[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Restaurants seemingly have no right to refuse service based on sexual-preference (which is apparently a Constitutional right now), but they DO have the right to refuse based on carry-preference, which is most assuredly a Constitutional right.

How does this make sense?

[mrsmel]

Very very good point (same thing could be said of the way “sanctuary cities” disobey the law), but we know that under Hussein’s regime, the law is whatever Hussein says it is, and he proves it by the way he selectively enforces some laws and ignores other ones. The rest of the left are just taking the hint, but let somebody like Kim Davis enact what is actually a right enshrined in the Constitution in no uncertain words, and all of a sudden the left starts with the hypocritical screaming about “rule of law”.

[Doogle]

it’s Obamaworld.

[Bikkuri]

“Blue pill, or red pill”?

[Nebr FAL owner]

It makes sense from the point of view that the liability insurance rates for establishments that permit open carry are higher than those establishments that don’t 9bottom line it makes a difference on whether your business is solvent or not) . Also your rights are not permission to violate the rights of others ie your right to bear arms does not give you the right to violate the property rights of another.