Do business owners have the right to run their businesses how they like as long as they are ethical in their practice? I would say yes. They have the right to open their business to whoever they like and discriminate against whoever they like. Jan Morgan has recently declared her gun range in Hot Springs, Arkansas, aptly titled The Gun Cave Indoor Shooting Range, to be a “Muslim Free Zone.”
People have argued over whether Ms. Morgan has this right. I would say that she most certainly does. It’s her business and there are two things at work here. First, people will flock to her business that are pro-Second Amendment and who think the Muslim ideology is anti-American and anti-Christian (which it is both). Second, those that disagree with her position will make it known by not coming to her place of business. I’m all for that too.
People are free to make that decision, just as Morgan is free to make her business decision.
So what are Morgan’s reasons for not allowing Muslims? According to her post, “In the range, people are shooting guns in close proximity to each other, so my patrons depend on me and my discretion regarding who I allow to shoot beside them. One mistake in judgement (sic) on my part could cost innocent people their lives.”
I’d say that is simply being prudent, wouldn’t you? Could non-Muslims engage in similar behavior and start shooting fellow patrons? Absolutely. However, other patrons are not told to murder those they do not believe as they do in their religious doctrine. Not knowing when a Muslim will go jihad on fellow gun owners is a serious issue and it seems to me that Morgan has the right idea of being preventative, rather than reactionary.
She also provided a list of reasons why she doesn’t want the followers of Mohamed to shoot at her range:
- The Koran (which I have read and studied thoroughly) and (which all muslims align themselves with), contains 109 verses commanding hate, murder and terror against all human beings who refuse to submit or convert to Islam. Read those verses of violence here.
- My life has been threatened repeatedly by muslims in response to my publication of those verses from their Koran. Why would I want to rent or sell a gun and hand ammunition to someone who aligns himself with a religion that commands him to kill me?
- The barbaric act of beheading an innocent American in Oklahoma by a muslim
* the Boston bombings(by muslims)
* the Foot Hood mass shooting (by a muslim) that killed 13 people and injured over 30 people
* and the murder of 3000 innocent people (by muslims) on 9/11
This is more than enough loss of life on my home soil at the hands of muslims to substantiate my position that muslims can and may follow the directives in their Koran and kill here at home.
- Two muslims walked in to my range last week with allah akbar ring tone and message alert tones on their smart phones. They spoke very little english, one did not have proof of U.S. citizenship, yet they wanted to rent and shoot guns.
Their behavior was so strange, it was unnerving to my patrons. No one would enter the range to shoot while they were there. Some of my customers left.
(can you blame them?)
- Muslims, who belong to and, or, support ISIS, are threatening to kill innocent Americans.
* Muslims, who belong to or support AL Qaeda, are threatening to kill innocent Americans.
* Muslims who belong to or support HAMAS are threatening to kill innocent Americans.
See a common thread here?
- I have a federal firearms licence (sic)… The ATF informed us when we received the license that if we feel any reason for concern about selling someone a firearm, even sense that something is not right about an individual, or if we are concerned about that persons (sic) mental state, even if they pass a background check, we do not have to sell that person a gun.
In other words, a federal agency has given us this kind of discretion for service based on the nature of the business. I can and have turned people away if I sense an issue with their mental state.
- I understand that not all muslims are terrorists. I also believe there are as many Muslims who do not know what is in their Koran as there are Christians who do not know what is in their Bible.
Since I have no way of discerning which muslims will or will not kill in the name of their religion and the commands in their koran…I choose to err on the side of caution for the safety of my patrons.
- On the issue of religious discrimination:
I view Islam as a theocracy, not a religion. Islam is the union of political, legal, and religious ideologies. In other words, law, religion and state are forged together to form what Muslims refer to as “The Nation of Islam.”
It is given the sovereign qualities of a nation with clerics in the governing body and Sharia law all in one. This is a Theocracy, not a religion.
The US Constitution does not protect a theocracy.
The 1st Amendment is very specific about protecting the rights of individuals from the government, as it concerns the practice of religions, not theocracies.
It clearly differentiates between government and religion. Again protecting the individual’s religious beliefs and practices from (the state) government.
In Islam religion and state are one.
We are a Nation governed by laws, the U.S. Constitution. We are not a Nation that is governed by religion, politicians or clerics.
How then can Islam be protected by the U.S. Constitution?
- Islam allows Muslims to kill their own children, (honor killing) if the behavior of those children embarrasses or dishonors the family name. (which has already occurred on American soil)
Why would I allow people (whose religion allows them to murder their own children), be in the presence of other children?
My patrons often bring their kids to the range to teach them to shoot.
I am responsible for providing a safe environment for those children to learn gun safety and shooting sports.
- In the 14 hundred year history of Islam, muslims have murdered over 270 million people.
Since 9/11 muslims have committed over 21 thousand deadly terror attacks world wide.
One friend has said that ignoring The Federal Civil Rights Act, which states that people have the “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin,” is to protect all people regardless of religion. The problem with that is that it is a violation of the First Amendment. Here, let me show you.
“Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
The right to assemble also implies the right to discriminate. In other words, I have the authority to choose who I associate with and who I don’t. I have the authority to shun thugs from my place of business, just as I have the authority to shun jihadists. They are not entitled to the fruits of my labor, the wares I may sale nor the services I may offer (think Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged here). In essence, The Federal Civil Rights Act, though it is well intentioned, is a violation of the First Amendment.
My same friend does ask some good questions.
- Does Morgan’s refusal to consider Islam a religion mean that Islam is not a religion, protected under our Constitution?
- Does a business owner have the right to choose with whom she will do business?
- Will this stir up more animosity?
- Would this make patrons MORE likely to be the victims of a jihadi attack?
To answer the first question, one would have to assume that the phrase “freedom of religion” was speaking about any religion as though they were all equal. When one references the founder’s writings, they will most definitely see them mention other religions, including Islam and Buddhism. However, when it comes to what was understood, as to where the nation drew its life and law from, it was only the Christian religion that was referenced.
I’ve answered the second question already, but let me add that if a business owner is forced to provide services for another against his will, then, practically speaking, it is no longer his business.
The decision may stir up animosity for sure, but I’ll bet it stirs up a lot more business.
Will patrons be more likely to be victims of a jihad attack? Maybe, maybe not. I’ll simply point out that jihad attacks don’t occur where citizens are well armed, do they?
I think the move by Morgan is both practical and brilliant. It’s practical because it seeks to protect patrons and expose Islam for what it is. It’s brilliant because her stand has already generated a plethora of articles (free publicity) and, in my opinion, all publicity is good publicity. I stand with Jan on this one.