i'd like to know why a business is not allowed to refuse to serve gay people, which is now essentially a "lawful" activity and also a "fundamental right". but they can prohibit open carriers, which is also a "lawful" activity, and also a "fundamental right".
i'm tired of hearing "it's two different things". no, it's not. they are actually one in the same.
+1
It is obvious that appeals to property and association rights are losing propositions at this point in time even if one does believe strongly enough in private property rights to oppose anti-discrimination laws.
So I believe gun owners/carriers should be pushing for equal protection under anti-discrimination laws.
For those who support anti-discrimination laws or even just public health and safety laws, lawful and peaceful possession of a gun should get as much protection in places of public accommodation as wearing a T-shirt announcing membership or participation in some group or activity the store owner finds offensive.
For those who don't support anti-discrimination laws, they might consider if forcing those on the left to provide services to those they find morally offensive (or scary) might not be the only thing to cause them to reconsider forcing business owners to provide services to all comers.
Right now, Christian business owners are being legally required to provide services to events they find offensive, while homosexual business owners are not being likewise forced to provide services to promote messages they find offensive. When everyone suffers equally, maybe everyone will decide they prefer to let everyone make certain decisions for themselves. And if not, at least everyone is equal and gun owners/carriers are not the only group forced into the closet, out of civil society.
Charles