Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent (Read 192 times)
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2998
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Feb 8th, 2018 at 3:44pm
Print Post  
Quote:
A uniformed officer carrying his service weapon was asked to leave an Outback Steakhouse restaurant because it is a designated “gun-free zone.”

Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency officer Andrew Ward went to Outback Steakhouse to have dinner with his wife Friday evening, he wrote in a public Facebook post.

Ward said in the post that a manager approached him and requested that he put his gun in his truck. Ward told the manager that he could not because he was in uniform and had to have his weapon on his person.

The manager left to make a call, Ward writes, and then returned to ask Ward and his wife to leave because Outback is a “gun free zone.”

Ward noted that he does not “blame the manager,” but was angered by the treatment an armed “uniformed Law Enforcement Officer who is sworn to protect and serve the public” received.

Since Ward posted the incident on Facebook, he said a representative for Outback contacted him and apologized for what they called a mistake.

In a statement to NewsChannel9, the Director of Media and Community Relations for Outback’s parents company, Bloomin Brands, said:

“We’ve always allowed uniformed law enforcement officers to carry their side arms inside our restaurants. A manager made a mistake and we have discussed this with her. We have contacted the guest personally and apologized."

Ward said the chain told him “there was another customer that was ‘scared for her life’ who was seated across” from the couple, and said “she was afraid because ‘police are shooting people.’”

According to Ward’s post, “This customer went on to demand to be escorted to her vehicle out of fear of being shot.”


Officers of the TWRA are what used to be called "game wardens."  They are allowed to carry guns and badges, because by definition, most of the people who run afoul of hunting laws will be armed.  Fair enough. 

But did he really think he would run into some poachers in the Outback Steak House?  Kangaroo poachers, maybe?  I take it he doesn't get paid to go to dinner with his wife, so he was off duty.  Why do off-duty officers insist on carrying their weapons even when in eating and drinking establishments? 

More importantly, why did this government official not respect the private property rights of the restaurant owners to set safety policy?  I'm sorry that Outback apologized for protecting its patrons from an accidental gunshot wound from an inebriated game warden.  Outback should have "stuck with their guns," so to speak.
  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5969
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #1 - Feb 8th, 2018 at 4:32pm
Print Post  
Outback Steakhouse and any other private business establishment reserves the right to refuse service for any reason

Back in the 70's, many places posted a sign stating so.  It's quite rare to see those signs nowadays, but a few still exist.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2998
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #2 - Feb 8th, 2018 at 6:04pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Feb 8th, 2018 at 4:32pm:
Outback Steakhouse and any other private business establishment reserves the right to refuse service for any reason

Back in the 70's, many places posted a sign stating so.  It's quite rare to see those signs nowadays, but a few still exist.


I think such a sign nowadays would have to have a drawing of a couple of fat people laughing and slapping their knees.

If a conservative Christian can be forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, what rights do any of us have?

  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9898
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #3 - Feb 9th, 2018 at 1:23pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Feb 8th, 2018 at 6:04pm:
I think such a sign nowadays would have to have a drawing of a couple of fat people laughing and slapping their knees.

If a conservative Christian can be forced to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, what rights do any of us have?



In the US the baker would want to make an issue of it and make it known that he/she discriminates against gays/blacks/whites/whatever people.

In Canada the baker would likely just do the job for any of them, or in the worst case just refuse quietly with some reason to dodge the discrimination claims addressed to him.

People who discriminate are mostly interested in making it known they are racists/bigots/whatever discriminators.

That's the point you'll all want to start considering when on these sort of topics.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2998
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #4 - Feb 9th, 2018 at 1:50pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Feb 9th, 2018 at 1:23pm:
In the US the baker would want to make an issue of it and make it known that he/she discriminates against gays/blacks/whites/whatever people.

In Canada the baker would likely just do the job for any of them, or in the worst case just refuse quietly with some reason to dodge the discrimination claims addressed to him.

People who discriminate are mostly interested in making it known they are racists/bigots/whatever discriminators.



Whatever they may do in Canada, in your country, they prefer not to be forced to lie about their beliefs on pain of having all their possessions taken by the government.


  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9898
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #5 - Feb 9th, 2018 at 2:09pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Feb 9th, 2018 at 1:50pm:
Whatever they may do in Canada, in your country, they prefer not to be forced to lie about their beliefs on pain of having all their possessions taken by the government.




I think I made a pretty valid point burnsred, the joy for those people who are discriminators is not in upholding any particular principle. As in some imagined principle in not serving a gay/black/non-christian.  The joy is in hurting other people.

And the reason why is likely founded in politics. On a libertarian forum, we can condemn both the left and the right.

I'll take on the job of condemning the right because I'm more leftist than most on this forum. And I'll start by saying that the right is actively claiming the label of racists. Trump. They also want to claim the christian name. They also want to claim the name of being bigots who won't accept LGBTQ's.

Do you disagree or do you take pride in it?

the left practically owns LGBT voters.

The left owns the huge majority of black and Hispanic voters.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SnarkySack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2998
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #6 - Feb 10th, 2018 at 12:02pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Feb 9th, 2018 at 2:09pm:
I think I made a pretty valid point burnsred, the joy for those people who are discriminators is not in upholding any particular principle. As in some imagined principle in not serving a gay/black/non-christian.  The joy is in hurting other people.


It's possible that this is the motivation for some Christians.  But that theory really flies in the face of what I have learned about them from growing up a Baptist and attending conservative Christian churches of various dominations for more than forty years.  I never met a Christian who was as mean-spirited as you describe.  I have seen such Christians, of course.  But only on Saturday Night Live and other parody shows and movies.

All of the Christians I met were concerned about homosexuals because they believed that their lifestyle choices would keep them separated from God.  Obviously, you would disagree with them on many levels, as is your right.  But that doesn't mean that they aren't sincere when they say they don't want the good intention of treating everyone with "equality" to pave the way for someone else to go to Hell.


Quote:
And the reason why is likely founded in politics. On a libertarian forum, we can condemn both the left and the right.

I'll take on the job of condemning the right because I'm more leftist than most on this forum. And I'll start by saying that the right is actively claiming the label of racists. Trump. They also want to claim the christian name. They also want to claim the name of being bigots who won't accept LGBTQ's.

Do you disagree or do you take pride in it?


I disagree with your premise that you should be the defender of the left and I should be the defender of the right on a libertarian forum.  The left to right political spectrum is an artificial construct.  The real spectrum goes from statist to non-statist.

Quote:
the left practically owns LGBT voters.

The left owns the huge majority of black and Hispanic voters.


LGBT would be an excellent demographic for the libertarian movement to recruit.  At least the LGB part.  Gays make more money on average than straights* so they would be on board with opposing wealth redistribution.  They oppose any laws regulating their sex lives or their rights to marriage.  It may be too late for that last part since the courts have given them most of what they want already, but it's worth a try. 

It would be harder to recruit the trannies.  They would like the freedom aspect for themselves, but not for a gym owner who doesn't want to let men use the women's showers.  Plus seeing Chelsea Manning get a taxpayer funded sex-change might make them cheer on the kleptocrat state.

*That stat may be influenced by the fact that a person with a secure income would risk less by being openly gay.
 
  

I used to be burnsred . . .
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
thermf5
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1292
Location: sin city
Joined: Aug 19th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #7 - Feb 10th, 2018 at 12:36pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Feb 8th, 2018 at 3:44pm:
Officers of the TWRA are what used to be called "game wardens."  They are allowed to carry guns and badges, because by definition, most of the people who run afoul of hunting laws will be armed.  Fair enough. 

But did he really think he would run into some poachers in the Outback Steak House?  Kangaroo poachers, maybe?  I take it he doesn't get paid to go to dinner with his wife, so he was off duty.  Why do off-duty officers insist on carrying their weapons even when in eating and drinking establishments? 

More importantly, why did this government official not respect the private property rights of the restaurant owners to set safety policy?  I'm sorry that Outback apologized for protecting its patrons from an accidental gunshot wound from an inebriated game warden.  Outback should have "stuck with their guns," so to speak.
i live in sin city and stores have to have a singe if thay do not want guns in there store as a privet bizness it should be ur right where u alow people to have guns on there person whle in ur store but is it realy that hard to put up a sing at the main entrance
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
thermf5
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1292
Location: sin city
Joined: Aug 19th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #8 - Feb 10th, 2018 at 12:49pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Feb 10th, 2018 at 12:02pm:
It's possible that this is the motivation for some Christians.  But that theory really flies in the face of what I have learned about them from growing up a Baptist and attending conservative Christian churches of various dominations for more than forty years.  I never met a Christian who was as mean-spirited as you describe.  I have seen such Christians, of course.  But only on Saturday Night Live and other parody shows and movies.

All of the Christians I met were concerned about homosexuals because they believed that their lifestyle choices would keep them separated from God.  Obviously, you would disagree with them on many levels, as is your right.  But that doesn't mean that they aren't sincere when they say they don't want the good intention of treating everyone with "equality" to pave the way for someone else to go to Hell.



I disagree with your premise that you should be the defender of the left and I should be the defender of the right on a libertarian forum.  The left to right political spectrum is an artificial construct.  The real spectrum goes from statist to non-statist.


LGBT would be an excellent demographic for the libertarian movement to recruit.  At least the LGB part.  Gays make more money on average than straights* so they would be on board with opposing wealth redistribution.  They oppose any laws regulating their sex lives or their rights to marriage.  It may be too late for that last part since the courts have given them most of what they want already, but it's worth a try. 

It would be harder to recruit the trannies.  They would like the freedom aspect for themselves, but not for a gym owner who doesn't want to let men use the women's showers.  Plus seeing Chelsea Manning get a taxpayer funded sex-change might make them cheer on the kleptocrat state.

*That stat may be influenced by the fact that a person with a secure income would risk less by being openly gay.
 

trust me there tribism and comity vuleas anre in herlty geaer towds that as a openly bi man i have seen it in teal life when cristain learnh to mi9nd there own bizness me my self and i then thay wont be a probl3em cristy is colectist and being a slave to a god and commty if ur bliv e system izs misstiory there are crists that loyby to get gay peopler killed in aferkia that are from the usa  by the  government u are immoral so look at the cons of ur system nopt just the pros
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9898
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Reply #9 - Feb 11th, 2018 at 1:50pm
Print Post  
SnarkySack wrote on Feb 10th, 2018 at 12:02pm:
It's possible that this is the motivation for some Christians.  But that theory really flies in the face of what I have learned about them from growing up a Baptist and attending conservative Christian churches of various dominations for more than forty years.  I never met a Christian who was as mean-spirited as you describe.  I have seen such Christians, of course.  But only on Saturday Night Live and other parody shows and movies.


I think your faith has blinded you to the truth. There are certainly many examples of faith healers being discovered, outed, and destroyed as con artists. And so it might be true of the majority that they don't express evil, they don't condemn those faith healers for the evil they did.

In essense, Christians promote that which we know fully well now in the 21st. century is evil. An example is child abuse by teaching children to be believers before they're old enough to make up their own minds. Thereby sentencing them to a life of living the lies.

Fair enough that Christians don't understand they are promoting evil, but is that a defense if they were charged with child abuse in a court of law?

Quote:
All of the Christians I met were concerned about homosexuals because they believed that their lifestyle choices would keep them separated from God.  Obviously, you would disagree with them on many levels, as is your right.  But that doesn't mean that they aren't sincere when they say they don't want the good intention of treating everyone with "equality" to pave the way for someone else to go to Hell.


Christians are sincere but my comments above apply again to their non-acceptance of LGBT's. And the cruelty Christians promote and display toward them.



Quote:
I disagree with your premise that you should be the defender of the left and I should be the defender of the right on a libertarian forum.  The left to right political spectrum is an artificial construct.  The real spectrum goes from statist to non-statist.


The libertarianism being promoted on this forum is rightist. The libertarianism I would promote could apply to your definition becasue it wouldn't be leftist or rightist. It might be statist or non-statist but that would have to be demonstrated with real examples of your brand of libertarianism. I suspect it wouldn't work in reality but I'll never hear of it because it's likely all fantasies.


Quote:
LGBT would be an excellent demographic for the libertarian movement to recruit.  At least the LGB part.  Gays make more money on average than straights* so they would be on board with opposing wealth redistribution.  They oppose any laws regulating their sex lives or their rights to marriage.  It may be too late for that last part since the courts have given them most of what they want already, but it's worth a try. 


It would require a new philosophy by the LP. They've already chosen a path of bigotry and hate toward LGBT's. You profess that hate here by excluding the T part. I think the left has a grip on them that's untouchable by the LP. Write it off as impossible. The LP has already written off non-whites. Not intentionally but by it's association with racists.

Quote:
It would be harder to recruit the trannies.  They would like the freedom aspect for themselves, but not for a gym owner who doesn't want to let men use the women's showers.  Plus seeing Chelsea Manning get a taxpayer funded sex-change might make them cheer on the kleptocrat state.

*That stat may be influenced by the fact that a person with a secure income would risk less by being openly gay.

 
Write the LGBT community off as lost. It's too late now to go back to the beginning. A new name and a new ideology must be invented. Pseudo-libertarianism has already corrupted the possibility of them becoming real libertarians who could attract those fringe groups you mention.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Restaurant Refuses Service to Armed Government Agent
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy