TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:55 pm

srothstein wrote: ...We have a law right now that says it is illegal for any business to discriminate (as in bar entry) to any police officer just because he is armed....

Is this new for 2019? What are the sanctions on a private business for violating this statute? And what is the statute?

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs ... htm#2.1305 is the law. It was passed in 2017 and modified in 2019. Civil penalty of $1,000 per violation but I don't know if anyone has filed it yet.

C-dub wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:34 pmIt is an interesting point to be sure. I've made the same point to various folks about the 1st Amendment regarding the right to free speech and religion. It prohibits the government from infringing on free speech or prohibiting one from worshiping whichever religion they choose. It does not prohibit a private company or individual from doing so. However, IIRC, and since I've
been paraphrasing so far anyway, there have been several court decisions that do prohibit businesses from discriminating based on a persons religion. It is interesting and difficult to discern how or why courts have ruled the way they have in the past or might in the future regarding whether or not private companies can prohibit or censure an employee or potential employee based on a 1st Amendment right. Every company I've worked for has prohibited employees from talking to each other about pay rates and salaries. Other prohibited topics include politics and religion. I have yet to see anyone reprimanded or terminated for doing so, but it was in the employee handbook. I don't even know if anything like that has been challenged in court before.

I think it is interesting which private property rights are protected by courts and which are not.

You are correct about the way the courts have ruled and how certain rights are protected even from private businesses and certain rights are not. Not that I agree with the court, but I remember (vaguely, in that I had to study it for a class but forgot about it after the class was done) one freedom of speech case where a mall was forced to allow certain groups to display and hand out material they did not agree with.

But one of the major differences in a lot of those court cases is not that the person or business was violating a constitutional right, but more that they were violating a law passed to give the right some teeth. Things like the various federal civil rights acts which make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of one of the seven protected classes. This is where some of the very interesting cases have come in lately and I fail to understand how any court cannot rule on them in one way. There are state laws which forbid a business to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This is not mentioned as a right in the Constitution (not arguing whether it should be or not, just stating fact). The right to practice a religion is mentioned in the Constitution. How can a state law, even if the intent is good (to stop discrimination against anyone) trump the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? It seems to me that the right to practice a religion is protected much more than the state law could ever be.

So, I think we need to start working on state laws to protect us. I don't see it being an easy fight, but we have a start in Texas. We have a law right now that says it is illegal for any business to discriminate (as in bar entry) to any police officer just because he is armed. I do like the private property rights and generally support them over governmental interference, but this seems like a concept we could argue should be expanded further. I also don't like the special classes of privileged people can do things others can't, even when I am one of the privileged. Either private property rights should trump all, or no one can discriminate against us for being armed (well, except maybe Quakers practicing their religion).

For those of you who are saying the policy is irrelevant to an LTC, I would like to point out a very important distinction. Their warning in the policy book does not meet the legal requirement for notice. This means you cannot be criminally charged for carrying there. It does not mean you are allowed to carry or cannot suffer any other consequences. For example, in this case, they gave legal verbal notice, so there is now a permanent ban on the OP for carrying in that Costco, and possibly from all Costco's in Texas (an interesting case for a court but they did not limit it to their store - I don't know if the statement that the company does not allow it would stand for all company owned property or not).

But there is another potential consequence if Costco wanted to take it. Their membership is a contract and you are now in breach of the contract. At a minimum, they could cancel the membership with you having no recourse on it. My opinion on that is that it would be no real loss but some people like Costco. As with any other contract, lawsuits for the breach are possible, though I think all they could get is the cancelation of the membership since there was no other loss.