You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Property rights: essential but not sufficient
I have been pondering this series of posts over the last couple days. Do you see a distinction between "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs and "no weapons on the premises"? I think there is a fundamental difference between a request for appropriate attire and a demand for disarmament, but I suspect some would conflate them, too.
I think "no shirt, no shoes, no service" is more like asking customers to not come in with an AR slung over their shoulder, but to instead carry concealed. I have no issue with a business establishing a standard for something visible which impacts the business environment.
Also, wearing a shirt isn't likely to cause the customer harm in the event of something unexpected happening-- and if somehow it were to, I doubt any business owner would have a fit if someone took their shirt off if it caught fire. You don't have that kind of safety option when the sign is "no guns" and you suddenly need one that you can't conjure up out of thin air.