CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut - Page 6

View Poll Results: Boycott Pizza Hut Nationwide

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, Boycott Pizza Hut Till They Make A Televised, Printed, Apology And Retraction

    41 63.08%
  • Pizza Hut infringed upon its employees 2A Rights, Iowa's Right To Carry, by its policy & actions

    33 50.77%
  • No, I am With The Democrats & Obama Do Not Boycott Pizza Hut, They Were Well Within Their Rights

    5 7.69%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 101

Thread: CCW Holder Fired By Pizza Hut

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    The SCOTUS Scouting opinion, came under the 1st amendment primarily...

    And the Scouts are non-profit private and are not subject to the same hiring, membership criteria, etc. that a private company, corporation is...
    Further, if they were a Publicly traded company, they would go back under federal jurisdiction only and the SEC, which also prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color or sexual preference, etc...

    Non-Profits can do what ever they want as long as they do not deprive the inalienable rights of other U.S. Citizens... This is how they got the KKK over and over again...

    If they were a for profit company they would have to hire gays and anybody else that qualified...

    Property rights come under the 10th amendment, and therefore a state issue unless its Indian Land, and then only Congress and the SCOTUS and Indian Tribunals have jurisdiction.

    Both the U.S. constitution and every state constitution that I have read do not give preference of one right over another at the expense of another individual... as I previously itemized...

    What they are clear on is that Property Rights and the Rights of Employers etc are limited to not infringing upon the inalienable rights of any U.S. Citizen...

    Further, that property rights and employment rights are not inalienable rights nor liberties guaranteed by the constitution; nor any state constitution; they are a state, city or other municipality legislation/statue issue...

    Therefore, when a entity such as an employer under the jurisdiction of a particular state infringes upon the inalienable rights of a U.S. Citizen to defend themselves; they be come liable under the particular states liability and contract and tort laws.

    Additionally, as previously itemized a persons rights to defend themselves does not stop when they get into their car or step onto someones private property, or their employers work place...

    A U.S. Citizen has the inalienable right to defend themselves by any means necessary wherever they happen to be standing, sitting or laying at the time...

    Unless the state, city or other municipality has infringed upon their inalienable rights and then they are in violation of the 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution as well as any state constitution, statues, etc., they are violating, most of which mirror the U.S. constitution pretty close...

    The SCOTUS was pretty clear in their Parker-Heller decision, that the right to defend yourself is a basic right and therefore is subject to no further scrutiny; in other words, common sense gun control (Obama's Campaign Motto) can not be applied to a basic right or inalienable right...
    You're absolutely right that no one may deprive anyone else of their inalienable rights. However, if I am a property owner and do not allow guns on my property or business, you can't say that I'm denying anyone their inalienable rights unless I'm forcing them to be there against their will. The only people who step foot onto anyone's private property or business are those who are there of their own choosing; by the same token, those who choose not to forfeit their right to keep and bear arms will not voluntarily go where that right is not allowed to be exercised. I ask you, whose inalienable rights are being compromised?

  2.   
  3. #52
    I'm not going to get involved in the argument on whether Pizza Hut was within their rights or not. They owned the property, they can do what they want, although the policy should have been absolutely clear before hand.

    I can and will however, NEVER as long as I live eat anything that comes from a Pizza Hut. I will, further spread this to everyone that I know, in hopes that they will also not ever eat at a Pizza Hut again.

  4. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    You're absolutely right that no one may deprive anyone else of their inalienable rights. However, if I am a property owner and do not allow guns on my property or business, you can't say that I'm denying anyone their inalienable rights unless I'm forcing them to be there against their will. The only people who step foot onto anyone's private property or business are those who are there of their own choosing; by the same token, those who choose not to forfeit their right to keep and bear arms will not voluntarily go where that right is not allowed to be exercised. I ask you, whose inalienable rights are being compromised?
    Again, you do not fundamentally understand that property rights and employer company policy rights are NOT INALIENABLE RIGHTS...

    However, the right to defend yourself is...

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Again, you do not fundamentally understand that property rights and employer company policy rights are NOT INALIENABLE RIGHTS...

    However, the right to defend yourself is...

    Property rights themselves are not inalienable, but liberty, which includes the right of property/business owners to do whatever they see fit with their property or business, is.
    Last edited by tattedupboy; 07-06-2008 at 07:26 PM.

  6. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Property rights themselves are not inalienable, but liberty, which includes the right to do whatever you see fit with your property or business, is.
    Individual Property Rights, Business Rights its policies, etc., are a state, city or other municipality issue...
    10th Amendment...

    Unless you infringe upon someones inalienable rights in which it be comes a Federal Issue...
    1st, 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments...

  7. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Individual Property Rights, Business Rights its policies, etc., are a state, city or other municipality issue...
    10th Amendment...

    Unless you infringe upon someones inalienable rights in which it be comes a Federal Issue...
    1st, 2nd, 5th and 14th amendments...
    The Declaration of Independence lists three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your prior posts seeem to suggest that life is the only one, and that liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't seem to exist.

    Inalienable rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are enjoyed by everyone, including property and business owners; just because property rights aren't specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution, that does not mean that property owners' inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness with respect to their property aren't also a federal issue.

    Another thing I have said repeatedly, which you don't seem to understand, is if you don't like a property or business owner's rules, which the inalienable right of liberty gives them the right to do, then don't go there! Just like it is Pizza Hut's right to prohibit the carrying of guns by employees on company time, it is your right to boycott it because of the policy. Just like no one can force you to give up your inalienable right to life, it is equally true that no one can force the owners of Pizza Hut to give up their inalienable right of liberty to operate their business as they see fit.

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    The Declaration of Independence lists three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your prior posts seeem to suggest that life is the only one, and that liberty and the pursuit of happiness don't seem to exist.

    Inalienable rights, including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are enjoyed by everyone, including property and business owners; just because property rights aren't specifically listed in the U.S. Constitution, that does not mean that property owners' inalienable rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness with respect to their property aren't also a federal issue.

    Another thing I have said repeatedly, which you don't seem to understand, is if you don't like a property or business owner's rules, which the inalienable right of liberty gives them the right to do, then don't go there! Just like it is Pizza Hut's right to prohibit the carrying of guns by employees on company time, it is your right to boycott it because of the policy. Just like no one can force you to give up your inalienable right to life, it is equally true that no one can force the owners of Pizza Hut to give up their inalienable right of liberty to operate their business as they see fit.
    You still do not fundamentally understand, that property rights and the rights of business owners to set their own polices are not inalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution and no matter how many times you repeat it does not make it so...
    Property rights and Business Policy rights are not Civil Rights or inalienable rights...

    By all standards of law they are covered under the 10th amendment; which makes them a state, city or other municipality issue...
    You are confusing State "Right To Work Law" and "State Contract Law" and "State Property/Real-Estate Law" with Civil Liberties and Inalienable Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution...

    And although, states may give them a free reign for the most part to do what they see fit; it can not interfere with the inalienable rights of others... Although, if you listen to the Obama lovers, you might hear something different...
    Specifically the right to defend yourself by any means necessary anywhere you happen to be...

    And by BOYCOTTING PIZZA HUT NATIONWIDE Americans that respect the Second Amendment and the Inalienable Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are sending a message that we KNOW OUR RIGHTS AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH THE CONTINUED INFRINGEMENTS OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS...

    A message the NRA, GOA, SAF and ACLU and others are echoing in Halls of Justice Nationwide...
    Last edited by Bohemian; 07-06-2008 at 10:13 PM.

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    You still do not fundamentally understand, that property rights and the rights of business owners to set their own polices are not inalienable rights guaranteed by the constitution and no matter how many times you repeat it does not make it so...
    Property rights and Business Policy rights are not Civil Rights or inalienable rights...

    By all standards of law they are covered under the 10th amendment; which makes them a state, city or other municipality issue...
    You are confusing State "Right To Work Law" and "State Contract Law" and "State Property/Real-Estate Law" with Civil Liberties and Inalienable Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution...

    And although, states may give them a free reign for the most part to do what they see fit; it can not interfere with the inalienable rights of others... Although, if you listen to the Obama lovers, you might hear something different...
    Specifically the right to defend yourself by any means necessary anywhere you happen to be...

    And by BOYCOTTING PIZZA HUT NATIONWIDE Americans that respect the Second Amendment and the Inalienable Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution are sending a message that we KNOW OUR RIGHTS AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT UP WITH THE CONTINUED INFRINGEMENTS OF OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS...

    A message the NRA, GOA, SAF and ACLU and others are echoing in Halls of Justice Nationwide...
    You keep saying that I do not understand the fundamental fact that property rights are not inalienable, when in fact I have acknowledged that. What you seem not to have a fundamental understanding of is that property and business owners also have inalienable rights, among them LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, both of which give them rein free to do whatever they see fit with their property and/or business. You seem to think that because property rights aren't explicitly inalienable according to the constitution that the people who own property can't use their inalienable rights as individuals to do whatever they see fit with their property and businesses. Look, as I have said repeatedly, if a business or property owner does not want guns then their inalienable right to LIBERTY allows them to do it, and anyone who does not like that policy can choose not to step foot onto that property. Period.

  10. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    You keep saying that I do not understand the fundamental fact that property rights are not inalienable, when in fact I have acknowledged that. What you seem not to have a fundamental understanding of is that property and business owners also have inalienable rights, among them LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, both of which give them rein free to do whatever they see fit with their property and/or business. You seem to think that because property rights aren't explicitly inalienable according to the constitution that the people who own property can't use their inalienable rights as individuals to do whatever they see fit with their property and businesses. Look, as I have said repeatedly, if a business or property owner does not want guns then their inalienable right to LIBERTY allows them to do it, and anyone who does not like that policy can choose not to step foot onto that property. Period.
    Property rights, and Business owners rights to set their policy's, are not akin to a liberty or the pursuit of happiness covered by the constitution...

    They are a state issue, covered by the 10th amendment, and every state in the country, through their own constitutions and laws reiterates this and the fact that although they have a free reign so to speak within established state, city and other municipality legal limits; they can not infringe upon the inalienable rights of others including the right to defend ones life any where any place by any means necessary any time...

    The defense of your life, an inalienable right trumps all...

    BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT NATIONWIDE
    Last edited by Bohemian; 07-07-2008 at 08:15 AM.

  11. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Property rights, and Business owners rights to set their policy's, are not akin to a liberty or the pursuit of happiness covered by the constitution...

    They are a state issue, covered by the 10th amendment, and every state in the country, through their own constitutions and laws reiterates this and the fact that although they have a free reign so to speak within established state, city and other municipality legal limits; they can not infringe upon the inalienable rights of others including the right to defend ones life any where any place by any means necessary any time...

    The defense of your life, an inalienable right trumps all...

    BOYCOTT PIZZA HUT NATIONWIDE
    You could not be more wrong. Property and business owners right to do whatever they see fit is an essential component of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If they did not have the liberty to do whatever they see fit with their property, what incentive would people have to open up businesses?

    Say what you will, but you are dead wrong on this one.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast