No guns in KFC

[Roger_that]

KFC in Mocksville, NC has a no gun sign on the door.

 

[DeSchaine]

Contact their corporate offices and ask whats up with that. I carry all the time at the one in my hometown and have never seen a sign.

 

[Roger_that]

Thanks, I will soon. I had shoulder surgery and trying to get it together.

 

[F350]

Contact their corporate offices and ask whats up with that. I carry all the time at the one in my hometown and have never seen a sign.

Agreed, but likely a local franchise owner with delusions of importance.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Simply stated, A privately owned company, can make their own rules.. We as citizens, can decide if we prefer chicken over our right to keep and bear arms..

Why would you venture into a place, that does not appreciate your natural god given right to protect yourself and your posterity?..

When rights collide, reasonable folks can make a intelligent decision.. ' I never venture into a place where me or my rights are not wanted"..

Besides, I prefer beef and seafood..

My .02
CCJ

 

[Grapeshot]

Simply stated, A privately owned company, can make their own rules.. We as citizens, can decide if we prefer chicken over our right to keep and bear arms..

Why would you venture into a place, that does not appreciate your natural god given right to protect yourself and your posterity?..

When rights collide, reasonable folks can make a intelligent decision.. ' I never venture into a place where me or my rights are not wanted"..

Besides, I prefer beef and seafood..

My .02
CCJ

I still see the need to interact with them and not give up ground by default.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I still see the need to interact with them and not give up ground by default.

Grape, surely any civil discourse would be a good thing.. The best course of action, would obviously be, to gather 50 or 60 armed folks and enter the store and order the most expensive item on the menu, if they fail or refuse to oblige our order, than surely they are not only not savvy in the ways of business, they are also anti liberty, and surely in both cases, do not desire the business of which we would give.

A Patrick Henry Quotes comes to mind, however my mind and fingers are tired from age and too much wine from today's celebrations...

Again, I say, I do not want to go, where I am not wanted.. KFC sucks in my humble opinion!

My ..02
Regards
CCJ

 

[Va_Nemo]

Do what I do. Go in and ask for the manager. Show him what I call the 4. His sign, your permit (just to impress him you have official permission), your sidearm and your leaving.

Advise him you will-- not be back, will email a complaint to corporate, will discourage any and all persons you have a chance to discuss the subject with from going there, post the matter to several places on the internet and do all you can to reduce his business. Let him know you will be back every month or so check if he still opposes carry.

Give him a friendorfoe.us link and suggest he post there. Advise him if he does not over the next week or so, you will do it for him. Let him know that most people go there to confirm a place is gun friendly and few go for the gun opposition aspect.

I did that in Ga with an Applebees and it took a few months but the sign came down. The nice thing about that one is the couple 2 customer groups behind me and wife in line agreed with us. When I saw their gunbuster sign and advised asst manager doing seating, they also advised of sign making them leave. And left.

Nemo

 

[WalkingWolf]

Between the salt, the grease, and the low health scores we don't patronize KFC. But if you like them then you should go up the food chain. We have a local DQ that is posted, no problem, food lion sells ice cream.

 

[rogue66]

Between the salt, the grease, and the low health scores we don't patronize KFC.

My thoughts exactly. You're better off staying out of KFC.

Try Zaxby's.

 

[utbagpiper]

Simply stated, A privately owned company, can make their own rules.. We as citizens, can decide if we prefer chicken over our right to keep and bear arms..

When every other group has to make a similar decision regarding their access to general goods and services and their race, gender, religion, political affiliation, citizenship, sexual orientation/identity, disability, etc, then I will accept that gun owners should have to make such a decision regarding our RKBA.

Currently, anti-discrimination laws do not protect RKBA. Until very recently, anti-discrimination laws did not protect homosexuality. Within my lifetime, anti-discrimination laws did not protect disability. If there were no anti-discrimination laws in this nation, I would not suggest that we pass such laws to prevent discrimination against law-abiding gun owners/carriers. But with the multitude of protected categories already on the books, I see no reason why lawful, peaceful possession of a firearm should not receive equal protection as other characteristics and behaviors already protected. That some jurisdictions actually impose criminal penalties for failure to abide a bigoted, private policy enacted by a business open to the general public is beyond the pale. Imagine a Catholic, Jew, Black woman, or Homosexual not only being denied service at the proverbial lunch counter, but facing criminal penalties simply for walking through the business' doors!!

Why should we have to carefully plan our day's activities in order to go about normal life's business just to avoid being turned away or even cited for some bogus "crime"?

Whether anyone wants to provide business to an establishment that is hostile to our rights is a very fine discussion. So too whether any particular establishment is worth patronizing regardless of their views on our rights.

But to me, the key question is: "Why should peaceful, law-abiding gun owners & carriers be the only significant minority not to enjoy some measure of anti-discrimination protections?"

Remember, in addition to assuring access to general goods and services, anti-discrimination laws also help shape social mores by making clear that bigoted discrimination is not acceptable. These laws help elevate unpopular groups into the mainstream.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

We have a local DQ that is posted, no problem, food lion sells ice cream.

I wonder if you'd adopt the same "no problem [there is another willing vendor]" attitude if instead of a gun buster sign, a store in your area had a "No Irish", "No Coloreds", or "No Homosexuals" sign.

 

[Grapeshot]

I wonder if you'd adopt the same "no problem [there is another willing vendor]" attitude if instead of a gun buster sign, a store in your area had a "No Irish", "No Coloreds", or "No Homosexuals" sign.

The latter is a violation of national Disabilities Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disability_law

I don't see the problem with where someone voluntarily buys their ice cream.

 

[utbagpiper]

The latter is a violation of national Disabilities Act.

I don't believe the national Disabilities Act applies to any of the cases I cited in the material you quoted from me: Neither Ethnicity, Race, nor Sexual Orientation (Irish, Coloreds, Homosexuals as you quoted me) are generally considered "disabilities"...at least not in polite company.

It was a prior post in which I included disability in the list of protected categories. But as well know, the legality of something doesn't necessarily define the rightness or wrongness of that thing.

I don't see the problem with where someone voluntarily buys their ice cream.

Nor do I.

The problem is with a business open to the public engaging in discrimination in the providing of general goods and services. Whether that discrimination is based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation/identity, religious or political affiliation, disability, or lawful and peaceful possession of a self-defense firearm doesn't matter to me. Whether the discrimination is permitted by law doesn't matter to me. We obey the law, but we recognize it is not the sole nor final arbiter of right and wrong. Discrimination in the offering of a general good or service offends me. And I call it out for what it is regardless of what particular characteristic or conduct it is based on.

Some of those with a blasé, nonchalant attitude about anti-RKBA discrimination are the same folks who would scream the loudest if the same business refused service to two men holding hands, to a man in drag, to a black man, to a woman, or to a person using a wheelchair. I can accept--disagree with but accept in good faith--a true libertarian view opposing all anti-discrimination laws. What I can no longer let pass unchallenged is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of those who are OK with refusing service to law-abiding, peaceful gun carriers even as they demand that businesses not discriminate against any of the politically favored minorities.

I see no reason why lawful gun carriers, including those of us who chose to be "out of the closet" with our gun possession, should be any more accepting of discrimination dished out on us than were blacks happy about sitting at the back of the bus or being denied service at lunch counters in the 1950s and 60s, or the disabled were with lack of accommodation, or than sexual minorities still are in locations that do nor provide protections against discrimination. It seems to me, some gun owners, even some OCers are OK with RKBA being a disfavored right in American society.

Charles

 

[Roger_that]

I sent a complaint to corporate and now I am waiting for a response.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

The latter is a violation of national Disabilities Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disability_law.

I don't believe the national Disabilities Act applies to any of the cases I cited in the material you quoted from me: Neither Ethnicity, Race, nor Sexual Orientation (Irish, Coloreds, Homosexuals as you quoted me) are generally considered "disabilities"...at least not in polite company.

I think technically it would be the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than any 'national Disabilities Act'.
Title II prohibits places of public accommodation must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."
Irish is definitely a place of national origin as would be 'persons of color'.
Sexual orientation discrimination is not yet a protected class with some states giving protections and others not.

 

[gutshot II]

I wonder if you'd adopt the same "no problem [there is another willing vendor]" attitude if instead of a gun buster sign, a store in your area had a "No Irish", "No Coloreds", or "No Homosexuals" sign.

The latter is a violation of national Disabilities Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disability_law

I don't see the problem with where someone voluntarily buys their ice cream.

Grapeshot, are you saying that homosexuality is a "mental impairment".

 

[Grapeshot]

Grapeshot, are you saying that homosexuality is a "mental impairment".

Not at all.

I simply provided a link to the natinal Disabilities Act.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disability_law

 

[BB62]

... The best course of action, would obviously be, to gather 50 or 60 armed folks and enter the store and order the most expensive item on the menu, if they fail or refuse to oblige our order, than surely they are not only not savvy in the ways of business, ...

Fantastic idea!!

 

[gutshot II]

Not at all.

I simply provided a link to the natinal Disabilities Act.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/disability_law

Yes, and said that "the latter" of Utah bagpiper's list of "No Irish", "No Coloreds", or "No Homosexuals" would be a violation of that act. The Act defines a disability as any of the following:

"a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the individual."

I don't think that it would be a "physical impairment" so that only leaves "mental impairment". What am I missing?