Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 2, 2014 -> 01:36 PM) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry this morning. John Kerry voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the United States to invade Iraq. Ha, I watched that to. Wonder why he didn't come up with a different phrase to use.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 3, 2014 -> 05:41 AM) The Grammys have sweet musical performances and everyone is drunk at the Golden Globes. The Oscars is just a bunch of pretentious assholes acting like the world depends on them. Agree totally. Last night was incredibly boring. Gervais, Fey and Pohler have really set a high bar now for these things. Ellen was ok but nothing really memorable.

So win out, win a game or two in the tourney, dare we say NCAA berth

Izzo complained like a little school girl so refs swayed

Here come the home cooking/makeup calls

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Nothing remotely close to a finding that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to carry a gun onto a property over the objection of that property's owner has happened. At best, you're talking about a hypothetical future finding of a constitutional right that there's no indication of today. Heller made reference to federal, state and local laws barring the possession of guns, not to any private restriction. Think through the implications here. If it's found that the 2nd amendment means you can carry your gun into a store or to work over the objections of the store owner or your employer, how does this apply to first amendment rights? Is your employer barred from ever firing you for your speech because of the first amendment? Can a store owner not refuse you service because you are using a bunch of racial slurs? Is SoxTalk's language filter unconstitutional because is suppresses my free speech? Was it unconstitutional to ban duke? How does this apply to equal protection? Public accommodations laws are found in things like the CRA, not in the Constitution, so are these suddenly redundant and it's now unconstitutional for a private actor to racially discriminate? On that note, how does it even make sense to find that your employer saying "don't bring guns" is unconstitutional? The Constitution defines what the government may do, not private actors. A state law saying that a gun cannot be carried into grocery stores could very well be found unconstitutional, but how would Jewel saying "no guns" be found unconstitutional? Does it even make sense to talk about something like Jewel committing unconstitutional acts? The Constitution sets out the baseline of rights. You have right X. From there states can limit that right, but it can't do so without a legitimate reason (and its narrowly tailored and all that). CC operates that way as well, and I think the fight for that is just beginning now that gun owners finally got a solid SC decision on what the 2nd amendment means. I'm not suggesting you have the right now, unfettered. It's a right being restricted by state law's option to private owners to post a sign (and other more legitimate gun ban laws, permit laws, etc.). But clearly you have the right to enter into a private business and have your gun in every state now, both because of the constitutional right to have a gun, as well as state law allowing CC. If the private owners fail to abide by the signage rule, they can't kick you out and you won't be charged with trespassing (in theory). You're following the law and your rights. That's exactly the arguments that are made in discrimination cases. You would think a private citizen could restrict who comes on to their property and who can't, but federal laws like CRA were passed and were determined to be constitutional, the private citizens' rights are ignored in favor of the rights of protected classes. I'm not sure what your confusion is here? Yes, the Constitution (part of it anyways) sets forth what the government can/can't do, but rights are also prescribed for individuals. They apply to all individuals. And unless there's some state law or federal law that constitutionally alters that right, it's the law of the land.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) You do not have a constitutional right to carry a gun onto my property. Some states have passed laws saying that you have the legal right to do so, at least in some fashion (e.g. leave the gun locked in your car in the company parking lot). This is distinctly different from a federal constitutional right to do so. The second amendment doesn't apply to Wells Fargo's rights to limit what is brought onto their property any more than the first amendment limits their rights to fire someone for shouting political propaganda at customers. Refusing service to someone because of their protected class status is a violation of the Civil Rights Act (among other laws), but it isn't unconstitutional. Constitutional rights really aren't at question here. To emphasize the point here: Heller, McDonald and the case that forced Illinois to allow concealed carry were all about state or local laws. They were not about a non-government entity banning firearms from the premises. Nobody has come close to a legal ruling that says your right to bear arms trumps another individual's (or company's) property rights. As I've said: yet. We'll see how the courts decide this issue. The Wells Fargo one is a bit different since it is employer based, but that was what I found in 2 seconds of googling. Edit: and the Constitution provides you with the right to bear arms, and as I've said this is nearly without restriction (criminal, mentally ill, in a school or courthouse, etc). For CC, in most states you have the right to take it anywhere except for certain zones, and then its up to individual businesses to post a sign or not, and from there some laws are more strict about wording, size, placement, etc. So you have the right to take it anywhere and then it's the obligation of the private owner to tell you to leave. And that's where the litigation will come. You have the right, it's being restricted by state law, is that constitutional. I dunno why you think the 2nd amendment wouldn't apply there. Speech and employment are a little different. I'm sure there's case law that talks about at-ill employment trumping free speech rights. But for example, IIRC employers can't fire you for some speech, such as posting messages on a bulletin board regarding unionization.

Here you go, just from a few days ago. And Florida, of course: http://tbo.com/news/crime/bank-manager-fir...-suit-20140221/

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 02:08 PM) I wonder why s***head racists simply don't exist in your perfect world? In the real world, the "market" historically has always done a horrible job of fighting against this sort of discrimination whereas government intervention has been incredibly effective. You'll never get rid of morons. There will always be racists, sexists, fascists, etc. So long as they're the 1% and are largely ignored.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 02:10 PM) The rule in some (most?) states is you're allowed to carry unless the property owner says you aren't. There's no jurisprudence that says you are constitutionally entitled to carry again over the objections of the owner of the property you're on. Yet. The current SC ruling (the DC case) left it open: "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 02:07 PM) In several (most?) states, business owners are allowed to post "no firearms" signs on the doors, and anyone who carries one onto the premise is trespassing. It's no different from me having the right to wear shorts but a fancy restaurant having a dress code for diners. So the right to carry is generally allowed, but owners of individual businesses or homes have the right to exclude them from their property. True but I know in Florida the signs don't mean anything and I thought I read a story that the trespassing angle didn't work. As I said this morning, this is the new area of the law that will be litigated. Seems to me though that you're restricting a constitutional right on the basis of what, a fear of shooting, which is an argument that hasn't gone over well with the courts in any other public area (other than airports, schools, courthouses, etc.).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:49 PM) I was almost waiting for you to say this, because it needs to be pointed out that this completely, utterly, 100% failed. We waited 100 years for Jim Crow laws to go "out of vogue". They didn't collapse because of the market, they collapsed because the government imposed their collapse (with significant violence provoked in response, btw). Quite similarly, the only reason why anti-sodomy laws aren't still enforced in multiple states is the Supreme Court ending them (they remain on the books, unchallenged, in several states btw). This statement completely disagrees with every bit of American History on this subject. Which is why I said in a perfect world.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:20 PM) I'm really struggling to see why a perfect world enables explicit racial discrimination. Because those people would be outed and out of business quickly. As I said a while ago, the "market" and society would drive the change, not the government forcing people to do something they don't want to do.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:32 PM) Well as everyone knows I dont care what the current laws are/were. At one point (insert your favorite minority) couldnt vote. If we sat and simply said "the law is what it is" wed be a s***ty backwards country. So the question right now isnt about what the 2nd amendment is (its entirely irrelevant), its about whether the Kansas law is appropriate/necessary. As Ive clearly stated multiple times, the Kansas law is superfluous because you can already refuse to serve gay people in Kansas. Jenks response has been "its proactive", to what end Ive asked. If Kansas creates a law that says you cant discriminate services based on lgbt, then this current law has clearly been overturned. Unless we just think that Kansas will have 2 conflicting laws? Its nothing more than a distraction. A better comparison is actually abortion. While abortion is legal, no Dr has to perform an abortion. Its the exact same thing. While being gay is legal, no one is forcing you to cater their wedding. And honestly, I dont care if you want to be a racist bigot. Just own it. Id be fine with this law if it required each store to put a sign on the front that says "We dont serve gay people." That way they dont get my straight people money either. Want to be a racist bigot, just own it, just man up. Its just cowardly. I mean what happens if they serve a gay person unknowingly? Can they then sue because they were damaged? It just opens up nonsense, its stupid. Well, to preserve their right but also to prevent lawsuits. They're worried about a court deciding that sexuality is a protected class, which has happened in a couple other states. They're preventing that decision from happening.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:29 PM) Which sort of brings us back around to my point a couple of weeks ago about how difficult it can be to actually enforce anti-discrimination laws and claims. Right, but that doesn't negate the economic impact of them either. Businesses never win a discrimination case. They either pay a judgment, pay a settlement, or pay attorneys.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:28 PM) What court ruling says you have a right, guaranteed by the second amendment, to carry a gun wherever you want (barring some exclusions like government buildings and airports)? Um, all of them that say concealed carry is legal? The rule is you can carry a gun wherever you want, except for some exceptions. The rule isn't "here is where you can have guns" but it's excluded everywhere else.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:15 PM) Well they cant have both laws. How can you have law A that says you have to serve them and law B that says you dont have to. Seems that all you need is law A that says you have to serve them except in certain circumstances. And even more to the point, is there any current issue where gay couples are forcing wedding planners to provide services? I mean isnt this just a case of freak out? Do you really think that a gay couple is going to want to pay a lot of money to someone who doesnt want to be there? This is just common sense. Its like back when my parents planned my Bar Mitzvah, do you think they went to a bunch of Neo Nazis to make the centerpiece? Do you think we called up a bunch of antisemites to be the DJ? Its to make gay people feel unwelcome. No matter how much window dressing there is, thats what this law is about. Its about telling gay people they arent wanted. And guess what, I dont think thats how the govt should be used. Maybe Im wrong, maybe the govt should be used for every petty argument that may ever happen. No, I agree with you. I think the law is an overreaction, anticipating problems that will most likely never arise. And really, on top of all of this is the fact that I could say I don't want to serve you in 20 different ways that would be acceptable and not a violation of the law. You don't have to be "eww, you're gay! get out of here!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 01:08 PM) Based on this statement, would you support a business owner refusing to serve black people? No I would not support them. But, I would, in a perfect world, support their right to be a racist asshole if they really wanted to be like that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 12:52 PM) Where have I argued against religious freedom? I believe I said that the Kansas law is an unnecessary waste of time. Religious freedom should be a shield, not a sword. Id be against any law that said private companies cant have Christmas trees, etc. But in this case, religion is being used as a sword to attack others they dont agree with. Might as well say that Christians dont have to serve Jews because they killed Christ. I mean why not? Everyone has the right to believe in whatever fairy tale they want. In your view...they'll obviously claim it's a shield, protecting them from having to perform a service they don't want to perform per their beliefs. I mean, they jumped the gun since Kansas currently doesn't have a law saying they HAVE to serve them, but if that day comes, and then they try to pass this law, how does it not become a shield to protect them?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 12:27 PM) Here's where I stand on the Second and Balta's hypothetical business. If Balta operates a bar, it should be within his rights to prevent Jenks from carrying in his business. If Balta is Jerry Reinsdorf, it should be within his rights as a business owner to prevent Jenks from carrying at the UC or the Cell. The sports arena leads to heightened emotions and the serving of alcohol leads to reduced inhibitions. Hence, the owner of that business has a legitimate reason to keep guns out. Now, if Balta owns a pet store and Jenks has a permit to conceal and carry, Balta is infringing on Jenks' 2nd Amendment right to carry to ban Jenks from carrying in his store (or by frisking Jenks when he enters the store, or refusing service to Jenks because he has a CCW, whatever). I think Balta has a better argument if Jenks is wearing a hip holster because that weapon in the open could scare people out of Balta's store. Balta has a better argument, at that juncture, to ask Jenks to leave the store. I think it's legitimate to say that the Catholic Church can refuse to perform a gay wedding. I don't think it's legitimate to say that a wedding photographer or a wedding cake business should be able to, on the grounds of religious freedom, deny their service to a protected class (which hopefully will include LGBT in the near future at the federal level). There's a clear distinction between the Church performing a sacrament and a private business providing a service. I agree with everything you say here except the wedding cake/photographer. You're forcing someone to support something they don't believe in. How is that not infringing on their religious beliefs? And that's not exactly some made up out of the sky thing. It's not "my religion tells me black people are the devil." It's a legitimate, well known issue for people.

Whatever happened to the guy with the roommate that was going to jail for a long time? I wonder how that situation ended.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 10:36 AM) Huh, that's interesting. I figured it would have been a bigger deal, especially given that the majority of NFL players are black. Because only white people can be racist?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:41 AM) Oh, so it's fair to assume that certain situations are more likely to produce actions where guns would not be wanted, and based on the type of things they're doing people ought to be able to determine whether those things should be allowed? Hey Socrates, I've never said otherwise. But when you get down to it, you being fearful of a person shooting you because they have a gun on them is never going to be considered valid or legitimate enough to curb their right to carry a gun. I dunno where that line will be drawn, but I really doubt it's going to be every single business.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) And the legitimate reason to curb/restrict guns is danger. The legitimate reason to curb/restrict gays is.... Thats why its a pointless comparison, its apples/oranges. Danger isnt irrelevant, or at least it shouldnt be irrelevant. Neither is the fact that one is something you can leave behind, whereas the other isnt. You can leave your gun at home, you cant leave your gay. You just dont want to actually respond to the issue, you want to cloak it into some completely irrelevant gun argument. You're still not getting it. The legitimate reason put forth by these groups is religious freedom. You clearly don't buy that, but lots of other people do and so has our legal system in the past. And "you can simply not do X, Y and Z" or "Just don't do X, Y and Z here" has rarely worked as an argument in these cases, so I don't know why you think it's important here. We don't tell people to stop speaking because they can just easily shut up or talk in their homes. You don't lose your rights simply because there is an easier alternative. Lastly, I'm not cloaking anything. I'm pointing out how people emphasize rights more than others. People in this very thread keep talking about how awful discrimination is and we should never change the laws and blah blah and yet we still have minority and gender only contracts, affirmative action, etc., the freaking definition of discrimination on race and gender. We're cool with it because we think there's a legitimate reason for doing so. Well, the people of Kansas think there's a legitimate reason for not having to serve gay people if they don't want to. edit: I should say "some people in Kansas" not "the people of"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 27, 2014 -> 11:29 AM) So you agree that the law allows restrictions on where you can carry guns as dangerous items? Yes, in limited situations based on an actual, legitimate reasons - i.e. airports and government buildings. A general "someone might shoot me" argument is not legitimate. Those arguments failed during the fight for concealed carry in public.