How is this different than “No blacks allowed?”
RE: How is this different than “No blacks allowed?”
Here’s the constitutional issue....
Do individuals PRIVATELY doing business or forming clubs or organizations still have FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION? That is — Freedom to do business and associate with people we want to be associated with?
Is it the government’s job to IMPOSE ITS will on individuals and force them to do things they don’t want to do?
For instance, an individual is cruel, unkind and mean ( and even racist ). Is it the government’s job to FORCE the person to be kind and nice?
I think that’s the basic question....
Interesting question. There are housing discrimination laws on the books to prevent that. Do we need laws that prevent discrimination against gun owners? You won't find a more ardent 2a proponent than me, but I also believe in property rights. The 2a restricts congress not private property owners.
From a properties right perspective, I really don't have a problem with "No Blacks Allowed", "No Muslims Allowed", or anything else not allowed. Property owners just need to live with consequences of their decision. I will take that any day over a law imposed by government.
I agree with your analogy.
I’ve been trying to make the “two water fountain” analogy in California.
In every California gun store, you will find two water fountains. One fountain offers top quality clean water for our ruling class (LEO) and the other fountain dribbles out barely consumable water for the country class (me).