on it and contradict yerself in the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Funny, how anonymous just spouts shit and doesn't give a proper refutation when he's painted himself into a corner.

    Start out with a false premise,

    What is that premise in your own words and how is it false?

    Show that you are understanding what she is saying and how it is wrong.

    expound on it and contradict yerself in the middle.

    How does she contradict herself?

    As I said, you've got to show that you understand what we are saying and how it is wrong, anonymous.

    Usually, you just say shit which has no bearing on reality.

    or what we've said.

    ReplyDelete
  16. FWM, here is a definition of discrimination which illustrates why what they are doing in Texas is discrimination, and why preferential treatment in some (but not all) college entrance acceptance or hiring is not discrimination.

    wikipedia:
    'Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be used as an expression of derogatory racial prejudice in the 1830s from Thomas D. Rice's performances as "Jim Crow".

    amd
    "Discriminatory laws such as redlining exist in many countries. In some places, controversial attempts such as racial quotas have been used to redress negative effects of discrimination."
    and
    "Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe."

    and - which I believe addresses FWM's question about illegality[applicable section bolded]-
    "In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied " the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[4
    Ditto race or ethnicity,and disability.

    and
    "The American federal laws that protect against:
    Race, color and national origin discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order Number 11478 among other numerous laws that protect people from race, color and national origin discrimination.
    Sex and gender discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Equal Pay Act of 1963.
    age Discrimination include the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
    Physical and mental disability discrimination include the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
    Religious discrimination include the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Military status discrimination include the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974

    Most other western nations have similar laws protecting these groups."

    I'm fairly sure that any requirement of disclosure of one's private ballot or one's political views could be construed to be an unlawful invasion of privacy.

    I'm still waiting, like Laci, for some specific criticism. I doubt that he has any and is just bloviating, blubbering and blustering.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What false premise?
    Some bumpkin said: "First of all, admittance or emplyment is never ONLY on color or ethnicity, it is on merit."
    HUH?
    Grutter v Bollinger
    The case involved preferential admissions based on race into the University of Michigan Law School without any specific point system but clearly admitting less qualified blacks over more qualified whites. Again a white student denied admission cried foul. The fact that an applicant was black would ensure that his or her application would be set aside for more consideration than that given to white applicants to achieve a more "diverse student body." Everybody knew this. Law schools had become notorious for this sort of practice, often reserving ten percent of incoming student seats for "minorities." According to the Court’s Hopwood decision back in the 1990s this is a no-no. But obviously that decision didn’t stop preferential admissions.
    Really, race is 'never' the reason. This kids, is a false premise.
    Then we get this: "increasing the number of people who fit any description of minority status enhances the diversity of the group by making it more inclusive."

    In this instance yokel says, discrimination is fine and dandy.
    Now there's a consistently moral position.
    So, the translation of miss uppity land of 10,000 lakes is: There is no racial preference, but if there is, it is good for you, asshole.

    My suggestion to you people is, don't go to this guys gun training class, you obviously aren't competent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here is the failure in your reasoning, Anonumbass,

    Setting aside some quotas for minorities guarantees that there will be at least that many people from previously denied and discriminated against groups of people.

    It does NOT exclude ALL white people, or people of any other group. It does not INCLUDE all people from any group while excluding another entire group.

    That makes it not discrimination. It is preferential that groups like veterans have an advantage in hiring; we agree that is good, not bad.

    Even if there were no written standards narrowly specifying the criteria for students from a minority to be given affirmative action preference, it does not mean that those students were not selected for probable success in law school, while other students who were in the same category of race/ethnicity or other minority designation were rejected as unlikely to succeed in law school.

    THAT makes such action NOT discriminatory while what the guy in Texas did WAS discrmination because everyone in the listed groups was excluded.

    Got it now, numbass dumbass?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous once again proves he has no idea of what he is talking about.

    Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) said that race was a factor in the admissions process. This was due to the fact that establishing diversity is a compelling state interest. The Law School's use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a "potential 'plus' factor".

    Race cannot be the main reason for admission, it must be a factor to be considered.

    It should be noted that this case was heard in conjunction with Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), in which the Court struck down the University of Michigan's more rigid, point-based undergraduate admission policy, which was essentially deemed a quota system.

    Once again, anonymous demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding of the issues and that he has no idea of what he is talking about!

    ReplyDelete
  20. "First of all, admittance or emplyment is never ONLY on color or ethnicity, it is on merit."
    This is a false premise and anything after it is dung. Thank you and have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  21. How is it a false premise,anonymous?

    Please be specific.

    Dog gone provided the law, you have provided nothing but your ignorant opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What part of this didn't you understand?
    The case involved preferential admissions based on race into the University of Michigan Law School without any specific point system but clearly admitting less qualified blacks over more qualified whites. Again a white student denied admission cried foul. The fact that an applicant was black would ensure that his or her application would be set aside for more consideration than that given to white applicants to achieve a more "diverse student body." Everybody knew this. Law schools had become notorious for this sort of practice, often reserving ten percent of incoming student seats for "minorities." According to the Court’s Hopwood decision back in the 1990s this is a no-no. But obviously that decision didn’t stop preferential admissions.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Doggone,

    I don't think there is any doubt that this is discrimination, under the cites you gave or even just common sense. I'm just not sure that it is a crime. Most equal access laws usually apply when the business is of a certain size (gross receipts or number of employees) depending upon what state you live in. Sole proprietorships are almost always exempt as private individuals are usually allowed to do business with whom they please.

    Texas may try to impose a standard in order to be an instructor and there may be a law applicable to advertising on the radio but I doubt he has broken a discrimination law that would result in much of a fine or any jail time.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I understood it much better than you did, Anonymous, I gave you what the Supreme Court decided in the decision that YOU mentioned.

    Race can be used as a factor in the decision, but there can be no strict quota.

    If anything, you don't understand the law.

    But, you have this habit of trying to tell people who know the topic what you think it means.

    But, you are usually wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  25. BTW, anonymous, if you want to say I am wrong, you will have to provide the precise passages from the two US Supreme Court decisions that I mentioned that contradict what I said.

    That should be done in precise legal citation form.

    Anything else is pure bullshit on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  26. FWM, you won't find any disagreement from me that the Supreme Court can get things wrong.

    They often do.

    That's what allows people like myself to not have to find "real jobs".

    ReplyDelete
  27. Affirmative action is http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6314891743204395487&postID=6914147181606844963discrimination, period.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/us/30scotus.html?pagewanted=all
    Again, race was the determining factor, so any argument that starts out that race in never a factor is dung.

    "Equality is what does not exist among equals." e.e. cummings

    I'm finished, over and out.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ERRRRRRNNNNKKKKKK!

    Anonymous once again fails.

    He fails to properly refute what I said in proper form.

    The case, anonymous mentions, Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2671, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009), concluded that the City's action in discarding the tests was a violation of Title VII:

    1. In these circumstances, the standard for permissible race-based action under Title VII is that the employer must "demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute."
    2. The respondents cannot meet that threshold standard.

    So, while race can be considered as a factor if it meets the goal of promoting a compelling state interest, but it cannot be used on its own as a reason for discrimination.

    In fact, the case Anonymous cites backs up that point!

    Good one, anonymous!

    Anonymous also fails to prove he has an idea of what is going on and being said.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Crockett Keller, Concealed Carry Instructor of Mas...":

    "First of all, admittance or emplyment is never ONLY on color or ethnicity, it is on merit."
    This is a false premise and anything after it is dung. Thank you and have a nice day."

    Discrimination is when an entire group of people - EVERY one of them - is barred or excluded. It is NOT the same as preferential treatment in an attempt to pick a cross section of individuals, where multiple criteria and merit are used.

    You may disagree with affirmative action, or action which tries to remove racial inequality, but that does not change that the sales practices in this add are discriminatory, on the basis of religion not race. It excludes ALL members of certain religions, which is illegal. And yes FWM, ILLEGAL is the right word, and yes there are penalties for doing that. Laci is the lawyer here, I'll leave it to him to expound on them, although it is not his area of specialty.

    Your argument is failing, so you try to change the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  30. dag, Not to quibble, but what I said is this guy is "representative af a very large percentage of gun owners."

    That's different from what you said. "is this guy representative of the gun community at large?"

    It's a minor but important distinction. Your question makes it sound like I think 75% of gun owners are like him. I don't. But I don't think his type can be dismissed as so minor a representation as to be unimportant.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, discrimination is illegal, but for the most case penalties are civil rather than criminal.

    A criminal civil rights violation involves the use or threat of force, and can occur with:
    * Hate crimes
    * Migrant worker exploitation
    * Law enforcement misconduct
    * Religious interference or property damage
    * Health care access interference, such as phone threat or bombing
    * Slavery rings

    As has been shown, even affirmative action if it goes too far can be considered illegal discrimination. Race is only one factor to be considered in this process.

    One cannot prefer one group over the other to promote people who are totally incompetant.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mike when you use Vague terms like a "significant quantity" you create a large gray area on what you mean and lends to the assumption that you are talking 51% or more "significant" quantity can by definition mean anything is 5% of 300 million people a small number or how about 60% of 50 people a large group of people.

    but i think you will be sad to find across all parties and ideologies the views that this guy expounded on are shared regardless of gun ownership or not by about an equal number of people gun owners or not.

    there is a "large population" of people from both sides of the political spectrum who are more than happy to live in a black and white world where there is only good and bad and "if its different than what I do" they think its bad and should be banned.

    if you want a true percentage and not just go off of a hunch or gut feelings do a true poll of gun owners and define what percentage you classify as significant. don't just say I think something in the abstract sense cause its not provable or disprovable.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Texas has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason as a small business owner. This guy is a small, independent business owner.

    However his classes [CHL] are state licensed by the state of Texas. According to the state license, he must abide by the state rules which include to offer, without discrimination, to anyone that wishes to take a CHL qualification class as a part of the CHL license requirement to obtain a CHL. He does not have to, and cannot run a back ground check to anyone that wishes to take the class. The eligibility of the individual to obtain a Texas CHL is determined by the State of Texas.

    The class must be taken. The results of pass is given to the individual to be mailed with the application.

    Two passport photos must be taken to be mailed with the application.

    The application must be paid for and downloaded or obtained from the DPS with an account number that you must retain. The fee is not returnable, even if revoked.

    Electronic fingerprints must be taken and the state approved facility will electronically transmit those prints to the state with your account number.

    Once all steps are completed, all materials are mailed to the state for a complete background check before the license is issued (if approved) and mailed. Your account number allows you to check the progress of the application on-line. The process can take up to six months, two if your clean.

    The state will not discriminate against the applicant except for the disqualifying factors of any criminal or recorded mental health issues of the applicant. Race, creed any beliefs or political stand is not questioned, even on the application except for age or criminal record THAT YOU MUST LIST as they will be checked. If there is a disqualifying reason and you do not list it and the state finds it on the background check, and they will, it is an automatic dis qualifier and you may not be able to protest the denial.

    Texas is very tight with its licenses, especially the CHL and ONLY the state determines who can or cannot qualify. The state of Texas preempts ALL lower laws, rules and regulations, which will include the state licensed instructors and their opinions.

    His instructer permit is in jepordy of suspension or revocation. Fines? Who knows. This is the first case of this type.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Center, a belated welcome.

    You wrote:
    "Texas has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason as a small business owner. This guy is a small, independent business owner."

    After which I would like to politely disagree. Whatever the heck Texas law states (and Texas does sometimes believe they are a law unto themselves), federal law says that race and/or religion based discrimination is illegal.

    This is a business which has transactions with the public. Federal law prohibits discrimination in access to such a business.

    Specifically:
    In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied " the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[43]

    ReplyDelete
  35. I miss spoke. I souold have said that private business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just about any private business in Texas displays that sign in full view. If you go into a private business and demand service you will find that the local police will be there shortly to remove you and could face charges for tresspass.

    The sign says, "I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"

    But as I had pointed out, his private business is gun qualification class and instructor that requires a state license. He cannot refuse anyone to the class that wishes to take it.


    But if you come into MY place of business and I dont like you for any reason, any reason, then I will ask you to leave. If you refuse a simple call to the local police will have you removed and I will sign the charge of tresspass.

    This may not be allowed in all states, but its a common practice in Texas

    In a 1979 consultation on the issue, the United States commission on civil rights defined religious discrimination in relation to the civil rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whereas religious civil liberties, such as the right to hold or not to hold a religious belief, are essential for Freedom of Religion (in the United States secured by the First Amendment), religious discrimination occurs when someone is denied " the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."[43]

    In my business, the service I offer has nothing to do with any of the statement you posted. I offer a specfic service that has no relation to the 1979 consultation and that consultation is just that. Not a specfic law but an opinion on the fedral law.

    My business is not regulated in any way by the state of Texas other than a tax number and meeting EPA guide lines. So I can run you off for any reason I see fit, any.

    The gun class instructor can not have that choice, his practice IS regulated by the state.

    But not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think I said it right the in my first post anyway. Please read my ENTIRE first post. Then you will find that I said, in different words than you, the same as your rebuttal.

    I was simply making the difference between a small independant business that he has and mine, for example, altho I didnt mention mine in the first post.

    He, the class instructor, thinks he can apply the right to refuse in his class, he cant. I, on the other hand, can.

    ReplyDelete
  37. No private business is exempt from the application of federal law; being a 'private business' doesn't allow you to discriminate, no matter what sign they post.

    I have no idea where you got that idea, but as Laci will affirm - NO, you can't. It is against the law to discriminate.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes I can. And have for 36 years of doing business. And have had people removed from my place, some prosicuted for trying to remain.

    Come to my business and put up a stink, you will find yourself in the city clink.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Note, I didn't say you couldn't refuse service. I said you could not do so on the basis of religious or racial discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  40. OK, sometime someone will get savvy to your trick if it is racially or otherwise religiously or ethinically based, Centre Lead, and will leave before you call the cops. Then they may charge discrimination of some sort. They will complain to EEOC.

    Or the cops, or other enforcer of the law, notice a pattern to who you are charging with trespass. And someone puts 2 & 2 together.

    Another option would be that people could spread the word that you discriminate. If a store owner wants to unwisely discriminate who he lets into his private property, since it's his property, technically he is allowed to do so. But the bad publicity that would follow would probably doom his business.

    You can disguise,or try to disguise, the fact that you discriminate, but eventually it could catch up with you.

    ReplyDelete
  41. So, as Laci points out - you can try to disguise that you are practicing discrimination, but it IS against the law.

    It was stupid of this guy to boast that he was discriminating - that rather negates any disguise of what he is doing.

    That may ALSO get him in trouble with the Texas authorities.

    But discriminating IS against FEDERAL law and I can only hope that you aren't admitting here that you DO discriminate on the basis of race or religion.

    That is very different from other legitimate reasons for refusing someone service.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This isnt any trick or disguise. No where did I say that I could discriminate at will. I said I reserve the right to refuse. The reasons are wholly held to my own, I dont have to explain them.

    I am simply trying to make your point in simple words.

    If I said I refuse to serve you because of your color, religon, political views or something along those lines, then discrimination has a legal point and such is the case with the instructor. He IS discriminating!

    If he was a smart guy and didnt want to offer the class to the individuals that he didnt agree with, he should have just kept quiet and refused for personal reasons and not made them public.

    But he screwed himself, he is in trouble. This is what I explained in my first post.

    I work on cars for example and you bring your to me and tell me you want a seat belt module replace. I check out your car and find that replacing the module wont fix it. If you insist that I replace it anyway, I will but with a disclaimer that I had advised you that the repair wont work. If you tell me to replace it and you informed that you will SUE me if it didnt fix it, then I will REFUSE to do business with you. This does happen more often than you think. This is NOT discrimination on my part, its a RIGHT to REFUSE. I am in business to make money, I dont care what race or religon or political standing you are, I want the GREEN paper you have by offering a legit service. If I feel you are going to COST me that GREEN paper, you can just go somewhere else.

    How is that discrimination on my part?

    That instructor is trying to use the right to refuse in a discrimanatory fashion, it doesnt work that way.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Central wrote:
    "I s[h]ouold have said that private business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."
    and
    "My business is not regulated in any way by the state of Texas other than a tax number and meeting EPA guide lines. So I can run you off for any reason I see fit, any."

    Your business is subject to the same FEDERAL law as any other business.

    So, NO you cannot legally refuse service to anyone for the reason of racial or religious discrimination.

    Is that always easy to prove, if you are not stupid like Crockett Keller, and broadcast that you are discriminating? No. But if you make a pattern of discriminating against people for a reason that is prohibited by law - say you don't serve blacks, or you don't serve someone you believe to be arab/muslim, or any person you believe to be non-Christian --- you can find yourself sued in Federal Court for it.

    Such a refusal of service IS ILLEGAL. Whether you might sometimes get away with it or not is not the point. You are subject to that same federal regulation that makes what Crockett Keller did illegal.

    Texas may very well require Keller to refrain from discrimination; the FEDS require BOTH of you to do so, and it doesn't matter a tinker's damn whether Texas says you can discriminate or not - they don't, but their authority is superseded by the federal statutes.

    So, NO, you are WRONG, neither of you can legally discriminate against anyone for reasons of religion or race. That is a federal law which is consistent with the Constitutional rights, and which has been upheld by the courts repeatedly.

    So Anonymous, your notion that this violates freedom of association is incorrect. You can choose who you have in your home but you cannot choose who you allow to be an employee or customer on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You really need to read my post completely. We are on the same page.

    And yes, IF there were any federal laws that would apply to me, I would agree. But since you have no idea what my business is, how can you say I am wrong.

    There IS NO federal regulation on my business other than EPA and TAX. Thats it!

    Slow down and read carefully my previous post please.

    ReplyDelete
  45. What private business allows you to ignore federal civil rights law?

    I'm just curious.

    Because I think you are probably wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Exactly what fedral law do you think that I would be violating. I am confused.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Center lead, Not to change the subject, which I'm sure you and Dog Gone will eventually get settled, but what do you think about my original proposal. I suggested that ole Crockett is representative of a pretty good slice of the gun-owning pie.

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  48. My reply would be lengthy to both, so I will add for dog gone and Mike, I will give my view on personal observation only.

    I will tonight, very busy today. But I will. I promise.

    Thank you for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Center Lead:

    You may well be violating the law and not even be aware of it. Such things happen all the time.

    I was at a local watering hole one night a month or two ago, doing what we do at such places.

    I was talking to two guys who are locals and they were approached by another guy who was attending a Fraternity reunion. He bought them beers and they were all backslappin' and shootin' the breeze. He was asked by one of the guys if his son was in college. He said that, yes, his son is in college and came up with a great way to get money for expenses not covered by his tuition and meal plan.

    Seems the lad was being entrpenurial and selling "Whippets", which are small gas cartridges containing 8-16 grams of nitrous oxide. He said the kid buys 'em for less than half a buck and sells 'em for a buck apiece. He said the kid sold 8,000 of them in a month or so.

    I said, "I don't know where he's in school, but those are illegal to possess or use in this state, unless you're actually using them for whipping cream.". He was, "What?", I said, "Yeah, up this way, y'know, not much that's fun--other than booze and gambling--is legal.". At that point one of his fraternity brothers started laughing--he's a state cop. The poor guy about shit himself. He was very lucky it was somebody who had no interest in ruining somebody's life that he spilled the beans to.

    I was once afoul of the MA DOR for about 8 years of not filing, but since I made no money they didn't fine me--and I really didn't owe them anything. A year later, they raised "failure to file" to a felony. I always filed after that.

    It's not just dirty hippies and career criminals who get prosecuted for breaking laws they didn't know existed.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Center,
    being a private business does not exempt you or anyone else from federal civil rights law.

    That is not what I believe you call
    'federal regulation'.

    That is civil rights law, which is nationwide. It does not allow businesses to discriminate for reasons like race, religion, disability, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  51. My business is a custom machine shop. I am the owner/operator, in other words, no employees. I do all the work myself. I accept work from various companies that either get behind in their own place and I can take up the slack, or some companies that source out very specfic items to be made. I seldom do anything from the general public anymore unless things get slow. I still do some custom modifications on parts for off roaders and drag racers and such but this is usually one up, one at a time. A lot of time involved with very little profit. But hey, when I am slow, and its still fun.

    I do work for different levels of governments as well, from city to county, from state to federal.

    I am not subsidized by any government at any level. They need something machined and if I can handle it, will draw up a work order for them. When dealing with the feds there are a LOT of guidlines that I have to meet. If it wasnt good pay, I wouldnt bother with them.

    But I had a problem with my equipment supplier once. I had bought a gun smithing lathe from them. I dont do any gun smithing at all, but that lathe is well suited for some of the machining I do.

    After a few weeks I started to have a few people show up wanting some rifle barrel modifications done. I explained that I do any type of gun work and they should seek a gun smith to do what they wanted to do. One fellow in peticular flat out I insisted that I do it anyway and got mouthy about it. At that point I told him, politley but firmly he just needs to leave. He did but came back in about a hour and started in yelling at me that I should do the work he wanted, why else would I have bought the equipment to do so. "Look fella, I am not obligated in ANY WAY to provide ANY service to you! I DONT WORK ON GUNS! NOW LEAVE or I will call the police!" He refused to leave, he had been advised to leave and refused. Now he is tresspassing. The police came about 20 minutes after I called and the nut job was still there yelling. The police did remove him and I signed the tresspass complaint.

    Turns out that he had a fairly lengthy record for being a hot head. He had a $5000.00 fine and 3 months in jail to spend for not leaving when he should have from my place. And IF he shows back up to my place, he goes back to jail again as ordered by the judge.

    After 36 years, there have been a few run ins with people like that, not often, but they are out there.

    I found out that my equipment dealer had a few people ask if they knew of anyone that had gun smithing equipment, he directed them to me. He had assummed that I was a gun smith just because I had bought that lathe. Told him not to do that anymore.

    I dont see how any incident like that violates any civil rights or liberties. I am a private, small business and will take the jobs that I can handle and can make a living at. I am in no way obligated by anyone or any law to take on just any job just because it comes thru my door.

    I DO NOT work on any type of firearm or anything that goes boom.

    I DO NOT work on anything that is a part of DOT regulated safety equipment, such as machining brake rotors/drums and the like.

    I DO NOT copy parts that have a patent or copy right.

    Dont even ask, and thats also posted in my entrance as well.

    ReplyDelete
  52. To, Mike.

    I can only make an observation only by personal experience on the question you asked.

    I know several gun owners, about 50 people that I am aware of. These are business people that I commonly deal with, friends I either grew up with or met in earlier year while I was involved with professional drag racing. And family, both mine and inlaws.

    Ocasionally when I get to make a trip back home I will take several pistols and shotguns with me. I will go skeet shooting with some family and friends. Go to the target range and have a great deal of fun out shooting my brother inlaw and cousin and a couple of their friends in the local law enforcement. Then I will go around and check up on some more buddies that are still in the drag racing circuit. Still do a lot of bench racing and idea sharing.

    We will get on the subject of the conceal carry from time to time and it came to a great suprise to me that about half, maybe a little more have the CHL in Texas. Most of them have had them since the law went into affect in 1996. None of these guys, most of which I have known as little as 20 years to all my life, have never shown me one bigoted bone in there body or outlook on society. Most dont carry, some do when traveling, a few all the time. We had a few years back, mostly LEOs, in one weekend shooting range, a conversation about the affect on the people when they got their CHL. Most of them just shrugged and said that as far as they could tell, nothing had really changed. They did say that they were more comfortable at a stop with a CHL than one without.

    I did get my CHL recently and carried later that weekend. Mind you, that I grew up in a family of avid hunters, firearms were allways handy and just seemed a normal thing to me. But carrying that pistol on my side was the most un-nerving experiance I ever had! Personally, I dont think its something I could ever get used to. I had talked about this feeling with my cousin, a city cop, and my brother inlaw, a deputy sherrif and his superior afterwards. All three said that they all had the same feeling at first. "It keeps the honest man honest, as long as you feel that way, you will remain a little more law abiding than most" I dont think that I could get used to it, but glad to have that permit when I travel back home, just knowing that I am perfectly within the law having those weapons with me while traveling.

    I use them only as a sport and competetion among friends and family. I dont hunt, dont belive in it. But I have fun making holes in a little piece of paper or dust out of clay pigeons.

    Its not about rights and such as that I see on a lot of blog sites, its just about fun and remaining with in the laws.

    But judging from this site and many other like this one, on both sides of the issue, I only see a microscopic representation of either side having the same few people commenting. Over one half million people with CHLs in Texas alone, I never see any news story that has associated a CHL with a gun crime.

    But I also know, stands within logical reason, that any person is capable of any crime, if a CHL was issued to one and having passed a background check may mean that that type of person just hasnt been caught yet. No system can be perfect, but at least it is a system.

    But as far as the loon instructor being the larger representation of gun owners or CHL holders? No, I really dont think so. Its just an idiot like that can have the larger negitive represention of making the rest of really good people, like the ones I know, look bad. And that stands to reason since one loon like that can make the headlines, any other wrong doing on the part of a legally licensed gun owner would also be splattered on the headlines, just never see it. I am sure it has happened. Just not at any frequency or any at all that I have heard of.

    The only loon I know of is my youngest brother. He is a restaurant loon. Jeeze, I hate to go out and eat with that guy! Nothing ever satisfys him! LOLs.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Central, thank you for your explanation...
    but I still do not understand how you feel Texas law exempts you in some way from the provisions of the federal civil rights law that does not allow you to discriminate against people on the basis of religion, race, gender, disability, etc.

    You can make determinations that you don't wish to do business with an individual for any number of other reasons - just not those that are covered under the federal civil rights law.

    So, as I understand it, you are not legally able to refuse blacks, or Jews, or muslims, or women, or blind people, or asians, or latinos.

    That would be different that deciding you don't want to do business with a specific person who happened to also fall under one of those categories, for some other reason you don't wish to work with them.

    But if you do what Crockett Keller did, and announce a blanket decision that you will not allow ANY black, muslim, disabled person, etc., you would clearly be in violation of that federal civil rights legislation, regardless of what Texas law allows or doesn't allow.

    Although in the case of Keller, he would have a justification, I assume, for rejecting someone who is blind, as a safety issue. But that would clearly be different than using prejudice as a basis of discrimination; it is a practical reason,not a bias.

    So, YES, civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination DO apply to your business.

    You seem a pretty reasonable guy though, so from what you have written here in comments, you don't seem at all like someone who would do what Crocket Keller did. That man seems to have trouble with an awful lot of the people in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Center lead, I'll take your word for it, but I must say this description of your 50 or so gun-owning acquaintances is hard to believe.

    "have never shown me one bigoted bone in there body or outlook on society."

    I grew up in New Jersey, and I can assure you racism runs deep there, even still I would imagine. Is Texas that much better? I doubt it.

    Maybe you yourself are so clean in this regard you don't even see the problem in others. I'm baffled by what you said, but I'm willing to accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Center Lead:

    I grew up in Nebraska and went to a school with a lot of hunters. Most of them were--and are, to this day--bigots. I'm sure they are not representative of the entire population either, but they sure do skew the curve.

    ReplyDelete
  56. dog gone said...
    Central, thank you for your explanation...
    but I still do not understand how you feel Texas law exempts you in some way from the provisions of the federal civil rights law that does not allow you to discriminate against people on the basis of religion, race, gender, disability, etc.

    Texas does not allow that kind of discrimination. I really tried very hard to point that out in my very first post. And the tried very hard to back that up in another post using me as a comparison.

    I tried very hard to show that the loon that made the discriminating ad tries to use, or equate the right to refuse is wrong in his application.

    I dont discriminate in any such fashion, and wont. You see, I am an American Indian, Cherokee to be exact. My friends are made up of all races, and my family and in-laws have mixes of race as well.

    I find it surprising that you have a hard time believing that someone can have so many friends. A lot I met thru doing business with them and keep doing business with them. Keeping such relation ships are mutually beneficial as I dont spend a dime for advertising.

    Now I DID say, shown ME one bigoted bone. Never has. What they do and how they act absent of my presence may be another story. But the relationships are intermingled so I doubt that they are bigoted. Birds of a feather so speak.

    I will say that if I ever found to the contrary, I believe it would be it for me, and tell that person how I felt and just respectfully stay away from me.

    They come from different religious beliefs, different political standings and a few from different countries. Some have tried to convince me to stand with Democrats, some republican and some independent. We will have some arguments on the principle of each (and if you were standing on the outside, you would believe it was going to be a knock down drag out fight) but will still go have coffee and shake hands. No harm, no foul. And would trust any one of them with my very life anyway.

    I am a Conservative, not a republican, Democrat or indepenent. My church is the mountains and go there to watch the sun and moon and marvel at the creation of the world and universe.

    I consider my self as a peaceful person but wont allow myself to be "run over" by anyone. I will stand my ground on what is right.

    That loon, Keller, he just aint right.

    So I really want to put to bed the notion that Texas would allow discrimination in any such fashion, they dont. And I dont. I wont say it doesnt happen in Texas. It just will not happen with me.

    The second paragraph in my first post:

    "However his classes [CHL] are state licensed by the state of Texas. According to the state license, he must abide by the state rules which include to offer, without discrimination, to anyone that wishes to take a CHL qualification class as a part of the CHL license requirement to obtain a CHL. He does not have to, and cannot run a back ground check to anyone that wishes to take the class. The eligibility of the individual to obtain a Texas CHL is determined by the State of Texas."

    Without discrimination! If Texas did, then I would not have been able to get a CHL, nor would about half of the friends of mine.

    You see guys, we are on the same page! And I tried to articulate that. There really is no need to jump to conclusions about everyone and be ready to fight at the drop of a hat. I trust anyone untill they give me cause not to. I do not judge anyone, that judgement will present itself thru ones actions.

    That may well be the reasons that I do have and keep so many friends!

    Birds of a feather flock together!

    ReplyDelete
  57. dog gone said...
    Central, thank you for your explanation...
    but I still do not understand how you feel Texas law exempts you in some way from the provisions of the federal civil rights law that does not allow you to discriminate against people on the basis of religion, race, gender, disability, etc.

    Texas does not allow that kind of discrimination. I really tried very hard to point that out in my very first post. And the tried very hard to back that up in another post using me as a comparison.

    I tried very hard to show that the loon that made the discriminating ad tries to use, or equate the right to refuse is wrong in his application.

    I dont discriminate in any such fashion, and wont. You see, I am an American Indian, Cherokee to be exact. My friends are made up of all races, and my family and in-laws have mixes of race as well.

    I find it surprising that you have a hard time believing that someone can have so many friends. A lot I met thru doing business with them and keep doing business with them. Keeping such relation ships are mutually beneficial as I dont spend a dime for advertising.

    Now I DID say, shown ME one bigoted bone. Never has. What they do and how they act absent of my presence may be another story. But the relationships are intermingled so I doubt that they are bigoted. Birds of a feather so speak.

    I will say that if I ever found to the contrary, I believe it would be it for me, and tell that person how I felt and just respectfully stay away from me.

    They come from different religious beliefs, different political standings and a few from different countries. Some have tried to convince me to stand with Democrats, some republican and some independent. We will have some arguments on the principle of each (and if you were standing on the outside, you would believe it was going to be a knock down drag out fight) but will still go have coffee and shake hands. No harm, no foul. And would trust any one of them with my very life anyway.

    I am a Conservative, not a republican, Democrat or indepenent. My church is the mountains and go there to watch the sun and moon and marvel at the creation of the world and universe.

    I consider my self as a peaceful person but wont allow myself to be "run over" by anyone. I will stand my ground on what is right.

    That loon, Keller, he just aint right.

    So I really want to put to bed the notion that Texas would allow discrimination in any such fashion, they dont. And I dont. I wont say it doesnt happen in Texas. It just will not happen with me.

    The second paragraph in my first post:

    "However his classes [CHL] are state licensed by the state of Texas. According to the state license, he must abide by the state rules which include to offer, without discrimination, to anyone that wishes to take a CHL qualification class as a part of the CHL license requirement to obtain a CHL. He does not have to, and cannot run a back ground check to anyone that wishes to take the class. The eligibility of the individual to obtain a Texas CHL is determined by the State of Texas."

    Without discrimination! If Texas did, then I would not have been able to get a CHL, nor would about half of the friends of mine.

    You see guys, we are on the same page! And I tried to articulate that. There really is no need to jump to conclusions about everyone and be ready to fight at the drop of a hat. I trust anyone untill they give me cause not to. I do not judge anyone, that judgement will present itself thru ones actions.

    That may well be the reasons that I do have and keep so many friends!

    Birds of a feather flock together!

    ReplyDelete
  58. democommie said...

    "I grew up in Nebraska and went to a school with a lot of hunters. Most of them were--and are, to this day--bigots. I'm sure they are not representative of the entire population either, but they sure do skew the curve."

    Yes they do, but those few still wouldnt be representative of the majority population. The majority of the populace is mostly quite and go about their own lives quietly, so you wouldnt hear from or about them. I think it is wrong to judge everyone from a few bigots like Keller and the ones you know. They may make the headlines and they do because they are the oddball that the news needs to report on. News does not report on all of the good people, it would be too boring and take forever to do so.

    So somehow, some people take the one person like Keller and make his problem a defining belife for an entire group.

    So at the risk of sounding condescending, and belive me I am not! You really need to take a break, go to my chruch, the moutains, take some deep breaths, meet some new people at random, anyone, and with casual converstation you may find that most people are not really all that bad. Most infact, if not everyone you meet, will share your same views.

    Its why I live my life the way I do and keep the friends I have. Not all of us will see eye to eye on every issue. But all of them are inherently good people and that allows me a broader perspective on life and also to understand that one bad apple does not spoil the entire basket, just as long as you get rid of that bad apple before it has a spoils the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  59. mikeb302000 said...

    "I grew up in New Jersey, and I can assure you racism runs deep there, even still I would imagine. Is Texas that much better? I doubt it."

    I have lived all my life in Texas. And have visited other states as well. There are pockets here and there with racist problem. Ususally in certian communities, but runs deep? Not at all. But I have been in other states that do have a deep problem with racism, and thats really unfortunate. Thats why I love Texas and cant imagine living anywhere else.

    Come down and visit, the people here are really diverse and friendly. I can take you around and show you both the good and bad. You will find way more good than bad. Lots of opportunity here, great weather, plenty to do and places to go. From crowded cities to vast nothing that seems to go forever. I just wish it had the moutains of Colorado and New Mexico. Then I would never feel the need to visit another state.

    You will also find that a lot are just like me, not all, but most, that have relationships that run deep and for generations.

    But it does have the bad, criminals and wrong doers live in any society. But they are not tolerated here, are not condoned, made excuses for or ignored. Texas and its people will make every effort to keep its society clean and educated. Texas is not a utopia, not by any means of that discription, but the effort is always made in that direction.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Central, I do not find it hard to believe you have many friends. You are courteous and quite charming, and I find it very believable. Nor would I assume you would CHOOSE to discriminate on race, religion, etc.

    Rather I understood that you advanced the argument that Texas allowed you to refuse service for any reason, and that therefore the kind of discrimination practiced by Crocket Keller was not legal for him, ONLY because his state licensing prohibited it - but WAS legal for you to do, if you chose to do so, under Texas law, and further that the Federal Civil Rights law prohibiting discrimination did not apply to YOUR business.

    Is that an inaccurate understanding on my part? If so, I apologize, but that appeared to me to be your reasoning.

    I drew that conclusion from this:

    "Texas has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason as a small business owner. This guy is a small, independent business owner.

    However his classes [CHL] are state licensed by the state of Texas. According to the state license, he must abide by the state rules which include to offer, without discrimination, to anyone that wishes to take a CHL qualification class as a part of the CHL license requirement to obtain a CHL."

    and this:

    "I souold have said that private business owners have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just about any private business in Texas displays that sign in full view. If you go into a private business and demand service you will find that the local police will be there shortly to remove you and could face charges for tresspass."

    and this:
    "
    But if you come into MY place of business and I dont like you for any reason, any reason, then I will ask you to leave. If you refuse a simple call to the local police will have you removed and I will sign the charge of tresspass.

    This may not be allowed in all states, but its a common practice in Texas"

    but most of all, this:
    "In my business, the service I offer has nothing to do with any of the statement you posted. I offer a specfic service that has no relation to the 1979 consultation and that consultation is just that. Not a specfic law but an opinion on the fedral law.

    My business is not regulated in any way by the state of Texas other than a tax number and meeting EPA guide lines. So I can run you off for any reason I see fit, any."

    I believe you were in error, on the basis that a private business is not included in public access, as distinct from a public entity like a government agency, Any private restaurant, hotel, apartment building, gas station, or business like your own that has customers, whether retail or wholesale, pretty much anyone other than their family members comes under the jurisdiction of 'public access' as guaranteed by federal law.

    So, yes, the civil rights act banned diners in Alabama refusing to serve black customers, or a hotel in some other part of the country refusing to rent a room for the night to a Jewish family, or a drug store in Wyoming refusing to serve native americans, or a car dealership refusing to sell to Mormons in Florida.

    My understanding is that you can dislike and refuse any individual as an individual, but you cannot discriminate against all individuals in one of the prohibited categories for the reason they are part of that category.

    In other words you might dislike someone because they are a jerk, and can refuse him or her service for that reason, but not because they happen to be black, or female, or disabled, etc. as the reason, ditto employment.

    Are we in agreement?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thanks, Center lead, for that wonderful description of Texas.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Sorry dog gone, but we do agree. Sometimes my communication skills aren't all that great. Did not mean to mislead.

    The reason that I placed the first paragraph that way was to set the premise of what this guy was trying to do. In the second paragraph, it included, "without discrimination" to show how he was wrong. I left that premise that way not realizing that the rest could be taken wrong.

    The right to refuse to serve absolutely does not give the right to discriminate.

    If a CHL instructor encountered the blind, well, disabled people do well to surprise me every day and Texas goes well out of its way to cater to any disabled. Now as far as a blind person applying for a CHL? I really dont know! That raises a very interesting subject, one that I would have never given any thought to consider.

    Now if he encounters someone in his class that may prove to be a danger to the instructor, the students or himself during the shooting portion, I could see him stopping any further training for him or her. But it couldn't be for any other reason. After all, it is live fire.

    I know that if someone cant be responsible enough or knowledgeable enough about a fire arm to handle it without endangering innocent people, then that individual shouldn't have one, hire a bodyguard instead!

    After all, I know some that drive a 40ft, 40,000lb motorhome that isn't qualified to drive a Volkswagen Bug! But they try to anyway!

    Mike, thank you. But I really wish that I could load you up in my backpack and have you shadow me everyday, for at least a couple of weeks. Then you could see how I personally react with total strangers and their reaction to me. Something as simple as a smile or a nod can strike up a friendly conversation that could last from a few moments to hours of conversation in a WalMart of all places. And talk about much of nothing, just enjoying a little company. Even with someone that appears to have a large chip on their shoulder can be completely disarmed and have a good time just talking.

    I have never had a problem just talking to anyone, even a total stranger about anything. I personally enjoy it. And with any race or gender. Someone has to take the initiative to break ice. I never had a problem with taking that initiative and the ice has never been that thick.

    At least, not in Texas!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Center Lead:

    We have, unfortunately, to deal with the NRA's propaganda, a deliberate and invidious campaign using fear and disinformation to push an agenda which makes a number of people, including Wayne LaPierre, a very comfortable living. I always say follow the money.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I never get involved with any extremist organization. Especially those that ask for money. Too many try to influence too many things as well on all kinds of agendas.

    I am also not a middle of the road guy either, I just have my road. I guess I would be one of those silent quiet types so to speak, more common sense and only worry what my needs are. I dont have an agenda, just my work and personal way of life and staying out of all of these organizations.

    I know that this thread is very much against NRA and the like, I dont blame you. I just hope you dont hold anything against me for being a gun owner and a CHL holder. Because those things do not make me who I am.

    I have people try to hold my vehicle against me as well. I drive a big diesel pickup, in fact I have 3 of them. I all the time get comments like "why do you drive something that big. Its a waste you know!" What they dont understand is that I have to have them for work and pull an RV. And they get as good or better fuel milage as most small cars. But those dont make me who I am either.

    There is always something that someone will object to. I still just want to live peaceably and justly.

    Those that want to worship at the alter of the NRA, well that their problem, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Center Lead:

    I have no brief against guns, gun owners or the safe, legitimate use of guns. I have a very strong dislike of assholes with gunz. The two things are different and separate in my mind.

    I have an acquaintance who is a hunter. He is someone who lives alone and is very careful about how he stores his weapons and ammo. I am quite sure that breaking into his house would be a very bad idea as he is not the type of person who would back up very far before using deadly force. I disagree with his stance on that and with his notion that people should be allowed to fly with a gun on their person (he does not and has not done so) but I understand and respect his arguments.

    You say you've not been coming here long, so you probably haven't read a lot of the mind numbingly stupid things that have been said by some of the gunz'r'uz commenters here. I've read hundreds, if not thousands, of them. There is no reasoning with someone who is totally and reflexively opposed to ANY regulation of their or any other firearms.

    You don't seem like that sort of person. Enjoy life and be safe.

    ReplyDelete