20 year old sues Dicks and Walmart

[sharkey]

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.

The two stores are indeed infringing on his right to legally purchase a firearm due to age discrimination. Is that simplified enough for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

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

I have no idea what that means. You made it too complex for my simplified brain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

Trying to throw in anecdotal quips, or for the simplified, being silly.

 

[RodKo40S&W]

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.

Discrimination is fine, unless there is a law that says you cannot. I can discriminate in the wine I buy, I can discriminate in the friends I want to have. If I have a business, by law, I cannot discriminate in you to you because of your gender, religion, etc. Any discrimination case made would have to fall back on the belief that it is protected by law and thereby the Constitution. That is exactly what this case will hinge on and will make it interesting

 

[TheDan]

(b) A person may purchase an alcoholic beverage for or give an alcoholic beverage to a minor if he is the minor's adult parent, guardian, or spouse, or an adult in whose custody the minor has been committed by a court, and he is visibly present when the minor possesses or consumes the alcoholic beverage.

But I bet most taverns have a policy that prohibits selling a drink that would be provided to a minor even though it is purchased by the parent or guardian.

Oh man... that would have been fun to try out.

 

[Vaquero]

Oh man... that would have been fun to try out.

Wasn't any trouble a few years back.

 

[easy rider]

Oh man... that would have been fun to try out.

I remember my dad buying me a beer when I was 15 at a bar in Nebraska.

But then he would only let me have one, because he wanted me to drive.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I remember my dad buying me a beer when I was 15 at a bar in Nebraska.

But then he would only let me have one, because he wanted me to drive.

Sounds responsible to me.
You had a learners permit, right?
Or are you old enough to have gotten a license at 14?

 

[easy rider]

Sounds responsible to me.
You had a learners permit, right?
Or are you old enough to have gotten a license at 14?

Learners permit. yes.

 

[Younggun]

Discrimination is fine, unless there is a law that says you cannot. I can discriminate in the wine I buy, I can discriminate in the friends I want to have. If I have a business, by law, I cannot discriminate in you to you because of your gender, religion, etc. Any discrimination case made would have to fall back on the belief that it is protected by law and thereby the Constitution. That is exactly what this case will hinge on and will make it interesting

That's all good and well, I just don't like laws that are considered constitutional to be confused with rights.

Keeping in mind that any law is considered constitutional until ruled otherwise. Supporting the idea that all laws are correct can lead to some pretty nasty stuff if the wrong laws get passed. I personally don't agree with discrimination laws in general.

 

[Younggun]

The two stores are indeed infringing on his right to legally purchase a firearm due to age discrimination. Is that simplified enough for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they aren't infringing on his right. He can still purchase a firearm somewhere else.

If you are banned from TGT has TGT infringed on your right to free speech? No.

He was discriminated against for his age, which would apply whether they used that readon to deny the sale of a firearm or a head of lettuce. The firearm just happens to be the product in question but the product holds no relevance to the law which the case is based on.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Couldn't that gay couple just have gone to a different bakery?

 

[easy rider]

Couldn't that gay couple just have gone to a different bakery?

And miss out on publicly slapping down law abiding citizens?

 

[vmax]

I just got bored and made this up.

 

[Younggun]

Couldn't that gay couple just have gone to a different bakery?

I've seen evidence that they went out of their way to choose the bakery they did in order to fight with them. And they had already found another that would make the cake before going to the one which refused.

Of course, this guy could have bought his gun somewhere else.

I know some will say the bakery lost so walmart should too. I just can't get behind the idea of flip flopping on my own principles. I'd rather fight to fix the wrongs I see than push to make sure everyone is screwed.

I'm no fan of the decision made by Dicks or Walmart, but I believe there are better ways to deal with such issues than laws which force people to offer products or services against their will or close their doors. I still believe in the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason even though the law disagrees. And I've spent enoigh time thinking about it from different angles that it's become a concrete belief in which the negatives of such systems are far less than the negative impacts of continuing to add protected classes who must be served by unwilling unwilling business owners.

A most basic right is the right to the fruits of our labors, and a business is just that. These ever expanding anti discrimination laws are slowly scraping that right away.

 

[easy rider]

I think Dick's should get sued, just for being, well, dicks.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

While l agree, he obviously picked Dicks, and Wal-Mart for the same reason as well.

 

[TxStetson]

Love that movie.

 

[sharkey]

No, they aren't infringing on his right. He can still purchase a firearm somewhere else.

If you are banned from TGT has TGT infringed on your right to free speech? No.

He was discriminated against for his age, which would apply whether they used that readon to deny the sale of a firearm or a head of lettuce. The firearm just happens to be the product in question but the product holds no relevance to the law which the case is based on.

They sell guns but they will not sell to him based on his age which is legal according to the law. They have infringed on his right to buy a gun (from them if that makes you feel better) and it is relevant because the gun is not just a "product" but a right that is constitutionally protected.

Your analogy about TGT is not relevant because no one on here really has free speech only what the owner and moderators decide. There is no expectation of free speech here. If the stores were not open to the public, maybe I could see it.

There is an expectation to go buy a firearm from a place that sells them to the public if they meet the requirements the law dictates which this person obviously does.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BRD@66]

Love that movie.

The Sheriff is near.