Guns dot com
A federal court dismissed a discrimination suit against a Florida gun store that declared itself a “Muslim free zone.”
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, stating that the Islamic group that filed suit failed to provide evidence to support a claim of harm or future harm, according to the ruling filed Nov. 23. The judge also agreed that the store’s statements are protected under the First Amendment.
The judge dismissed both the lawsuit and the complaint by the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Florida, but the group has 30 days to appeal the ruling.
This should give your confidence that being appointed as a judge assures getting the opinions you want. Judge Bloom was appointed to the bench by out current President just last year,
ReplyDeletehttp://ballotpedia.org/Beth_Bloom
The judge dismissed the case because no one from the group filing the case had been denied. Just find a Muslim who has been denied and file another suit under that person's name.
ReplyDeleteI suppose "gun control" advocates don't have a monopoly on bigotry and intolerance, after all.
ReplyDelete"The judge simply said that we didn't have standing because nobody from our organization actually went and got service denied," CAIR Florida executive director Hassan Shibly told Fox 13. "If somebody from the Muslim community were to go and get a denial of service then Andy will be liable. So we are very excited about that and it should be sending him a strong message once he gets over the initial elation."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/muslim-free-zone-gun-store-ruling_565d0170e4b079b2818b8dea
So in other words, they aint got no dog in this hunt so far.
Sort-of dismissed on a technicality.
DeleteI thought the concept of a lawsuit is for a person or entity to be able to be compensated for damages incurred? So if no one actually experienced any damage by being told to leave or denial of service, then no damage occurred.
DeleteA bit more than a technicality I think.
Wrong. By your logic, a store that bars blacks from shopping shouldn't be held accountable if no blacks have shopped there. This is a clear violation of the CRA.
DeleteIsn't this similar to the NRA lawsuit that was thrown out because they did not have standing against a city ordinance that was clearly against state law? The judge ruled you had to have a person that actually suffered due to the law or something along those lines.
Deletehttp://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/09/philadelphia_act_192_gun_lawsu.html
Didn't you support this ruling Mike?
Jade - the difference is that a lawsuit would have to be brought by a black person that was actually denied service. If the store just has a sign up saying "No Blacks" but does nothing to actually stop black people from entering then what law would they be breaking?
"the difference is that a lawsuit would have to be brought by a black person that was actually denied service. If the store just has a sign up saying "No Blacks" but does nothing to actually stop black people from entering then what law would they be breaking?"
DeleteSorry Jim, you should go back and read the law. No black has to file a suit, just saying "No Blacks allowed" is a violation of law.
Islam is not a race....
ReplyDeleteAs we've said before, many people don't know that and they are indeed racists. The more intelligent and informed are simply bigots.
DeleteAs we've said before . . .
DeleteWho is this "we" of yours, Mikeb?