20 year old sues Dicks and Walmart

[Shotgun Jeremy]

Yea, I disagree with Dicks 100% on this....but I always thought it was a known thing that businesses have the right to choose who they do business with for whatever reasons they choose. Wasn't that the whole reason for upset over the bakery being forced to bake cakes for the gays?

 

[TexasRedneck]

Yes, that was the reason for the upset. However, having now set the precedent, the courts (and liberal businesses) are quite likely to find that same basis being used against 'em.

"Be careful what you wish for...."

 

[busykngt]

Wasn't that the whole reason for upset over the bakery being forced to bake cakes for the gays?

Well.... and you see who won there, right?
The courts will decide once again.

 

[TKG]

Well.... and you see who won there, right?
The courts will decide once again.

This was my exact thinking as well.

 

[vmax]

The 2nd Amendment is designed to restrict the Federal Government, not protect citizens against store policy. The kid's rights were not being violated. We allow FFLs to refuse a transfer even if the background check comes back correctly because they have a bad feeling about an individual. I don't consider that a bad thing.
They could state that they won't sell to anybody wearing camouflage overalls in their store and they still haven't violated anyone's rights. Instead of voting with his wallet somewhere else, this person and their lawyer went after a company that changed store policy in the wake of a tragedy. While I disagree with their policies, I'm not about to create a situation with intent to sue them.

It seems like a gay couple got a case on the first amendment all the way to SCOTUS over a "store policy"

 

[Younggun]

I just want to point out that the title of this thread could be very easily misread.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

 

[Younggun]

I didn't read it as "sues" the first time.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Yutes are not designated a protected class.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Yutes are not designated a protected class.

Except this isn’t about protected classes. Oregon statutes explicitly prohibit discriminating against a person over the age of 18, except for alcohol and marijuana.

659A.406 Aiding or abetting certain discrimination prohibited. ... it is an unlawful practice for any person ...to make any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

659A.409 Notice that discrimination will be made in place of public accommodation prohibited;... it is an unlawful practice for any person on behalf of any place of public accommodation as defined in ORS 659A.400 to publish, circulate, issue or display, or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of the place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

 

[Texas42]

What if they are an ass?

After reading that several times, I get the feeling you can sue pretty much anyone in Oregon.

 

[MuscleCarMan]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...mits-u-s-town-guns-required-1-murder-6-years/
Even better

 

[Younggun]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...mits-u-s-town-guns-required-1-murder-6-years/
Even better

Not bad for an Atlanta suburb with a population of 30,000 including 11% living beliw the poverty line. Although the mean incomes point to generally middle class households.

Info from wikipedia and sourced to 2010 census.

 

[sharkey]

See this is where we have gone in the Republic. We have to have a suit so a citizen can exercise his 2A right. Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lunyfringe]

because it's uber-liberal Oregon, I'm afraid he won't win- simply because of activist judges. I hope he does, but I'm not holding my breath... the other course of action I see is Dick's Walmart caving and reversing their policy (maybe only in Oregon) to avoid the lawsuit.

 

[RodKo40S&W]

Yea, I disagree with Dicks 100% on this....but I always thought it was a known thing that businesses have the right to choose who they do business with for whatever reasons they choose. Wasn't that the whole reason for upset over the bakery being forced to bake cakes for the gays?

Not necessarily. The argument with the bakeries is that religious freedom is a Constitutionally protected right, and bakers should not be forced to participate in something that is against their religious beliefs. Age discrimination is also not allowed by federal civil rights law, although courts have generally only dealt with discrimination for OLD age, not youth, although the applicable laws do not seem to separate the issue. Should be interesting to see how they handle.

 

[Younggun]

See this is where we have gone in the Republic. We have to have a suit so a citizen can exercise his 2A right. Ridiculous.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not exactly.

He is suing to be allowed to pirchase the firearm from a specific vendor. He still has every right to exercise his 2A right, even if that means building the firearms himself. Much like I have the right to eat, but I don't have the right to purchase or eat food from your garden.

I realize this is a very simplified example, but I found your post to be grossly oversimplified as well. The suit isn't even related to the infringment of a right, but discrimination.

 

[easy rider]

Well crap, there goes my grocery shopping trip to sharkey's.

 

[RodKo40S&W]

Not exactly.

He is suing to be allowed to pirchase the firearm from a specific vendor. He still has every right to exercise his 2A right, even if that means building the firearms himself. Much like I have the right to eat, but I don't have the right to purchase or eat food from your garden.

I realize this is a very simplified example, but I found your post to be grossly oversimplified as well. The suit isn't even related to the infringment of a right, but discrimination.

You cannot say that the case is not related to infringement of rights; as what is what is being argued is that discrimination of age keeps the individual from freely excising is Constitutional right, just as the gay couple argued the baker was denying their constitutional right by not baking a cake for them.

 

[Younggun]

You cannot say that the case is not related to infringement of rights; as what is what is being argued is that discrimination of age keeps the individual from freely excising is Constitutional right, just as the gay couple argued the baker was denying their constitutional right by not baking a cake for them.

The bakery case argued that the bakers had a comstitutional right not to bake the cake based on religious beliefs. That was the defense.

The case against them, as in this case, was based on a discrimination claim. Not based on a constitutional right to purchase a cake.

The bakery case is actually the oppostite of what we are seeing here.

Edit: it's not the opposite as in the age case neither is saying they have a constituional right AFAIK. The 20yr old os claiming discrimination (you aren't constitutionally protected from that). Although I feel people have the right to be discriminating assholes I don't know what the defense will be when the case goes to court.