I'm not sure I get the semantic difference, but it sounds like a free-market response on your part, which I can and do support.

I do not tolerate Morgan, but I leave her alone.

I support your attitude and position, too!

CG, consider that there might be some inherent danger if you Tolerate Intolerance... ?

The statistics seem to show that folks that are associated with "Allahu Akbar" have tended to be more than a wee bit more dangerous to others than are other groups...

There seemed to be a reference to her having heard "Allahu Akbar" RINGTONES at her range.

Isn't that something that Might Hint At Something?
:) Something about walking and quacking like a duck?

CAIR and ACLU... who would have predicted those two would become bedfellows?!

I support Morgan, too. Private company, private land, private rules. Sort of like the Gay Wedding Cake Fiasco... if it's good for the goose...

They supposedly have an irrational fear of black dogs, so a friendly Doberman would be great :)

As a privately owned entity, she has every right to ban whoever the hell she wants. If because of that, her business suffers, that's on her. Apparently that is not the case. Not only can she ban people, but also certain actions, like the careless use of a firearm and not following procedures clearly prohibited at her facility. After all, unlike other types of enterprise, the spectre of death looms its ugly head at such a place. Re: Chris Kyle.

This stat, as well as many others stats, actually came from the National Safety Council. Perhaps those innocent folks in the inner city of Chicago and other big urban inner cities would dispute the numbers.

Bingo!

I go most of my life without interacting with any bigots like this. I have this fear if they ever make a Gulch-like community, nuts like this would be attracted to it. It would be a place where should be free to be a jerk, but I'd rather have people who want to be free to profit from a new nanotechnology fabrication process than people who want to exercise their right (and I truly believe it's a right) to act like asses.

"I detect sarcasm Circuit"
If we banned actions that are stupid, e.g. my Taco Bell, we'd live in a police state.

As for whether it would still be a story if she discriminated against another group, I say it's scarcely a story as it is. I've never met someone in business act openly bigoted. It's only a story b/c it's bizarre.

I remember the gay wedding cake issue, and the government overreach on that. Personally, I wouldn't want to eat food prepared by people that didn't want to serve my business. But, that's me!

People are funny (weird). I spent a number of years handling labor law issues at the Post Office and met many people that would rather be "right" and unemployed than to be well paid and disgruntled.

If the government can force a baker to bake or a range owner to provide time, how long will it be until they can tell individuals who will be their house guests. That may even be constitutional as long as people are not ordered to give quarters to soldiers.

I wonder, since Americans are *8 times more likely to be killed by a cop today, than to be killed by a terrorists--should she ban cops from practicing at her range as well.

The video that explains Jan Morgan's motivations...it is a legitimate safety issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qryGLZbf...

Store Policy on Armed Attack: (public signage)

Any Employee who hears an attacker attempt to take control of the store e.g. yelling "Allahu Akbar!", or similar and sees a gun in the hands of the person where the sound originates, should sound the alarm and direct fire onto the assailant -- all other employees are directed to open fire and put the intruder down.

Store Policy Addendum: (Breakroom Signage)
The employee with the highest percentage of hits on targer will receive a plaque to be hung in the break room, and 500 FREE rounds of the ammo they used. The second place scorer will receive 200 rounds, and 50 rounds for 3rd place (Ties are permitted.) All others present who placed at least two rounds on target will receive 10 free rounds per hit.
Employees with less than 2 hits will report to the range for 30 minutes mandatory instruction.

Better yet, keep a few pet pigs outside the entry door and a dog inside.

Every now and then I am a customer at a shooting range.
If I walked in and saw people who looked like Muslims, especially one who shouts "Allahu Akbar," I would turn and walk right back out.
That shooting range would lose my business.
Just another motivation for a shooting range owner to keep out the scary people.

That's true, but remember what happened to that baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a couple based on HIS religious beliefs. Nevertheless, I give a thumbs up to Morgan. This country should adopt a reciprocal rights to those citizens of other countries, as long as they don't affect our rights. In other words. if an American cannot go to a firing range in Syria or Pakistan, they can't go to a firing range here either, and so on. Silly, but effective.

It is problematic that you can't tell who is Muslim or not. I would guess Muslims are still using her range but they don't "look" Muslim. That is why I have always preferred to go case by case and not make any blanket bans. If someone is screaming "Allahu Akbar" while shooting I would see a reason for asking them to leave. I don't support banning entire groups typically but I would prefer to leave the decision in the hands of the business owner.

Actually, she did say that Nazis and KKK wouldn't be welcome in her range either, but the big fuss is focused on the Muslim ban. Ironically, there are over 30 Muslim paramilitary camps operating in the U.S. today, but no Nazi camps that I know of.

LOL!!!!

For those that may believe this person does not have the right to make these decisions I have a question. At what point do you get to make your own decisions? Decisions based on your own values, no matter what those values are, as long as no physical harm is inflicted?

Right now this person has made their own decision, a decision based on their values. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I own a print shop. I refuse to print anything for individuals or groups that defend the "climate change" agenda. I believe humans have little to no impact at all in the changing climate. I refuse to serve them because it is my belief that if they succeed, small print shops like mine will be forced out of business due to higher costs and excessive regulations. It is already a tough business climate. I could make money short term and be put out of business by the very people I served.

Would you give the robber money if they were going to shoot you anyway? I won't.

No need to ban Muslims just hang a salted ham at the front door and have all who want come in touch it before they can enter.

If it is a private company, not funded by government, the owner should decide who is served by the business. In this era of Federal overreach that may not be the outcome. That just one of the issues brought to light by the actions of our benevolent government.