HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Isn't this how it started...

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:50 AM

Isn't this how it started 80 years ago in Germany?

http://www.sott.net/article/307442-Federal-judge-rules-Muslim-free-zone-at-Florida-gun-store-fails-to-harm-Muslims




Federal judge rules Muslim-free zone at Florida gun store fails to harm Muslims

A federal judge has dismissed a complaint filed by a Muslim advocacy organization claiming that an Inverness gun shop violated the Civil Rights Act by declaring itself a "Muslim-free zone".

The suit had demanded an injunction against Florida Gun Supply to prohibit it from discriminating against Muslims and others on the basis of religion. The Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed the suit against Florida Gun Supply in July after the store's owner Andy Hallinan enacted a Muslim-free zone

________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Please let me out now.

28 replies, 2904 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply Isn't this how it started 80 years ago in Germany? (Original post)
diabeticman Dec 2015 OP
LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #1
cantbeserious Dec 2015 #2
Populist_Prole Dec 2015 #24
X_Digger Dec 2015 #3
leveymg Dec 2015 #6
X_Digger Dec 2015 #10
leveymg Dec 2015 #11
X_Digger Dec 2015 #12
leveymg Dec 2015 #14
X_Digger Dec 2015 #16
leveymg Dec 2015 #19
X_Digger Dec 2015 #21
leveymg Dec 2015 #22
X_Digger Dec 2015 #23
NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #25
Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #18
leveymg Dec 2015 #20
closeupready Dec 2015 #7
X_Digger Dec 2015 #9
LittleBlue Dec 2015 #4
Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #5
frazzled Dec 2015 #26
closeupready Dec 2015 #8
NutmegYankee Dec 2015 #13
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #15
Yo_Mama Dec 2015 #17
The River Dec 2015 #27
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #28

Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:51 AM

1. It must be alright then to have a Jewish free zone, and a black free zone now also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:52 AM

2. The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Are Beside Themselves With All The Distractions

All the while said same Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks are robbing the 99% blind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cantbeserious (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:52 PM

24. +1

Look no further than this when the PTB's stance on any issue: If it costs the 1 percent any money, they'll either openly oppose it, or they'll attempt to bury it by distracting the 99 percent by keeping them barking up the wrong tree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:54 AM

3. The judge is actually right. Someone from the CAIR needs to go in and get denied service.

You actually have to have discrimination to bring a discrimination suit. Just putting a sign in the window itself isn't discrimination, if they never actually deny service based on a protected characteristic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:13 PM

6. What happens if they post a second sign, "We reserve the right to deny service - we are armed"?

Doesn't the first one imply the second?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:22 PM

10. You can put up a sign that says, "Unattended children will be eaten."

Or a sign that says, "Shoplifters will be skinned alive."

As long as you don't actually do any of those things, you're fine.

The same applies here. I bet the owner knows this, and doesn't have the stones to actually deny service, because he knows it would be a slam-dunk case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:31 PM

11. The threat can be a crime - that's circumstantial - if the owner has a reputation for baby eating.

"Muslim-free zone" can be taken as a threat, depending upon who posts it. Do you disagree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:35 PM

12. I do disagree, yes.

And unless Pot Pot has opened a gun store, I think we're safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:47 PM

14. What if the gun shop owner had a history of threats against Muslims?

Or belonged to a group that engaged in hate crimes against the same? Are there any circumstances under which "Muslim free zone" posting could an imputed threat? Isn't this something that should be verified before one concludes that a denial of service violation is necessary?

I guess this comes down to burden-shifting. Normally, the First Amendment protects speech, but not Hate Speech. Who has the burden of showing potential harm in this sort of case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:57 PM

16. Making a threat doesn't subsequently remove your right to free speech in the future, no.

In any event, standing is required for a case.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.
Most standing issues arise over the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional statute, ordinance, or policy. One may challenge a law or policy on constitutional grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech. For example, in tinker v. des moines independent community school district, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), high school officials in Des Moines, Iowa, had suspended students for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. There was no question that the parents of the students had standing to challenge the restrictions on the wearing of armbands. Mere ideological opposition to a particular government policy, such as the Vietnam War, however, is not sufficient grounds to challenge that policy in court.


And no, 'hate speech' is not prohibited in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:08 PM

19. Correct, but a threat is grounds for seeking suit for tortious wrong as it might also be grounds

for civil rights violation or even arrest for violation of criminal code. It all depends upon the circumstances, who makes the threat, how the threat is made, previous history, whether that person is armed, etc.

"Hate Speech", e.g., threatening behavior, even symbolic acts such as signs and edifices, has most certainly been prosecuted as a criminal violation under federal and most state law.

See, Another way of saying this is to create laws and policies that do not attempt to define hate speech as hate crimes, or “acts.” In two recent hate crime cases, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that acts, but not speech, may be regulated by law.
Hate Speech Debate - American Bar Association
www.americanbar.org/...in.../debate_hate.html
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:16 PM

21. I can't imagine a case where your sign would be taken, prima facie, as a threat.

It has neither the reasonableness nor the specificity to pass the sniff test. And no amount of backstory piling on will make that happen.

There is no federal 'hate speech' statute. If you want to take a collection of things and call it 'hate speech' in your mind, feel free. But the rest of us who know what legislation has been proposed as 'hate speech' will disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:20 PM

22. If the sign were surrounded by firearms, it might. That is exactly the case here.

I don't know what the personal history of the shop owner is, but if he could be shown to have been involved personally or as part of a group in hate crimes or violence against Muslims, I would say, this might be an act of intimidation that could be actionable.

I believe that this is a case of display with the intent to intimidate a specific group where, like a noose or burning cross, the court has upheld bans of some symbolic acts amounting to "hate crime" as constitutional: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/states-move-to-add-nooses-to-list-of-outlawed-symbols

Constitutionality of noose-display laws

Opponents of such measures question the wisdom of targeting a particular symbol. They point out that the U.S. Supreme Court twice, first in 1989 and again in 1990, struck down state and federal laws singling out flag-burning. They worry that the list of disfavored symbols could grow and lead to a reduction in freedom of expression.

Supporters of noose-display laws rely heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Virginia v. Black, which upheld the bulk of a state cross-burning law. The Virginia law provided: “It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place.”

The high court reasoned the cross-burnings done with the intent to intimidate others constitute true threats unprotected by the First Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in her opinion that “when a cross burning is directed at a particular person not affiliated with the Klan, the burning cross often serves as a message of intimidation, designed to inspire in the victim a fear of bodily harm.” She continued: “Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”

The Virginia v. Black opinion explains why many of the noose-display laws, rather than imposing a flat ban, contain language requiring that the display or drawing involve an “intent to intimidate.” The Supreme Court reasoned that not all cross-burnings necessarily were done with an intent to intimidate and, thus, may not qualify as true threats. The same logic applies to noose displays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:40 PM

23. So every sign in a gun shop is a threat because it's a gun shop? "No checks." (OR I'LL SHOOT YA!)

"No shirt, no shoes, no service." (OR I'LL KEEL YOU WIT MAH GUNZ!)

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:00 PM

25. The key provision is also that the display is on another's property.

If the KKK meets at a house of a member and burns a cross, it doesn't fall under that law. Nooses are the same in that hanging one on your own property isn't illegal. The intimidation relies on it appearing in public spots or on a victims property.

It's a fine line the laws draw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:01 PM

18. Muslims in this country have enough speech against minorities, etc, that you don't

even want to go there.

Believe me, should those standard be applied equally the results would be negative for Muslims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:15 PM

20. Not attempting to justify one set of wrongs with another.

That's the point, here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:15 PM

7. Wrong.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:20 PM

9. Why do you think the ACLU had William Smith and James Yates attempt to get a marriage license in KY?

Davis' refusal gave them standing as plaintiffs to sue.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:55 AM

4. The owner can call his store anything he wants

 

So long as he doesn't deny service, he hasn't broken the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 11:59 AM

5. well no but it is still odious.

 

We do not have an overtly authoritarian and racist party in control of the government and we do not have national legislation (yet) that overtly discriminates against muslims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:08 PM

26. You're right

We do not have Muslims being removed from their jobs en masse as a matter of law, then removed from their homes and put into ghettoes, and having all their property and assets absconded by the government. Nor are the totality of mosques being destroyed by large government-sponsored troops. And certainly not the later things that happened: the death camps, etc.

But it is something we have to guard against, for sure. Should a demagogue such as Trump be elected (I put nothing past historical oddity), we could be in serious, serious jeopardy. The president's speech tonight should hopefully go a long way to restoring a touch of sanity ... though I fear it will fall on deaf ears for a portion of American society. Fortunately, they are still a minority, though a loud and significant one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:18 PM

8. In some respects, yes. And I'd be lying if I said

 

that I am not despairing about the way in which many are being misled.

The darkly humorous side of me thinks all that's missing is Trump writing a book about his own struggles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:39 PM

13. The case fell apart because to have standing you actually must be denied service.

Just have a Muslim man go in and attempt to purchase something. If the owner refuses, you now have a clear and simple case.

Every law or act challenged in court began with someone being denied or arrested. To legalize contraception in Connecticut, the Director in Conn. of Planned Parenthood opened a birth control clinic, served 10 customers and was then arrested, convicted, and fined for violating the Comstock Act. The case was appealed to the SCOTUS and won, ending bans on Contraceptive devices and recognizing the Right to Privacy in US law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:54 PM

15. The plaintiff had no standing.

 

They need to go in and be denied service because of their protected class, then they would have standing and a lawsuit would be a slam dunk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:59 PM

17. It was dismissed for lack of standing, because claimants did not show that anyone was refused

service.

I'm pretty sure that if a Muslim did show up and was refused service, the suit would succeed and the court would issue an injunction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:15 PM

27. No

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to diabeticman (Original post)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:41 PM

28. Actual refusal and discrimination has to happen in order to sue. And my friend you live in a country

 

that allows open discrimination against millions of LGBT Americans in housing and employment and services already. You always have. You just don't care about us. Not a second thought. But straight religious people who had nothing happen to them at all, oh mercy it's the second coming of Hitler.
Double fucking standards demonstrate biases.

Part two: know your history Barney's Beanery edition...read the section called 'History of Discrimination'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney's_Beanery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread