Actually, I do think their right should be respected by law or anybody. I wouldn't stay there but I would respect the right of the proprietor to do it their way. Let the market show them the error of their ways.

Okay; what's your plan for changing the public accommodations laws to make them more in accord with your preferences?

The "free market" does not produce fair results for people who are not allowed to participate in the "market".

Before 1964 "Whites Only" businessees did just fine in America. In fact, the operators of segregated "public accomodations" claimed the segregation was the result of "market forces, in a "free" country.


It is the role of government in a capitalist country to assure everyone participates in the market. Allowing any sort of "no guns policies" for "private" (but still public) accomodations merely perpetuates an imperfect market.

Most people seem to believe that a propriator's predjudice against guns, no matter how irrational, is still deserving of special legal protection. I think that's completely wrong.

I agree with the latter; that said, as I've said, I think the proprietor should be allowed to exercise his prejudices, as long as he's willing to take responsibility for the foreseeable consequences.

The "foreseeable consequences"? Like maybe getting shot or raped? I suppoose if that happened, it'd be better if the victim had somebody with deep pockets to sue, but if it's truely "foreseeable", why should a prospective victim have to suffer forseeable death or bodily injury in the first place?

It's OK if somebody is attacked by their stalker, if his estate can sue the restaurant? Or, your stalker should be able to effectively deny his prospective victim use of a public restaurant because it's posted for no rational reason?

And all because of a property owner's irrational fear of a permit holder?

You're changing the subject.

There's a difference in kind between a proprietor choosing who he will and will not serve, and the State telling him who he may or may not.