I don't agree with this. Any thoughts?

In the five months since Jan Morgan banned Muslims from her gun range in Hot Springs, Ark., business has boomed and predictions of a lawsuit brought by federal civil rights enforcers have so far proved inaccurate.

Morgan, who claims keeping Muslims out of her Gun Cave Indoor Firing Range is a matter of public safety and not a constitutional issue, says she made the decision in September after two customers she deemed suspicious visited. She said their furtive behavior and cellphone ringtones of “Allahu Akhbar” prompted her to revise her range’s policies.

ADVERTISEMENT
“We are dealing in lethal firearms,” Morgan told FoxNews.com. “I’m not going to let a Nazi shoot in here, or a Ku Klux Klan member in here, either.”

Morgan said she excludes those she believes to be Muslim based on their names. She says business is up, but she has gotten threats, which she brushed off.

“I’m not going to let a Nazi shoot in here, or a Ku Klux Klan member in here either.”

- Jan Morgan, gun range operator
But Morgan’s “no Muslims” stance has her in the legal crosshairs of at least two groups. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder seeking the Justice Department’s involvement.

“Given the recent spike in anti-Muslim rhetoric, including Islamophobic statements by government officials, community leaders and media outlets, death threats, and other bias incidents targeting Muslims, I urge you to investigate this matter soon,” a letter sent by CAIR to Holder in October stated.

“CAIR believes that systematically banning Muslims from a place of business is a violation of federal laws prohibiting racial and religious discrimination and will inevitably result in a hostile environment for ordinary Muslims in Arkansas,” the letter added.

The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. CAIR’s letter was copied to Gov. Mike Beebe, whose term has since ended, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Arkansas, and the ATF's Little Rock Field Office. CAIR’s litigation director told FoxNews.com none of the recipients has responded.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arkansas also has petitioned federal authorities to do something about Morgan’s rules. Executive Director Rita Sklar told FoxNews.com Morgan’s claim the gun range was acting out of legitimate caution is a dog that doesn’t hunt.

“It’s discrimination based on religion, or, in this case, perceived religion and is a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,” Sklar said. “It isn’t based on that person’s behavior or anything they could reliably use that could be used to bar the person from the premises.”

Sklar also said that while the ACLU chapter has not heard back yet from the DOJ, her group would be “more than happy” to proceed with legal action should a client approach them.

“We would be happy to talk to anyone who had been turned away because he or she is Muslim or perceived to be Muslim,” Sklar said. “We would be more than happy to take her to court to get her to do the American, moral thing.”

While no Muslim plaintiffs have stepped forward, a father and son who say they are Hindu claim they were kicked out last week.

"My dad and I just got kicked out of a Muslim-free gun range," read a tweet from the man claiming to have been booted. "I'm not Muslim, I'm just brown."

Legal experts say Morgan may be within her rights if her gun range is deemed a private club. Federal law bars discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation or those that affect interstate commerce. In a legal challenge, Morgan might have to prove that her business does not fall under federal civil rights regulation.

"Federal law forbids religious discrimination by places of public accommodations," said Cornell University Law School Professor Michael Dorf. Arkansas has a state law that does the same thing. Under the federal case law, in order for an entity to count as a private club, it must have some sort of restricted membership and not be generally open to the public.

"A gun range that is generally open to the public but excludes Muslims - or any other group based on a forbidden classification - could not fairly say that everyone is a member except Muslims," Dorf added.

Mark Killenbeck, a Constitutional law professor at University of Arkansas School of Law, said if Morgan is sued, she could have a hard time showing her gun range is a private club and not subject to the federal statutory ban on discrimination of the basis of religion.

"The Court has held that truly private entities can engage in such discrimination but requires that they are truly and demonstrably private and that the club and its members have a 'common expressive purpose,'” he said. "There are ways that the owner might be able to make that claim, but I am skeptical."

In the meantime, Morgan is not budging. She likened offering target practice to potential terrorists to flight schools offering lessons on simulators to the 9/11 terrorists. And because firearms are involved, she said her case is not analogous to cases in which private businesses have been sanctioned for refusing to serve other groups, such as gays.

“One mistake can cost another human being’s life,” she said. “There’s no room for mistakes when you’re handling firearms. We aren’t just refusing to make a wedding cake here.”

Morgan claims business has “quadrupled” with people from out of state coming to the range and some even offering donations for what they predict will be a legal battle. She also said she has been threatened, which she responded to by posting her home address on the range website and daring those issuing threats to do so in person.

“I am the infidel your Imam warned you about,” Morgan wrote under an image of her packing heat.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/28/gun-range-ban-on-muslims-draws-fire/

If she is running a private business, and has not nor will in the future accept government funding or assistance, then she should have the right to refuse service to any one for any reason what so ever.

Read literally, the 1st amendment restricts the government from discriminating or establishing a "state" religion. It does not restrict a private citizen from doing the same. It's her private property, same as her house, she can let who ever the hell she want in or keep them out.

bigbulls said:

If she is running a private business, and has not nor will in the future accept government funding or assistance, then she should have the right to refuse service to any one for any reason what so ever.

Read literally, the 1st amendment restricts the government from discriminating or establishing a "state" religion. It does not restrict a private citizen from doing the same. It's her private property, same as her house, she can let who ever the hell she want in or keep them out.

Click to expand...

She is restrciting them from her firearms range based off of name and religon alone. Which is a violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964. If this was the case then she could stop people based on their skin color to.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.[1]

Now I don't agree with the religon but her excuse as to "name and religon" Is that a viable excuse?..... Or switch the roles around if it was a muslim range owner and a Christain customer..... I wonder what would happen... If this a viable excuse then there goes the whole civil rights Martin Luther King Jr fought for right out the door.... and I thought all men were created equal with unalienable Rights?

Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.

Click to expand...

That's the problem. The courts are making law instead of interperting the law for exactly what it is.
She operates a private business... period. It is hers to run how she sees fit. If a Muslim business wants to refuse service to Christian partrons then that is within their rights as PRIVATE business owners.


We are created equal with certain unalienable rights. One of these is Liberty.

bigbulls said:

That's the problem. The courts are making law instead of interperting the law for exactly what it is.
She operates a private business... period. It is hers to run how she sees fit. If a Muslim business wants to refuse service to Christian partrons then that is within their rights as PRIVATE business owners.


We are created equal with certain unalienable rights. One of these is Liberty.

Click to expand...

If we were all created equal then why did we have the Civil Rights movement? Why the 3/5ths compromise? In reality when the Declaration of Independence was written not all men were created equal. Which is why the whole civil rights motion started and the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment canme about. I don't know to me if the can discrimnate on religon then they can discrimnate base on race and sex. I understand your point but then not everyone is created equal. Discrimnating someone based on color, sex, and religon is preventing someone to have the pursuit of happiness which is another unalienable right.

You don't think that if she is able to do this. Would this open the doors to deny buisness to someone based off skin color or sex?

I would ban them too unless they volunteered as target holders!...good for her, private business do as she pleases. OH and FU*CK the muslims!

I don't want this to deem I am defending the Muslims but more a long the lines of the Civil Rights...... Kind of like the ammo ban. If they could ban M855 as AP then what would make someone stop and banning at other ammo. Just like if a store owner can deny sale base on religon what would stop then denying sale based on color and sex as soon as a buisness owner denies someone on skin color wait there will be a huge up roar. I know one is federal and one is private but someone fought for us all to be equal right? The founding fathers didn't entitle everyone equal. I love how people says Fu** the Muslims but we also had in 2008 around 3,400 serve in the US military.... and now the Pentagon expects it to be well over 10,000. But wait we support the military right? Sorry to go on that topic but that is the only way to put anything in perspective.

Here is a question. Only firearms range for miles you walk in and want to shoot and the
store owner says " Sorry your not shooting here."
you ask "why?"
store owner says "Your name is Aaron"
customer says "Why does that have to deal with wether I can shoot or not?"
store owner says "It is a Christain name"Is that a viable reason?
Is that a viable reason?
Know how many people are named Aaron not based on religous reasons?

There is not difference than saying you are not shooting here because you are white, black,
Oh wait you can't shoot here because you don't have blonde hair and blue eyes...... Wonder what that sounds like.

FrankT said:

I would ban them too unless they volunteered as target holders!...good for her, private business do as she pleases. OH and FU*CK the muslims!

Click to expand...

:thumb:

yeah we train and arm them over in the middle east too and some shoot us in the back, they cannot be trusted like the one in Waco, I don't care how many are in our forces, some may turn on us. It is a Holy War, not skin color, it is religion a jihad a hatred of us based in their religion..I repeat NONE should be trusted.

FrankT said:

yeah we train and arm them over in the middle east too and some shoot us in the back, they cannot be trusted like the one in Waco, I don't care how many are in our forces, some may turn on us. It is a Holy War, not skin color, it is religion a jihad a hatred of us based in their religion..I repeat NONE should be trusted.

Click to expand...

Do you not think there has been terroism with Christanity or any other religon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_terrorism
Just some reading material.

Always change the subject? your OP is that a private company denies service to muslims, so now you want to talk about something else because you are losing the OP? LOL

FrankT said:

Always change the subject? your OP is that a private company denies service to muslims, so now you want to talk about something else because you are losing the OP? LOL

Click to expand...

I'm not changing the subject you responded how they may turn on us and act like they are the only ones.... It happens everywhere.... Okay back to the topic and how I have been asking the whole time. If this is a viable reason? If so of course people will be denied because of race and sex. You can say all you want it isn't about race or sex but people will take that into context and run with it. Which means people will be denied employement, services, schooles etc just because one person was able to not serve someone based off religon. Which under the civil rights act it is covered same with race and sex. They see if religon doesn't matter why would race or sex matter to. Then the whole process starts over again.

FrankT said:

Always change the subject? your OP is that a private company denies service to muslims, so now you want to talk about something else because you are losing the OP? LOL

Click to expand...

Frank, did you know that Muslims are a race of people. I think you are misinterpreting Muslims for the people who practice Islam. Who do you think all these Christians were that have been killed by Isis in the Middle East? They were Christian Muslims. Yeah, they worship the same God you do frank.

Doc

You don't even know who you are hating on these days? Is your hatred this deep?

Wrong, Sir, it is a Religion

A Muslim, sometimes spelled Moslem,[1] relates to a person who follows the religion of Islam,[2] a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the Quran. Muslims consider the Quran to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

They might have been Arab or Iraqi Christians but there is nothing such as a Christian Muslim.

All men created equal only refers to how the government and the law deal with citizens. Private business and individuals do as the please.

All men created equal only refers to how the government and the law deal with citizens. Private business and individuals do as they please.

Okay what is everyones take on the equal oppurtunity act? Say you go to a job interview and they turn you around because you are white no other reason. Hell you don't even get to walk into the door. What is y'alls take on that?

Also for everyone that thinks Muslim is so bad lets look at a few versuses from the "Christain" bible.

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

It goes on and on but this isn't true because it is our bible right? Frank Each religon has their own extremist.

Again private business hire who they what for their own reasons. In life there is no such thing as "fair"

I'm glad her buisness is doing well enough she can turn down customers. I think it's a bs reason, and based off of names? Get serious,
Doc and frank may disagree on the semantics but there's plenty of Christians named Ibrahim, etc.

I also find it funny that the army medic is standing up for the people this women has decided to insult. Actually, I find that a lot of men and women that spent time in those two dung holes actually support the people from that part of the world, and are rather tolerant of it's predominant religion.

But just as I feel frank t(or doc, or ric san, or anybody on here, despite their political lean/veteran status/gender choice/hair color) has the right to say what he feels, this woman has the right to not serve any person regardless of religion.




But let's get serious. If I was a deep cover sleeper agent training for a ground assault, would i really do it in Armpit, Arkansas?