Looks as if Panera Bread has caved to MDA

[BluesStringer]

Hypothetical then on your above point. If you are a business owner and feel that a GFZ is appropriate for your business then to your point on the qur'an. If you are a secular business and decided that neither the Bible not the qur'an were welcome in your store, then how many more days do you think you'd be in business before a lawsuit or court decision shut you down?

If you don't believe in certain freedoms as set forth in the Constitution, then are we able to pick and choose? Would there be a vigorous defense for the qur'an but not the Bible? Would the ACLU come to assist you? I understand dogs, pets, shirts, and shoes. Help me understand why it can so easily pushed into the areas of rights or freedoms?

Respecting others' or defending my own rights is not dependent upon what government thinks of either exercise. I'm about the least racist person I know of, but I don't believe that the Constitution was written to authorize government criminalizing racism or bigotry or prejudice or violations of political correctness. In fact, I know it wasn't written for anything approaching such authorization, because the Constitution itself contains more than one example of all of it. Changing the Constitution to force government to comport more closely with non-bigoted, non-prejudicial and non-racist ideals in the way it interacts with The People is one thing, and the thought that all human beings who care about doing right should strive for such high ideals is something you and I could, and probably would, agree on, but neither the change to the Constitution nor your or my thoughts on the rightness of pursuing high ideals, obligates a private individual in/on their own property to adopt them. You can say my QFZ is not right, but you still can't enter my property with a qur'an no matter what you think of my reasons/rationale or lack thereof.

Oh, and I'm positive that the Framers never intended to draw a man's rights down lines distinguishing between where he lives and where he conducts his privately-owned business. I believe the modern lower appeals courts and SCOTUS have violated the original intent of the Constitution in that regard in much more egregious ways than I ever could by denying qur'ans on my property, whether home or business. In fact, I don't concede that I'm doing anything violative of the Constitution at all in using my rights to "maintain" such a restriction. ("maintain" in quotes because of the ludicrous notion that I'd ever have to enforce such a restriction, but as an academic argument, it's 100% truthful about how I feel about the question.)

Or are you of the opinion that the Framers saw this as being within government's purview to force on behalf of one citizen the mores and ideals upon another?

 

[niceshootintex]

Respecting others' or defending my own rights is not dependent upon what government thinks of either exercise. I'm about the least racist person I know of, but I don't believe that the Constitution was written to authorize government criminalizing racism or bigotry or prejudice or violations of political correctness. In fact, I know it wasn't written for anything approaching such authorization, because the Constitution itself contains more than one example of all of it. Changing the Constitution to force government to comport more closely with non-bigoted, non-prejudicial and non-racist ideals in the way it interacts with The People is one thing, and the thought that all human beings who care about doing right should strive for such high ideals is something you and I could, and probably would, agree on, but neither the change to the Constitution nor your or my thoughts on the rightness of pursuing high ideals, obligates a private individual in/on their own property to adopt them. You can say my QFZ is not right, but you still can't enter my property with a qur'an no matter what you think of my reasons/rationale or lack thereof.

Oh, and I'm positive that the Framers never intended to draw a man's rights down lines distinguishing between where he lives and where he conducts his privately-owned business. I believe the modern lower appeals courts and SCOTUS have violated the original intent of the Constitution in that regard in much more egregious ways than I ever could by denying qur'ans on my property, whether home or business. In fact, I don't concede that I'm doing anything violative of the Constitution at all in using my rights to "maintain" such a restriction. ("maintain" in quotes because of the ludicrous notion that I'd ever have to enforce such a restriction, but as an academic argument, it's 100% truthful about how I feel about the question.)

Or are you of the opinion that the Framers saw this as being within government's purview to force on behalf of one citizen the mores and ideals upon another?

Link Removed

You put on your Constitutional scholar hat on instead of answering my questions. I asked in a very pragmatic fashion about the consequences of banning the qur'an or the Bible from a business as they do so easily with guns.

I don't care about a business versus a residence. I asked about GFZ's as they relate to a business and the implications of banning religious freedom from your business. The right to carry a book, symbol (a chain with a cross), or icon. Can you ban people with homosexual slogans on their t shirts or clothing also? How are legally carried firearms different?

I don't think anyone would just openly walk onto your property or in your doorway if they didn't have personal business with you so that is just obfuscation. Having a business license issued by the locality and a brick and mortar business location where people can walk in to freely do business is different. Can you tell me that you could ban a religious book or symbol and not expect to be sued?

Have you ever seen a sign on someone's lawn that declared a GFZ? I have not but I don't think it's a problem at a private residence. It's not a place of business. It's not very bright either but that's a conversation for another day.

The Place To Be

 

[BluesStringer]

You put on your Constitutional scholar hat on instead of answering my questions. I asked in a very pragmatic fashion about the consequences of banning the qur'an or the Bible from a business as they do so easily with guns.

I don't care about a business versus a residence. I asked about GFZ's as they relate to a business and the implications of banning religious freedom from your business. The right to carry a book, symbol (a chain with a cross), or icon. Can you ban people with homosexual slogans on their t shirts or clothing also? How are legally carried firearms different?

I don't think anyone would just openly walk onto your property or in your doorway if they didn't have personal business with you so that is just obfuscation. Having a business license issued by the locality and a brick and mortar business location where people can walk in to freely do business is different. Can you tell me that you could ban a religious book or symbol and not expect to be sued?

Have you ever seen a sign on someone's lawn that declared a GFZ? I have not but I don't think it's a problem at a private residence. It's not a place of business. It's not very bright either but that's a conversation for another day.

The Place To Be

I have a patch on my vest that says "Molon Labe." Consider what that Greek phrase means translated into English, and then you'll know how I feel about all my rights. Come and take them. I won't make it easy for you, but it's also not out of the question that a government that runs so far outside the limits of the Constitution as this one does, that I won't face suits or cop abuse for attempts to assert them. Freedom can indeed hurt. Bad. In fact, if you read the Link Removed about watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, you will understand that, for Jefferson at least, it was expected to hurt everyone involved in either protecting their own freedoms, or trying to steal it from behind government guns.

I will give you credit for stumbling upon an issue which many who think they have rights, fail to fully understand - that being that licensing any part of the rights you own amounts to a contract that voluntarily relinquishes those rights to government. It's not the only reason, but is high on the list of reasons, why we got out of a successful cash business. Three years before selling and two years afterwards, we were audited by the IRS. Rolled into other compliance costs of doing business, it was just more trouble than it was worth. We also divested entirely from the corrupt and unstable markets, and after a big hit in taxes for doing it, invested in hard assets that we can stand in front of with a rifle and body armor, can well-defend against land-pirates, and at least make a decent stand when/if cops are "justified" by some new tyrannical diktat from SCOTUS to come and take it too, but I repeat myself by drawing a distinction between them, don't I. It's one of the top reasons I choose to open carry, because here in AL I don't need a permission slip to carry that way. I have kept my permit active because I live so close to two other states with which we have reciprocity, but more and more I'm thinking I"m going to let that go too and just stay in Bama and OC all the time. I also have not registered to vote since moving to this home a little more than two years ago. The fewer contracts with government one has, the freer they are. When I go full-on solar and wind for power, and manage to pay off my home and perfect my title, I will be the kind of free man that the Framers and God intended us all to be. I will also be mostly a recluse, but everyone *can* make the decision to be free if they can handle the consequences of that decision. Most people can't, but it's been what me and GW (Gorgeous Wife) have been all about since the day we met goin' on 35 years ago now.

Every major decision we've ever made in our lives had as its basis the desire and plan to expand and enhance our freedom. At 62, that equals a ton of life-significant decisions, and it also includes a ton of research and hard rows to hoe. Lawsuits and arrests might well one day be such hard rows to hoe. It's the cost of freedom, which I knew about long before Ailes or Eric Bolling named a ridiculous Fox News financial show by that phrase.

In short, I don't care what government says or "thinks" about my rights, I won't be easily made to cede them to anyone. One reason is that I happen to know the source and origin of all of my rights, and you have demonstrated recently that you're just a tad bit confused on that point. I'd be happy to help you learn about it, but you seem more interested in nailing me to the government-subservient wall rather than benefit from my many years of experience backing up what I've said here. Not "obfuscating" at all. I just don't see government as the all-powerful entity that you seem to. No need to get snarky about it. I haven't "obfuscated" anything. I'm an open book.

Blues

 

[niceshootintex]

I have a patch on my vest that says "Molon Labe." Consider what that Greek phrase means translated into English, and then you'll know how I feel about all my rights. Come and take them. I won't make it easy for you, but it's also not out of the question that a government that runs so far outside the limits of the Constitution as this one does, that I won't face suits or cop abuse for attempts to assert them. Freedom can indeed hurt. Bad. In fact, if you read the Link Removed about watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, you will understand that, for Jefferson at least, it was expected to hurt everyone involved in either protecting their own freedoms, or trying to steal it from behind government guns.

I will give you credit for stumbling upon an issue which many who think they have rights, fail to fully understand - that being that licensing any part of the rights you own amounts to a contract that voluntarily relinquishes those rights to government. It's not the only reason, but is high on the list of reasons, why we got out of a successful cash business. Three years before selling and two years afterwards, we were audited by the IRS. Rolled into other compliance costs of doing business, it was just more trouble than it was worth. We also divested entirely from the corrupt and unstable markets, and after a big hit in taxes for doing it, invested in hard assets that we can stand in front of with a rifle and body armor, can well-defend against land-pirates, and at least make a decent stand when/if cops are "justified" by some new tyrannical diktat from SCOTUS to come and take it too, but I repeat myself by drawing a distinction between them, don't I. It's one of the top reasons I choose to open carry, because here in AL I don't need a permission slip to carry that way. I have kept my permit active because I live so close to two other states with which we have reciprocity, but more and more I'm thinking I"m going to let that go too and just stay in Bama and OC all the time. I also have not registered to vote since moving to this home a little more than two years ago. The fewer contracts with government one has, the freer they are. When I go full-on solar and wind for power, and manage to pay off my home and perfect my title, I will be the kind of free man that the Framers and God intended us all to be. I will also be mostly a recluse, but everyone *can* make the decision to be free if they can handle the consequences of that decision. Most people can't, but it's been what me and GW (Gorgeous Wife) have been all about since the day we met goin' on 35 years ago now.

Every major decision we've ever made in our lives had as its basis the desire and plan to expand and enhance our freedom. At 62, that equals a ton of life-significant decisions, and it also includes a ton of research and hard rows to hoe. Lawsuits and arrests might well one day be such hard rows to hoe. It's the cost of freedom, which I knew about long before Ailes or Eric Bolling named a ridiculous Fox News financial show by that phrase.

In short, I don't care what government says or "thinks" about my rights, I won't be easily made to cede them to anyone. One reason is that I happen to know the source and origin of all of my rights, and you have demonstrated recently that you're just a tad bit confused on that point. I'd be happy to help you learn about it, but you seem more interested in nailing me to the government-subservient wall rather than benefit from my many years of experience backing up what I've said here. Not "obfuscating" at all. I just don't see government as the all-powerful entity that you seem to. No need to get snarky about it. I haven't "obfuscated" anything. I'm an open book.

Blues

Snarky goes two ways blues. Like saying I "stumbled" upon something that is the root issue of all these discussions. I'm not all that interested in being lectured by the cast of Constitutional Scholars (or irritating armchair Theologians) on the forum but am interested in different viewpoints, experiences, and opinions.

I appreciate your time spent trying to educate a rube like me but was more interested in your responses to my questions asked. Not to screw with you because I actually wanted your views on it. Perhaps your own personal business story was your way of relating that.

Molon Labe is a term I'm very familiar with, no particulars given. I fully understand moving away from the oversight you refer to and am applying myself to do the same. I also have a wife that is as committed as I am in pursuit of that goal. We are much closer now than when we started a half decade ago. Good luck with obtaining your independence from the original idea of independence now corrupted.

The Place To Be

 

[TLoK]

"Note: just like the aforementioned companies, Panera is*not banning legally carried*firearms*from its stores(as they have a legal right to do). They’re asking customers not to carry in their stores. The statement says . . ."

I take these suggestions with a subtle wink.

Sent from my LGLS676 using Link Removed