A 20-year-old Oregon man has accused Walmart and Dick’s of age-discrimination

[Stormdash]

Let me clarify.

The Civil Rights Act sets the low bar for discrimination. State laws can raise the bar, but they can't lower it any further.

14A (and Commerce Clause) gives Congress the authority to enact the CRA in the first place.

As to whether the defendant is the government or not - it's irrelevant. Retailers are places of public accommodation and subject to the CRA.

The federal civil rights amendment almost certainly doesn't bar what Dick's or Wal-Mart did, which is why this is a state law complaint. No Heart of Atlanta today.

So the federal statutory argument doesn't really factor in, it's less restrictive than Oregon's. Federal constitutional arguments aren't relevant for lack of a state actor. We're right back where we started on page 1 -- with Oregon's age discrimination statute.

[Ragedaug]

The important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both.

It doesn't change the fact that the "YUR GUNS" side is more supportive of mental healthcare by several orders of magnitude.

Do you have any evidence to corroborate that claim?

[IIamaKing]

No it isn't anymore illegal then an all women's gym or a senior citizen discount. You are twisting legal definition to fit your agenda and would not hold up in state court, and I doubt federal scotus would want to rule judgement on it.

- - - Updated - - -

You all realize if push comes to shove they'll just pull all guns from their shelves. Or would that be discrimination too ?

I dont have one.

Choosing not to sell a good is no where near the same as choosing not to sell a good to a person because of their age.

[crewskater]

That would certainly help kill the firearm industry, but, I don't see it happening.

Some stores, especially those getting sued over this new policy, really should just stop selling them.

If these stores stop selling, I can guarantee new stores will start selling them.

[Phookah]

Do you have any evidence to corroborate that claim?

Sure! The very fact that the "MEH GUNS" side are still worried more about their penis substitutes than the kids that get slaughtered everyday is pretty indicative of the mental state of those people. If we disagree on gun control we don't have a difference in political views, we have a difference in morality.


Hopefully these places just stop selling as that stops the lawsuits and bullshit that comes with it. Then people can try to turn to private sellers and once some more tragedies happen maybe we can do something about that loophole too.

[BuckSparkles]

I'm sure he had such urgent need of a rifle that it couldn't wait a year. Huh.

I am sure you felt this way with the gay cake situation too

[Stormdash]

Sure! The very fact that the "MEH GUNS" side are still worried more about their penis substitutes than the kids that get slaughtered everyday is pretty indicative of the mental state of those people. If we disagree on gun control we don't have a difference in political views, we have a difference in morality.


Hopefully these places just stop selling as that stops the lawsuits and bullshit that comes with it. Then people can try to turn to private sellers and once some more tragedies happen maybe we can do something about that loophole too.

This kind of rhetoric does more to put gun owners in a mindset of "on second thought, eat it" when it comes to ANY discussion of ANY proposal. Not a single gun owner interprets their policy choices as "wanting guns more than kids", indeed, a broad account of gun owners own them to protect their kids and actually have. All that kind of vapid bilge does is convince gun owners that there are not serious or ethical or indeed rational people to sit down with.

[Eurytos]

A total ban on assault rifles is constitutional. We used to have one, no court ever said it was unconstitutional. So, as far as limiting access to assault rifles by age, this argument is gonna fail. Also, age isn't the most protected class, its in the middle. Race, alienage, and national origin are the most protected, requiring a compelling state interest...so, even if age was a suspect class requiring strict scrutiny, its pretty easy to meet the states burden of a compelling state interest in 18 year olds having assault weapons.

See: every school shooting ever.

[Moshots]

Age is only a protected class for 40 and older not under.

I mean thats garbage in itself..

We can force a chuch to hold a gay wedding against their beliefs that its an abomination but not a store to follow the law? what kinda bullshit is that.

the argument used when the gays sued the cake baker I remember it being that if the cake baker didn't want to bake a cake they could stop selling cakes to any wedding. So if Dicks doesn't want to follow the law then Stops selling guns at all.

[Stormdash]

Assault rifles have been under a continuous ban this whole time. The non-technical term "assault weapon", we had a ban on those, with them described entirely on the basis of cosmetic features. But in point of fact, none of those have been subject to litigation. The GCA and NFA which all but totally ban assault rifles would probably survive review under current standards, but very skeptical a new AWB could since it is ultimately ineffectual nonsense that doesn't substantially advance crime prevention or public safety.

[Shadowferal]

20yr old crying about age-discrimination...fucker needs to be paying more attention to current events.
His little complaint won't go anywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

We can force a chuch to hold a gay wedding against their beliefs that its an abomination but not a store to follow the law? what kinda bullshit is that.

One isn't paying taxes.

[Eurytos]

It’s flatly a lie that churches are forced to marry gay couples. Churches can, and do, refuse to marry all sorts of folks.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want a primer on the levels of discrimination allowed by the government, Wikipedia does a pretty good job laying out the differences between strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. And the level of interest the government must show in order to overcome a given level of scrutiny.

[Ragedaug]

You realize the entire reason for Dick's doing this is because they'd rather lose sales than sell guns to kids who shoot up schools, right?

Because they sold a gun to the Parkland shooter. They know they'll lose sales, both directly by excluding some customers, and indirectly by people who won't shop at Dick's in protest. They don't care.

On one hand I do feel bad for Dick's as they are in a lose-lose situation here and trying to scramble to make the best of a very bad situation. The fact that they sold the gun to the Parkland shooter put them in a bad light for many anti-gun folks. Their "no guns under 21" policy may help some who were going to boycott them, but I have a feeling most of the people who are sore at Dick's for selling the gun to the shooter in the first place will care much about the age restriction. Then you have all the pro-gun folks who aren't happy with their new rule about restricting the age beyond the legal limit.

I would suspect they'll get more pushback from the policy change then the pushback they received that led them to change it.

[Eurytos]

Age discrimination applies any and all ways, not to just elderly. It does apply to the young as well.

[Stormdash]

It’s flatly a lie that churches are forced to marry gay couples. Churches can, and do, refuse to marry all sorts of folks.

- - - Updated - - -

If you want a primer on the levels of discrimination allowed by the government, Wikipedia does a pretty good job laying out the differences between strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. And the level of interest the government must show in order to overcome a given level of scrutiny.

None of it pertains to this suit, though.

[Shadowferal]

Yeah, the church-gay thing is a shitty red-herring.

[Eurytos]

I bought my 1911 from Dicks, it’s an amazing gun. This age policy will not stop me from shopping there, at all. I’m glad they made the new rule.

- - - Updated - - -

None of it pertains to this suit, though.

The church-gay-wedding stuff certainly does not. It’s a terribly flawed claim anyway.

The levels of scrutiny will absolutely apply to this case though.

[Kantoro]

Litigious Americans strike again.

Just looking to make a buck. Hell in a handbasket and this is the reason why.

[Noradin]

I knew this was gonna happen when Dick's announced it. Age is a protected class, so this runs afoul.

They can make up new store standards for sales, but they can't discriminate against people based on membership in a protected class. So they could require, for instance, a signed form from your psychiatrist confirming that you are of sound mind and not a danger, before selling you a gun. It may not be a LEGAL requirement, but it can be a STORE requirement. As long as said requirement itself doesn't break the law.

Now, they can't FORCE you to give them that document. But they don't have to sell you anything until you do, either.

How does that work for motel rooms and rental cars then?

[Galaar]

Two issues with your statement.

First, Federal Law says 18.
Second, the 2nd Amendment doesn't place an age restriction on the right to own a firearm. I am sure the courts would rule this is an undue burden on our Constitutional rights.

This.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms and the federal legal age of adulthood is 18. Federal Law overrides State Law as well.

Cigarettes, alcohol are not protected by the Constitution. Thus comparisons to them are like apples to oranges.