Florida Man Declares His Gun Shop ‘Muslim-Free Zone,’ Battles CNN Host

[ayesha.a]

It is his democratic right.It is his shop,and he can allow/disallow anybody,just like we do at home

It is his democratic right.It is his shop,and he can allow/disallow anybody,just like we do at home

What has "democratic" got to do with it? "Democratic rights" are those pertaining to franchise - the rights to participate in elections, the right to have an elected government, the right to stand for elections, the right to be part of the political process as an equal. "Democracy" is a system of governance, nothing more, nothing less.

Whom to do business with has no relation to "democratic rights". You could argue that from the POV of individual rights - why should a business owner do business with people he doesn't like? That makes more sense, and is understandable. But then, the USA as a nation enacted laws curbing the rights of businesses to cater to their favoured customers alone, during the civil rights era of the 60's. Business establishments were prohibited by law from barring people on the basis of skin color, gender, etc. So just as a white supremacist today cannot legally open a business for whites alone, an islamophobe cannot open a business for non muslims alone. That's not my opinion - that is American law, in word and in spirit.

Now me being a sucker for individual freedom, I can sympathize with your position that he does not have to sell to anybody he doesn't want to. But tell me something, would you apply the same yardstick in India? For example, if some parts of a city only catered to high class brahmins, and lower castes were prohibited, would that be OK for you? That whole social movement in the 1920s in India to remove such injustices - lead by Gandhi, Sri Narayana Guru, Ayyankali etc - would you be OK in going against that tiding, and proclaim that everybody is free to follow their prejudices? How about untouchability, if one class of people practice it, would you consider it their right? The establishment causes of the nation prohibit all such practices.

 

[arbit]

How many muslims committed hate crimes in the wake of the CHarlie Hebdo ruckus? Except those two madmen, who could have been anybody frankly...

And no, violence does not have more sanction in Islam...this proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

This is an example of racism, nothing else.

Its not the question of 2 or 20. The number of muslims involved were enough to murder people for drawings cartoons.Yes the actual act was committed by 2 men but was actually condoned by millions world wide. Many of them from your own country.
It was an act of murder that had sanction from a considerable section of muslim community. I believe you may not be one of them but then again, that doesn't make you a true representative of the more vocal section of muslims.

Moreover this is only one incident we are discussing. There are too many to cite and this is probably not the place for it.

And Sir, Violence does have more sanction in the current up and running version of islam... since you stand counter to the assertion that means you have no idea what you are talking about.

This is not racism, its observation.

 

[ayesha.a]

Its not the question of 2 or 20. The number of muslims involved were enough to murder people for drawings cartoons.Yes the actual act was committed by 2 men but was actually condoned by millions world wide. Many of them from your own country.
It was an act of murder that had sanction from a considerable section of muslim community. I believe you may not be one of them but then again, that doesn't make you a true representative of the more vocal section of muslims.

Moreover this is only one incident we are discussing. There are too many to cite and this is probably not the place for it.

Yes, that's all true. But if you want to talk empirically, as far as American gun ownership is concerned, who has done the most damage? Islamic terrorists, or disturbed (non-muslim) youngsters? Seun-hoi Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Steven Kazmierczak etc were most definitely not muslims. So is there any logic in selling guns to such people, but refusing to sell it to a muslim?

 

[haviZsultan]

Yes, that's all true. But if you want to talk empirically, as far as American gun ownership is concerned, who has done the most damage? Islamic terrorists, or disturbed (non-muslim) youngsters? Seun-hoi Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Steven Kazmierczak etc were most definitely not muslims. So is there any logic in selling guns to such people, but refusing to sell it to a muslim?

Good to see you defending us muslims. Greetings from a Lucknowite. Keep posting.

 

[jamahir]

there was a time when "muslim extremists" meant left-wing revolutionaries and now it means criminals like taliban, fsa ( "moderate extremists" ), qaeda and isil.

it is fault of the ordinary muslims for this change in perception... no one else can be faulted.

 

[joekrish]

Nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt.

 

[Fenrir]

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifies that private businesses cannot legally refuse service to someone based on race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.

Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

There is no protection for members of the Gay community under Title II, but legislation is being worked on to cover them as well - as noted here with a list of ordinances banning the discrimination against the Gay community:

Movement Advancement Project | Local Non-Discrimination Ordinances

The Gay community is protected under Title VII, but only as employees, not as customers:

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation

Trans persons are protected under Title II, as discrimination against a person gender is prohibited, but their orientation is not:

When is refusing service legal and when is it discrimination?

What this individual is attempting to do, discrimination against a person's religious affiliation, is illegal as per Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[ayesha.a]

So are you saying every Muslim with a gun goes about killing people?

How in the world is that not racism?

Well technically it's not racism, because muslims are not a race. But it certainly is bigotry.

 

[waz]

It is his democratic right.It is his shop,and he can allow/disallow anybody,just like we do at home

Lol really?

 

[CIS-TRANS]

I want every American to be like this guy. U.S should declare him a national hero. Muslims, Marxist, blacks(including Indians) and Latins are threat for American security, they all should be deported ASAP.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

It is his democratic right.It is his shop,and he can allow/disallow anybody,just like we do at home

Unless of course he was disallowing Jews.

Because banning a black from siting in front of a bus is NOT the same as selling a gun to a possible nut job. The former is racism, latter is possible good sense. Even your government is doing pretty much the same thing in uighur (I Support it). Better nip it in the bud.

Most acts of terrorism in the US as well as all sorts of gun violence, the vast majority in fact, is committed by non-Muslims. So, it would make much more sense to only allow Muslims and ban all non-Muslims. LOL...

 

[arbit]

Yes, that's all true. But if you want to talk empirically, as far as American gun ownership is concerned, who has done the most damage? Islamic terrorists, or disturbed (non-muslim) youngsters? Seun-hoi Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Steven Kazmierczak etc were most definitely not muslims. So is there any logic in selling guns to such people, but refusing to sell it to a muslim?

Ayesha please let me qualify my statement here. While talking about muslims, I am not including indian muslim community here since indian muslims are better integrated in the mainstream. Having said that you missed the point.
Seun-hoi Cho, Eric Harris and all others you mentioned did not have any social support. They were individuals who acted on their own. Did you see expressions of mass support of their acts in varied countries ? I guess not. Now contrast this with support killers at Charlie Hebdo got worldwide. I hope you see where i am getting with this.

ISIS which kills in the name of islam is not a bunch of disturbed youngsters. Neither the shooters at Charlie were disturbed. They were well organised intelligent men who knew what they were doing. There is a difference between the two.

 

[Mo12]

Many white people have targeted Sikhs and Hindus in believe they are muslim just because they are brown and have facial hair.

If Hindus and Sikhs had a choice between white or muslims, they should chose muslims.

 

[Metanoia]

In my opinion this guy is just merely ill-informed about variety of factors. I don't think so that he is a bigot or a violent person but it is better for him to fight that bit of bias he has which has been reinforced by the current trends.

 

[My-Analogous]

Step one: Be a Florida man. Step two: Make an online video with yourself posing in front of a Confederate battle flag. Step three: Declare your gun store a “Muslim-free zone” because you’re a “true patriot.” Step four: Get on CNN.
That’s the route taken by Andrew Hallinan, who declared his Florida Gun Supply shop a “Muslim-free zone” after a Kuwait-born gunman killed four Marines and a sailor in Chattanoooga, Tenn., last week.

“I’m declaring Florida Gun Supply as a Muslim-free zone,” he said in a video posted to Facebook. “I will not arm and train those who wish to do harm to my fellow patriots.”

Oh, and look at that, he was on CNN this morning with Carol Costello, who confronted him for banning Muslims from his store.

Hallinan admitted he cannot realistically ask the religious background of every customer that comes through his store, but he does intend to use the power vested in him by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to weed out certain customers, because, as he told the host, “Islam is evil at its core.” He added: “The Koran is built to establish a one-world order, a caliphate.”

Asked whether he’d also ban white supremacists who pose in front of the Confederate flag — a la Charleston shooter Dylann Roof — Hallinan said his goal is to keep guns away from people who intend to do mass murder. “The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, normal, everyday Americans,” he said. However, he does seek to ban any Muslims who “read the Koran exactly as it was written.”

Watch the full interview below, via CNN:

Florida Man Declares His Gun Shop ‘Muslim-Free Zone,’ Battles CNN Host | Mediaite

By saying that “The vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, normal, everyday Americans”, he simply taken way their rights which is even written in US constitution. By that mean he deserve prison b/c not to obey law. How about that?.

The main idea of his was publicity and he achieve that well and rest is bullshit