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

[rhorle]

He might not lose the case. There is a particular statute in Oregon that allows age-discrimination, but it's fairly specific and doesn't mention firearms. (659A.409)
This is a clear case where the state could react if this isn't adjudicated the way people want.

Right. But it allows car rental places to discriminate based on age. The law clearly doesn't apply to all publicly accessible places or products. It can certainly be argued to fall under that law however.

[Ozyorkbourne]

I like this. +1

Also, I think it would be ill-advised to walk that line of discrimination in a store setting. Mental health and the like should be examined well before they have the ability to buy.(Proper identification - background check, etc.) The store should not even have to think about it... I see why they would possibly worry about it though given the societal pressure.

My point would be that age is not going to change intent that drastically. A piece of me finds this "age-ism" to be very silly.

Isn't age a protected class primarily to prevent discrimination against the elderly and partly to prevent discrimination regarding employment of youth? I can see age as a protective class being redefined as a result of this legal challenge.

[Ragedaug]

Yes, age is a protected class.

No, it's not a protected class.

Is that a contradictory set of statements? Yes.

Yeah, but you are the only one making the contradictory statements, so are you arguing with yourself?

Can I sell alcohol to an 18 year old? No. The law says no.

Can Walgreens card anyone who looks under 40 for cigarettes? Yes, they do.

Can I say nobody is allowed in my private establishment under 21? Yes, I can.

With the last one having some gray area to it, these are all laws.

Can Dick's say they won't sell guns to anyone under 21? Why is this a question?

This is not a law, thus the question.

So like, your comparisons are laws..but the thing being discussed isn't. So that's the main difference...law...not a law.

[rhorle]

Reminds me of a time, many years back, when there were some boob grabbers running around. They would walk up to random women in public and grab their boobs. Since there was no law specifically against "grabbing random boobs", the authorities would just ask the women, "did he let go of your boob when you asked him to?". So as far as I am aware, because they always stopped when the ladies protested, they were never prosecuted.

Here in Michigan it is illegal for any one unmarried to live together. Obviously that law is not enforced and hasn't been for a while. It is always funny the loop holes or old/weird laws that exist.

[Ragedaug]

Right. But it allows car rental places to discriminate based on age. The law clearly doesn't apply to all publicly accessible places or products. It can certainly be argued to fall under that law however.

For sure. I would guess that it will come down to arguing externalities. I would suspect that's what car rental businesses base their discrimination on. Basically they take on an increased insurance and accident recovery cost due to the age of the driver, so someone figured out they are allowed to age restrict based on that.

[Moshots]

Then why is car rentals not held to the same standard? They say no 18 year olds in many states. Michigan and New York are the only two that the law mandates they have to rent cars to 18 and up. Most other states are 20-25.

Federal law doesn't have a age limit for that or books worths of laws sayin that an 18yo can rent a car.

[rhorle]

Federal law doesn't have a age limit for that or books worths of laws sayin that an 18yo can rent a car.

Car rental agencies have to follow local law. It is why an 18 year old in Michigan can rent a car but not an 18 year old in Oregon.

[belfpala]

With the last one having some gray area to it, these are all laws.

Those are self enforced policies (the last two), not laws. And see my edit about movie theaters, which are also policy privately enforced.

That's what Dick's has chosen to do.

- - - Updated - - -

Car rental agencies have to follow local law. It is why an 18 year old in Michigan can rent a car but not an 18 year old in Oregon.

Car rental agencies here won't rent a car to anyone under 25. That's a policy. Not a law. (With the exception that if you're legally owned car is at a shop).

[Ragedaug]

Isn't age a protected class primarily to prevent discrimination against the elderly and partly to prevent discrimination regarding employment of youth? I can see age as a protective class being redefined as a result of this legal challenge.

While that is true, age is also a protected class in a much broader scope.

For example, Federal protected classes include:

• Race
• Color
• Religion or creed
• National origin or ancestry
• Sex
• Age
• Physical or mental disability
• Veteran status

So while the ADEA specifically addresses discriminating against older people (40 and up on the Federal levels, though younger for some states), you aren't generally allowed to discriminate against any age group where the government itself hasn't already set the discrimination age.

[rhorle]

Car rental agencies here won't rent a car to anyone under 25. That's a policy. Not a law.

Yes. That is because there is no law saying they can't discriminate based on age. In Michigan and New York 18 is the lowest they can discriminate. If the Oregon law being cited is to be believed you can't discriminate anyone 18+. But both hertz and enterprise in Oregon will not rent a car to an 18 year old. That is the point being brought up.

If it is okay to discriminate with a car then it is okay to discriminate with a fire arm. I find it hard to believe that car rentals (and likely other businesses) have been operating in violation of the law for years and no one has noticed.

[Tinykong]

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

Okay, so what?

[Ragedaug]

Those are self enforced policies (the last two), not laws. And see my edit about movie theaters, which are also policy privately enforced.

That's what Dick's has chosen to do.

Yeah, I was dealing with a specific you weren't actually saying, so that was my bad. I was meaning to say, there's law saying when you can buy booze and cigarettes, but as you noted, no law saying when you have to stop carding folks. I wouldn't doubt it if places haven't already been sued for that which is why some placed card you even if you look 80. That's just a guess though.

As far as not allowing someone in your private establishment, that isn't a cut & dry answer. If your private establishment is a general retail store, you can't restrict based on age. If your private establishment includes the participation in certain activities that are legally age restricted, for example, a strip club, then you can and are sometimes compelled to enforce age restrictions for access.

[Barnabas]

Yes, age is a protected class.

No, it's not a protected class.

Is that a contradictory set of statements? Yes.

Can I sell alcohol to an 18 year old? No. The law says no.

Can movie theaters refuse ticket sales to children under 13 for a PG-13 movie? Yes they can.

Can they refuse sale to a 16 year old for an R movie? Yes they can.

Can Walgreens card anyone who looks under 40 for cigarettes? Yes, they do.

Can I say nobody is allowed in my private establishment under 21? Yes, I can.

Can Dick's say they won't sell guns to anyone under 21? Why is this a question?

Need a law to back it up? How is this hard to grasp?

[belfpala]

As far as not allowing someone in your private establishment, that isn't a cut & dry answer. If your private establishment is a general retail store, you can't restrict based on age. If your private establishment includes the participation in certain activities that are legally age restricted, for example, a strip club, then you can and are sometimes compelled to enforce age restrictions for access.

That's why I said, yes, age discrimination is illegal. And I also said, no age discrimination is not illegal. And why I acknowledged that it was a contradictory set of statements.

To go at one of your statements, it's perfectly legal for the gas station down my street to say anyone under 16 can't be inside without an adult (preventing shoplifting as the stated goal).

But my main point is age discrimination happens everywhere

[lockedout]

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.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

[yetgdhfgh]

He should ask why he cant as a 20 year old buy a beer?

Then he will find out its the lobby group Mothers against drunk drivers that has Washington over a barrel and any state who dares lower the age to 18 will lose federal funding.

Iam sure there is a lesson there or its ironic i cant tell which is which?

[belfpala]

Need a law to back it up? How is this hard to grasp?

Umm... keep reading the thread.

- - - Updated - - -

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

What part of well-regulated militia don't you understand?

[Endus]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

I understand it fine.

Why don't you understand that the right to bear arms does not oblige a private vendor to sell you anything?

[Anjerith]

There is no law saying that a private business is required to give you something just because you want it - regardless of your age.

It is similar to cashiers having the ability to restrict alcohol sales based on their Opinion of the current level of intoxication of the customer.

I mean, hell, if any business in the US actually followed the second amendment, nobody would be buying guns at all - since it doesn't give you the right to own them -- just to use them in defense of the state/government. I.E. If said 20 year old has his heart set on a gun? He can join the Army.

[Ragedaug]

That's why I said, yes, age discrimination is illegal. And I also said, no age discrimination is not illegal. And why I acknowledged that it was a contradictory set of statements.

To go at one of your statements, it's perfectly legal for the gas station down my street to say anyone under 16 can't be inside without an adult (preventing shoplifting as the stated goal).

But my main point is age discrimination happens everywhere

My bad, I missed what you were getting at. The fact that discrimination is lawful when the Government does it and the fact that age discrimination doesn't apply universally when involving minors were recently talked about, so I thought you were getting at something else.

You can have stuff like, "not allowing an 8 year old to drive a car", that is discrimination, but most agree that we are OK with that.

Beyond that, as private citizens, we discriminate all the time. My tastes are discriminating, and that's also OK. If I see a restaurant with mostly white people working there, it's OK if I discriminate against that establishment and go to a more diverse restaurant, or one that's equally racially exclusive, but non-white.

Consumers are given a lot of leeway to openly discriminate, while suppliers are typically outlawed from doing so.