Which is what this threads purpose is - to discuss whether or not such retailers are in violation of our rights. This is why I used the example of a retailer - not a golf club.
I contend that it is a violation of our civil rights (and constitutional rights) and that if retailers faced legal repercussions over the matter, the policy would change.
@solus - your kind of making my argument for me.... Yes, the act only related to employment initially. Yet you admit that other groups with "special interest" - which we all are as well - created a change in how the law is applied. I am simply suggesting that we as 2a'ers do the same. While we can argue semantics all day - and I do see your point, cases like Jonsson v Crossfit wouldn't be happening right now if the standards you use were applied. I would rather discuss what actions could be taken to move the "cause" of 2a forward than bandy questionable legal concepts regarding big box retailers status as "public" or "private".
So the purpose was to basically say why don't we take these anti-2a companies to task through the courts for violations of our constitutionally protected rights? Has it ever been tried? If it works for one group, it is worth at least CONSIDERING as a type of action that would further the protection of 2a. I believe that decisions that have lessened the "private" property rights of those that do interstate business with the general public make such an action potentially viable.
those other LGBT groups are pushing state by state by state and as such while making forward process, it is slowly in changing individual state's statutes. nothing nationally.
crossfit apparently has a competition policy about the competitors competing as the gender they were born with in place and this transgender'd individual (m > f) is challenging that policy as she wishes to compete as a female. the Olympics have the same concept which bubbled up years ago, and while controversial, the gender verification policy still exists as a policy and is practiced subjectively on Olympians when they compete.
if she didn't want the answer she shouldn't have asked...
how do you believe this case fits your scenario? especially since it has nothing to do with 2a and private property carry concepts?
finally the case cited is a 'state' issue not a national one.
if you do not get the cats herded for one major push, understand and engage in 'what if' banter to assess overall strategy ~ covering most of the contingencies likely to pop up during the execution of said strategy, gather sponsors, sell sponsors on the strategy, and then push those cats in a concerted effort, the effort you perceive will fail miserably and cause a backlash with existing 'rights'.
by the way, your case is similar to those 'talked' about towards suing BSA for not allowing gay adult leaders participate in scouting ~ the concept you felt was an orange.
as Grapeshot stated below (or above depending how you have your posts viewed)
quote: Private property, save for the specfic (sic) exceptions, remains private AND that includes much more than just the Second Amendment - public accomodation (sic) not withstanding.
so first you have to decide which front your effort is going to go, state or federal?
ipse
Last edited: