AdvocacyConcealed CarryFeaturedGun RightsNewsOpinionSecond Amendment

Refusing Gun Owners Service Is Discrimination

From Nia­gra Gazette — You’ve heard enough about the first debate. Hillary won it, Don­ald lost it. How many times did he fran­ti­cal­ly ask some­body — any­body! — to call Sean Han­ni­ty?

So let’s talk about inequal­i­ty instead, but not the ver­sion we con­stant­ly hear about dur­ing the cam­paign, about how I should resent any­body who has more mon­ey than I do. I’m more inter­est­ed in the inequal­i­ty of pub­lic — and offi­cial — sup­port for “civ­il rights.”

This has recent­ly been on dis­play in Maine, where Anne Ver­rill, own­er of a cou­ple of restau­rants in Port­land and Fal­mouth, declared on Face­book a cou­ple of months ago, after the June 12 mass-shoot­ing at an Orlan­do night­club, that any­body who owns an assault rifle, or even sup­ports the right to own one, is no longer wel­come in her estab­lish­ments.

She wrote in her post, which includ­ed a pic­ture of an assault rifle: “If you own this gun, or you con­done the own­er­ship of this gun for pri­vate use, you may no longer enter either of my restau­rants, because the only thing I want to teach my chil­dren is love.”

Most of the cov­er­age of her stance since then has been about how vicious the reac­tion was from gun-rights advo­cates – so hos­tile and threat­en­ing that she took down the post.

The response was so hos­tile and threat­en­ing that while she said she and her staff were not “fear­ful,” they were “con­stant­ly more aware of (their) sur­round­ings.”

The obvi­ous impli­ca­tion was that those who opposed her deci­sion fell into the cat­e­go­ry that the elites love to call “gun nuts” and that Hillary Clin­ton likes to call “deplorables” – “irre­deemable” deplorables.

Pre­dictably, Ver­rill got no hos­til­i­ty from the polit­i­cal, cor­po­rate or judi­cial world. No loud con­dem­na­tions of her action from politi­cians. No threats from big cor­po­ra­tions to stop doing busi­ness in Maine unless she reversed her deci­sion. No threat from the state attor­ney gen­er­al to sue her for dis­crim­i­na­tion or vio­la­tion of civ­il rights.

Which is as it should be. If she doesn’t want to serve some poten­tial cus­tomers because of their stance on what she con­sid­ers a cru­cial issue — and is will­ing to forego the income — that ought to be her right. It is not as though there are no oth­er places to eat in Port­land or Fal­mouth.

In her case, things are play­ing out as they ought to. She is being crit­i­cized by those who don’t like what she did and laud­ed by those who sup­port her as coura­geous for stand­ing up to the knuck­le-drag­gers.

But, of course, things would be dras­ti­cal­ly dif­fer­ent – unequal, actu­al­ly – in our mod­ern, alleged­ly pro­gres­sive world if she had been talk­ing about those who are gay or trans­gen­der instead of assault-rifle own­ers.

If she had declared that such peo­ple, or their sup­port­ers, were no longer wel­come in her restau­rant, she would prob­a­bly be out of busi­ness by now, thanks to polit­i­cal, cor­po­rate and judi­cial mus­cle.

There would be march­es and vig­ils, relent­less­ly mock­ing and threat­en­ing her, with sup­port­ive cov­er­age from the nation­al media.

Politi­cians from Maine and beyond would be in full grand­stand­ing mode, con­demn­ing her big­otry. The attor­ney gen­er­al would prob­a­bly be tak­ing her to court, where she would be fac­ing crush­ing fines or worse for alleged­ly vio­lat­ing the civ­il rights of oth­ers.

Ver­rill has addressed that inequal­i­ty – ade­quate­ly, in her view – declar­ing that what she is doing is not com­pa­ra­ble to dis­crim­i­na­tion based on race, gen­der or sex­u­al pref­er­ence since those are bio­log­i­cal in nature, while the deci­sion to own, or sup­port own­er­ship, of an assault rifle, is a choice.

Per­haps that’s most­ly true – although there are numer­ous doc­u­ment­ed cas­es of peo­ple “decid­ing” that they are gay and then lat­er decid­ing they are not.

But, even if she is cor­rect about the tech­ni­cal­i­ties, that does not make what she is doing any less dis­crim­i­na­to­ry.

Peo­ple who own those weapons have a right – a civ­il right – to do so. They are law-abid­ing. They qual­i­fy – Clinton’s view notwith­stand­ing – for “who we are as Amer­i­cans.”

Verrill’s prob­lem with them is that she doesn’t approve of one of the civ­il rights they choose to exer­cise. And in the case of those who sim­ply sup­port that right, her only prob­lem with them is that she dis­agrees.

Would she endorse a refusal to do busi­ness with any­body who plans to vote for Clin­ton? That’s just a choice, too – one that many peo­ple feel pas­sion­ate­ly about.

It is laud­able, at some lev­el, for her to say the “only thing” she wants to teach her chil­dren is love, although she might also want to con­sid­er teach­ing them qual­i­ties like hon­esty, con­sis­ten­cy, dili­gence, tol­er­ance, opti­mism – even dis­crim­i­na­tion, as in dis­cern­ing right from wrong.

She might also want to con­sid­er how love is expressed in dif­fer­ent cir­cum­stances. If some­body was about to kill one of her chil­dren, wouldn’t it be lov­ing to com­mit a vio­lent act to stop the would-be mur­der­er?

All that said, while I dis­agree with her choice, I sup­port her right to make it. What I find abom­inable is the gross inequal­i­ty in the way our legal and polit­i­cal author­i­ties treat such cas­es.

If an alleged vic­tim falls into a polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect class, then the full weight of the law is used to crush the per­pe­tra­tors, includ­ing destroy­ing their busi­ness­es.

If the alleged vic­tim is a mem­ber of a polit­i­cal­ly incor­rect group that has been open­ly dis­par­aged by the pres­i­dent and the woman who seeks to suc­ceed him, then the law takes no notice.

So when you hear Hillary Clin­ton say she wants to elim­i­nate inequal­i­ty, remem­ber that only means she wants gov­ern­ment to take more mon­ey from rich peo­ple.

Equal­i­ty under the law? Not so much.

Previous post

Libs Gonna Tard... With Special NPR Sauce.

Gun advocates will save the Bill of Rights.
Next post

Gun-Rights Advocates Are Key To Saving The Bill Of Rights

ER1C ☠

ER1C ☠

Dedicated Second Amendment Advocate, At-Home Gunsmith, Designer, Blogger, Video Guy, Author, Business Owner & ReloadOne Member.

No Comment

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.