"Muslim Free" gun range closes down

[TLK Valentine]

'Muslim-free' gun range closes in Oklahoma

Owners of an Oklahoma gun range that once claimed to be "Muslim-free" have announced that they will be selling the property after facing a lawsuit from a local Muslim resident that has lasted several years.

In a Facebook post, the owners of Save Yourself Gun Club announced the sale of their two-acre property located in Muskogee County.
The business announced its closure earlier this year, telling customers that all memberships would expire in April.

Well, there's an example of a bad business practice...

Thoughts?

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that you probably shouldn't publically announce you plan on violating the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Landon Caeli]

'Muslim-free' gun range closes in Oklahoma

Well, there's an example of a bad business practice...

Thoughts?

No worse than forcing vaccinated customers to wear masks, IMO. But Muslims are a protected group while the "vaccinated" are not... So there's that.

 

[pescador]

No worse than forcing vaccinated customers to wear masks, IMO. But Muslims are a protected group while the "vaccinated" are not... So there's that.

One is bigotry against a group, the other is medical protection for all. It's unfortunate that you can't see the difference.

 

[Landon Caeli]

One is bigotry against a group, the other is medical protection for all. It's unfortunate that you can't see the difference.

I wish my heart was as big as yours... It's just not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No worse than forcing vaccinated customers to wear masks, IMO. But Muslims are a protected group while the "vaccinated" are not... So there's that.

Yeah, don't you just hate freedom from religious discrimination?

 

[Landon Caeli]

Yeah, don't you just hate freedom from religious discrimination?

I hate radicalism of every kind... Including the kind described in the OP.

 

[grasping the after wind]

One is bigotry against a group, the other is medical protection for all. It's unfortunate that you can't see the difference.

The two are both singling out a group in order to discriminiate against them. I haven't seen any studies that suggest mask wearing is actually a highly effective medical protection. Seems to me that we ought to have some science to follow before we pretend we are following the science. If the argument were that vaccination was a medical protection for all then we only have the violation of rights vs the actual safeguarding of the public's general health but I don't see the same proof for masks as I see for vaccinations. There ought to be some very convincing evidence that the general health will be effectively safeguarded by a policy before one just strips people's rights from them. In the case of the gun range there is no case to be made that discriminating against Muslims safeguards the health of the populace.

 

[pescador]

The two are both singling out a group in order to discriminiate against them. I haven't seen any studies that suggest mask wearing is actually a highly effective medical protection. Seems to me that we ought to have some science to follow before we pretend we are following the science. If the argument were that vaccination was a medical protection for all then we only have the violation of rights vs the actual safeguarding of the public's general health but I don't see the same proof for masks as I see for vaccinations. There ought to be some very convincing evidence that the general health will be effectively safeguarded by a policy before one just strips people's rights from them. In the case of the gun range there is no case to be made that discriminating against Muslims safeguards the health of the populace.

Masks prevent the transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Period. They are a very effective deterrent against the spread of this disease, and it's foolish not to wear one. As I wrote earlier, I view wearing masks as similar to wearing seatbelts: government-mandated safety measures that save lives. Yet not too many people oppose seatbelts, probably because they came on the scene before there was a host of self-appointed "experts" on social media spreading disinformation. There is some very convincing evidence that the general health will be effectively safeguarded by people being vaccinated and wearing masks.

Now, back to the subject of the OP?

 

[cow451]

So there's that.

And it’s not much.

 

[cow451]

I wish my heart was as big as yours... It's just not.

Hard to disagree with that.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Hard to disagree with that.

I was able to sympathize with the non-vaccinated for only a fraction of a second, before my mind went back into normal mode. I mean, we've all made our decisions.

Honestly, I don't know how you guys can have so much patience. Does it come natural, or is it a developed quality, that you're willing to bend over backwards before jumping through 15 hoops for others who've had the chance to get the shot but didn't?

 

[pescador]

I was able to sympathize with the non-vaccinated for only a fraction of a second, before my mind went back into normal mode. I mean, we've all made our decisions.

Honestly, I don't know how you guys can have so much patience. Does it come natural, or is it a developed quality, that you're willing to bend over backwards before jumping through 15 hoops for others who've had the chance to get the shot but didn't?

What does your last sentence mean?

 

[Landon Caeli]

What does your last sentence mean?

It means that since we vaccinated people can't get more than the sniffles from COVID, I can't understand why vaccinated people are willing to wear a mask for those who rejected the vaccine? I just don't share that level of compassion, and I struggle to understand how anyone else does... Seriously.

Is it like an art.? Is it a learned quality..? Or does it just occur naturally in some people...?

I struggle here.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Seems like it's not the best idea to hang up signs that imply that you're violating state and federal discrimination laws...but I'm not a lawyer...so what do I know? (besides knowing that you shouldn't hang up signs implying that you're violating state and federal laws )

 

[Landon Caeli]

Seems like it's not the best idea to hang up signs that imply that you're violating state and federal discrimination laws...but I'm not a lawyer...so what do I know? (besides knowing that you shouldn't hang up signs implying that you're violating state and federal laws )

It's just too simple minded to do more than laugh at.

(Chuckle-chuckle)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It means that since we vaccinated people can't get more than the sniffles from COVID, I can't understand why vaccinated people are willing to wear a mask for those who rejected the vaccine? I just don't share that level of compassion, and I struggle to understand how anyone else does... Seriously.

Is it like an art.? Is it a learned quality..? Or does it just occur naturally in some people...?

I struggle here.

So, all snark aside on this one...(I got my snarky post out of the way above)

In theory, I get it...

Religious affiliation is a circumstance of choice much like anti-vaxxerism and not an immutable characteristic. As a general rule, I'm not a fan of affording special protections for willfully adopted ideological viewpoints. Primarily because, like I said, ideological viewpoints are a circumstance of choice and not something you're "locked into" from birth (like race, sexual orientation) or something you have no control over like a disability. That, and... Ideological viewpoints can be nasty, fully of flaws, and encourage bad behavior that can harm other people.

But the laws are what they are, and I don't see the laws affording religious affiliation protection going away anytime soon...and if the owner of this gun range was disgruntled with those laws, hanging up signs like that certainly wasn't the most effective way to go about that.


If the owner wanted to make a point in that regard, still be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not violate laws, there are much better, more creative ways they could've done that.


For instance, they could've hung up the following signs:
"If you believe cartoonists should be prosecuted, you're not welcome here"
"If you think a person should be killed for leaving a faith, you're not welcome here"
"If you think gays should be chucked off of rooftops, you're not welcome here"

None of those things mentions any group by name, and place the onus on the belief system itself and not the people as individuals.

Although, with that third one, and given it's a gun range in Oklahoma, they may risk alienating some of their "regulars" with that one.

 

[Landon Caeli]

So, all snark aside on this one...(I got my snarky post out of the way above)

In theory, I get it...

Religious affiliation is a circumstance of choice much like anti-vaxxerism and not an immutable characteristic. As a general rule, I'm not a fan of affording special protections for willfully adopted ideological viewpoints. Primarily because, like I said, ideological viewpoints are a circumstance of choice and not something you're "locked into" from birth (like race, sexual orientation) or something you have no control over like a disability. That, and... Ideological viewpoints can be nasty, fully of flaws, and encourage bad behavior that can harm other people.

But the laws are what they are, and I don't see the laws affording religious affiliation protection going away anytime soon...and if the owner of this gun range was disgruntled with those laws, hanging up signs like that certainly wasn't the most effective way to go about that.


If the owner wanted to make a point in that regard, still be somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not violate laws, there are much better, more creative ways they could've done that.


For instance, they could've hung up the following signs:
"If you believe cartoonists should be prosecuted, you're not welcome here"
"If you think a person should be killed for leaving a faith, you're not welcome here"
"If you think gays should be chucked off of rooftops, you're not welcome here"

None of those things mentions any group by name, and place the onus on the belief system itself and not the people as individuals.

Although, with that third one, and given it's a gun range in Oklahoma, they may risk alienating some of their "regulars" with that one.

Exactly.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The two are both singling out a group in order to discriminiate against them.

Discrimination against a group based on their religion is illegal.
Discrimination against a group based on their gullibility is legal.

But there are plenty of other threads to cry about the big, bad maskers...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Discrimination against a group based on their religion is illegal.
Discrimination against a group based on their gullibility is legal.

Eh
I would say there's some significant overlap there...

Unless, that is, we want to open the door for any idea (willfully adopted by the gullible) to be classified as a religious belief and therefore afford it legal protection)

For instance, if a particular religion decided tomorrow to make one of it's principles the rejection of a certain medical intervention, therefore, off-limits... See: "Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions"

But I'll stop there before I accidentally violate any forum rules.