Posted on 08/11/2017 4:20:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
An Atlanta gym owner is making no apologies after his ban on police officers and members of the military caused a local backlash.
The controversy started when passersby noticed a sign posted in front of EAV Barbell Club in the city’s East Atlanta Village neighborhood and brought it to the attention of local NBC affiliate WXIA.
“Do whatever the f— you want, correctly, except crossfit cultism. No f—g cops,” the sign reportedly read.
The gym’s owner, Jim Chambers, said he took the sign down and regretted the profanity, but the policy still stands.
“We’ve had an explicitly stated ‘No Cop’ policy since we opened, and we also don’t open membership to active members of the military,” he told NBC.
Mr. Chambers, who is white, said the people who work out at his gym typically belong to minority groups and feel uncomfortable in the presence of law enforcement.
“We wanted one space that was just a little different. It’s not an aggressive, hetero-jock space that’s dominated by cops and soldiers,” he said. “It’s a place where you’re safe from that.
“And we don’t want to make police stronger so that they can hurt people more efficiently,” the gym owner added. “It’s not a personal thing, but if you put that uniform on, and quite honestly I view that as an occupying enemy army.”
Mr. Chambers said his gym has never and will never require police assistance.
Meanwhile, the Atlanta Police Department told NBC that the gym’s policy wouldn’t stop them from responding to an emergency there.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
A homosexual pickup place, maybe?
“East” Atlanta”........says it all. More than likely, most of his clients are hiding from the police, hiding from the military on the other hand, is a mystery.
Flat Shoals Rd is an Amish area.
Celibate police are OK.
10-4
Not quite. The issue isn’t the scope of police officer’s or military service member’s duties. It is whether or not a business open to the public can impose ideologically based restrictions on providing their services based on a sincerely held belief.
We are currently working through the issue. Christian bakers, wedding photographers, and special event venue owners have defended these restrictions (with varying degrees of success) based on their religious beliefs.
Is this restriction only acceptable if it is religiously based? Or can a sincere belief held by a non-believer/atheist also qualify? If you allow one, how logically can you not allow the other without, in effect, declaring that the denied group’s right to equal treatment is inferior to the favored group? The government is not supposed to prefer one over the other.
This all I meant by saying it cuts both ways
Are beliefs only “sincerely held” if they are religious in nature?
See post number 46 for more.
By the way, I am not a non-believer or an atheist.
On the other hand, the bakers have a demonstrable obligation under their ancient and well-documented religion to reject behavior that is patently sinful and offensive to their god. Their rejection IS religious in nature, and provably so.
The two cases have nothing in common.
If all Military bases are like our Navy base, they have their own gym with state of the art equipment. I suspect larger PD’s do too. So this is just a stupid FAKE stunt.
They haven’t seen the Memphis PD, mostly black, in fact they will excuse minor felonies to get them through the recruitment, and what few whites their are can’t get a promotion very easily. Took 1 guy 5 tries with the highest scores on a numbers, no name Eval to make Captain. Blacks sued for discrimination...he was the only 1 to have that high a score. And with a numbers system, race is not reveled until after the test scores come out and are posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.