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

[rhorle]

Not selling a gun to someone because they have guidelines in place at the company that says you must be a certain age to purchase them is NOT discrimination.

It a few states it is. It is why in New York and Michigan car rental agencies have to allow 18 year olds to lease a car. Those states specifically have laws that stop age discrimination in those categories. Other states do not and the car rental agencies are allowed to set their own age limits. Usually 20-25. Their polices have to follow local, state, and federal laws.

Oregon doesn't clearly define selling of products in their public accommodations law which means age discrimination there for fire arm sales likely won't be won. The copy cat case filed in Michigan however will likely be won because Michigan specifically mentions sales as a part where age can be used as a reason to discriminate.

[NotFunny008]

Now will Walmart try to settle or fight this
Also who would use a rifle in self defence...

Walmart can always choose to not age discriminate by not selling guns at all! No gun for all ages. No discrimination! Sucker!

[belfpala]

"How you dress" is not a protected class. There are no laws saying you can't discriminate against people who don't wear shirts or shoes. As long as you're denying access equally to all people based on your dress code, there's no problem.

Age isn't a protected class outside of employment. So there you go.

[Stormdash]

Not selling a gun to someone because they have guidelines in place at the company that says you must be a certain age to purchase them is NOT discrimination.

... other than against age.

[rhorle]

Age isn't a protected class outside of employment. So there you go.

Actually it is to a degree. Age is a protected class in some states. Which is why Michigan and Oregon have lawsuits against Walmart/Dick's age restriction even if Oregon's law doesn't include sales like Michigan's does.

[belfpala]

Actually it is to a degree. Age is a protected class in some states. Which is why Michigan and Oregon have lawsuits against Walmart/Dick's age restriction even if Oregon's law doesn't include sales like Michigan's does.

"To a degree" is not a legal term. To what extent, specifically, does Michigan protect age? I've lived there, and private companies have age restrictions on many things, including purchases of legal items.

[Post]

I feel like it's less about needing guns now and more about seeing an easy way to make a bunch of money.

[trabajador5k]

The argument you made, as I saw it, was that belief can trump anti-discrimination laws. In one case, it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals - by not selling them a cake. In another case, it is illegal to discriminate against those over 18 - by not selling them a gun. To me, it's pretty much apples and apples. As a note, from what I can tell, he has a valid case in that state. I'm just opposing the position that beliefs can trump discrimination laws in one case, but not another. Neither item is necessary, both can be obtained from another seller. The only argument I see that they are in any way different (for purposes of this case) is that owning a gun is a protected right (under the current interpretation). However, arguably, buying it is not. Not selling a cake, however, breaks a different amendment (under the current interpretation). So all things being equal, they are again the same.

OK, let's say a bakery won't sell a cake to a couple because they are black, is it still apples to apples? You can buy a cake under 18, why not a gun? Let's not use comparative analysis with cakes and guns and focus on the real issue. It's a business decision not to sell a gun to somebody, retailers are already imposing their own age restrictions in wake of the fla high school shooting. Discrimination based on Age is separate from Disability, Genetic Information, National Origin, Pregnancy, Race/Color, Religion, or Sex.

I think kids who have been kicked out of school should not be able to buy a gun.

[Lazuli]

I find it funny I live in medford but got to this article on MMO champ before my local news.

[ohwell]

so.....I wonder if he would say it's age discrimination that he cannot buy cigarettes as well until he is 21 as well (Oregan's minimum age to buy cigarettes is 21).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_age

No there's a law in place that states it. His suit is that there's a law saying if he's 18 he can buy it and the store is denying him his right under the law.

Be funny how many people would be crying afoul if another protected group couldn't buy a gun.....

[rhorle]

"To a degree" is not a legal term. To what extent, specifically, does Michigan protect age? I've lived there, and private companies have age restrictions on many things, including purchases of legal items.

https://www.michiganlitigationlaw.co...-accomodation/

Of course to a degree is not a legal term. You weren't speaking in legal terms and I added it because only certain age discrimination is protected. I've already referenced it multiple times. Companies in Michigan can not restrict the sale of items to anyone over the age of 18 unless another law allows it. To do so would be age discrimination and covered under the Elliot larson law.

It is why Michigan is one of two states, according to Hertz, that requires cars to be rented to 18 year old people. All other states they are allowed to set the age they want.

Here is the actualy mi.gov link http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-37-2301

"(a) “Place of public accommodation” means a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Place of public accommodation also includes the facilities of the following private clubs:"

An 18 year old pretty much has to be offered the same things as anyone else unless another law says other wise.

[Flutterguy]

I honestly think a 250% sales tax on firearms would accomplish much the same, honestly.

This would be unconstitutional.

[Ragedaug]

1) I am NOT saying this: "So you are saying of the 15,000 (give or take) gun related homicides each year, most of the killers took the victim's gun from them while the victim was trying to defend themselves and shot them with it?" What I am saying is that where a person, mainly women, own a gun for personal protection, they are more likely than not killed with their own weapon. Sometimes from an offender, often times their significant other in a domestic dispute, and other times its accidental, or a child, etc. Some are homicides, some are accidental gun deaths. In the homicides it is often someone they know, like an abusive boyfriend/husband, less frequently it is just a random stranger. How many of all homicides are this, I do not know, thats not the claim I am making.

I find this hard to believe since less than 20,000 people a year are killed by guns while 500,000 to 3M people a year defend themselves with guns. If the attacker took their guns in most cases (using your statement above "they are more likely than not killed with their own weapon"), then there would be more than 250,000 to 1M gun related homicides each year.

2)The claim of yours I take issue with, is this one, "You have between 10,000 to 20,000 murdered by firearms each year, however you have an estimated 500,000 to 3,000,000 who defend themselves from violence or death each year with firearms." I'm wondering where you came up with this number of 500k-3m people using their guns to defend themselves from some violent attack, each year. You then linked to that article, which I thought was supporting this claim. Maybe it was supporting a different claim you made, or maybe I'm interpreting what you said wrong. But the number I'm curious about is this 500k-3m number you stated.

I linked the page directly which contained the book which contains the CDC findings which were pulled from the 2010 Obama initiated study. I only point out Obama and CDC's involvement here to attempt to show there's no Republican/Right Wing bias there. There's a book you can buy for $30, or on the same page you can download the PDF for free. Beyond that I pasted the entire passage out of the book/study that referenced what I'm talking about. It's not my claim. It's the CDC's claim.

3) Reading what you just quoted, I find it hard to believe that defensive gun use annually is 500k-3m. Or that offensive gun use is similar. First off, this is a massive range. Second, there are, on the top end, 30k gun homicides annually. Thats no where near 500k, much less 3m. Even when you throw in non homicide gun crime, it doesnt approach these numbers. This needs more explaining, because the numbers simply don't add up. There is no way that there are 500k-3m gun incidents a year, and only, at most, 30k deaths from those incidents.

I'm not sure how to help you on this one. Some people believe the world is flat regardless of the evidence presented just because a spherical world just doesn't make sense to them. I'm not saying you are a flat earther, just saying I don't know how to help you anymore than I know how to help them. All I can do is point you to the evidence and studies, which hopefully are gathered by people who agree with you politically so you don't immediately dismiss it as propaganda.

4) Youre focused too much on me saying deadly attack. Violence, death, whatever, I still find it hard to believe these numbers are accurate.

I would disagree. I barely focused on that at all. I wrote I think one or two lines about that. Basically to say, "nope, I didn't say that". Seems like you are much more focused on that line than I am, you are the only one bringing it up.

[DSRilk]

OK, let's say a bakery won't sell a cake to a couple because they are black, is it still apples to apples? You can buy a cake under 18, why not a gun? Let's not use comparative analysis with cakes and guns and focus on the real issue. It's a business decision not to sell a gun to somebody, retailers are already imposing their own age restrictions in wake of the fla high school shooting. Discrimination based on Age is separate from Disability, Genetic Information, National Origin, Pregnancy, Race/Color, Religion, or Sex.

I think kids who have been kicked out of school should not be able to buy a gun.

First, I agree they shouldn't be able to buy guns. I don't think ANY kid should be allowed to buy guns. Second, what I believe and what the law is aren't the same thing. Third, yes, it's apples to apples - it's discrimination against a protected class. Discrimination based on age is not separate from anything else, at least not according to the legal rulings; I'm not sure where you get an idea to the contrary. There are many cases where people won huge sums of money due to age discrimination that had nothing whatsoever to do with gaining or losing employment. Many cases revolve around inappropriate jokes and comments about people's age. It's literally the same type of cases you see for gender and racial discrimination.

I am also confused about your buying a cake under 18, why not a gun analogy. You can buy cake under 18, but can't buy alcohol. What exactly is your point?

Also, it is only a business decision if it is not discriminatory and does not deny one their Constitutional rights, and that's the question here. Is it discriminatory? There's certainly an argument for it based on other age-related discrimination cases. Does it deny them their Constitutional rights? There's definitely an argument to be made that it does. As much as I would like to keep guns out of the hands of a great many people, most definitely people in high school and even those under 21 in general, it's not as simple as "it's a business decision."

[Ragedaug]

Not selling a gun to someone because they have guidelines in place at the company that says you must be a certain age to purchase them is NOT discrimination.

We're arguing semantics here, which I don't care to do. I'll tell you what I meant and you can decide what you want to do with the information.

Discrimination is almost always used when referring to "unfair discrimination", to the point that the definition to discrimination was altered to mean the same as "unjust discrimination". So based on that definition you are right, but that's now how I'm using it. The way I'm using it is to say when treating people differently based on set criteria.


Webster's 1828
DISCRIMINATION, noun

1. The act of distinguishing; the act of making or observing a difference; distinction; as the discrimination between right and wrong.

2. The state of being distinguished.

3. Mark of distinction.

Webster's now:
Definition of discrimination
a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment - racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually



If you go off Dictionary.com you'll see they incorporate both definitions, more or less:
1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit


I'm using discrimination based on the 2nd point of dictionary.com. Discrimination does not have to mean unjust. It can also be used to mean treating two people different based on group/class/category, etc. So I'm not saying not selling a gun to a minor is unjust discrimination or a bad thing, but the label "discrimination" still holds true because it fits the definition.

[Stop Pretending]

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.

I'm not sure it qualifies in this instance, only when it comes to hiring. Many counties in my state raised the age limit to purchase tobacco. Several counties were sued, and not one county has lost in court.

[Traveler Voltin]

.22 rifles and pistols should be age 18
Everything can be 21.

[belfpala]

https://www.michiganlitigationlaw.co...-accomodation/

Of course to a degree is not a legal term. You weren't speaking in legal terms and I added it because only certain age discrimination is protected. I've already referenced it multiple times. Companies in Michigan can not restrict the sale of items to anyone over the age of 18 unless another law allows it. To do so would be age discrimination and covered under the Elliot larson law.

It is why Michigan is one of two states, according to Hertz, that requires cars to be rented to 18 year old people. All other states they are allowed to set the age they want.

Here is the actualy mi.gov link http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-37-2301

"(a) “Place of public accommodation” means a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Place of public accommodation also includes the facilities of the following private clubs:"

An 18 year old pretty much has to be offered the same things as anyone else unless another law says other wise.

And yet, I worked at a club that didn't admit anyone under 21 while I was in Michigan. By legal definition, it was was a place of public accommodation, as we did not charge an entry or membership fee. Private Clubs are defined in your link, btw.

And look at this: "(a) “Place of public accommodation” means a business, or an educational, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, health, or transportation facility, or institution of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public. Place of public accommodation also includes the facilities of the following private clubs:"

Institution of any kind, eh?
Michigan Curfew law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg....me=mcl-722-752
Michigan driving law: https://www.drivinglaws.org/teen/michigant.php
Michigan drinking law: https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/....html?state=MI

My point stands that age discrimination exists, and will continue to exist for common sense reasons.

Anyway, I'm sure both Walmart and Dick's are savvy enough to follow the laws of the states within which they operate. Edit: And Walmart is probably powerful enough to change the laws if they want to.

But, what's really going on here is gun nuts are being gun nuts.

[Deleted]

But unlike those things there are laws saying you are allowed to buy a rifle at 18.

I can see this case getting swiftly kicked out and nothing else ever said about it, but totally worth a 60 page thread on MMO.

[belfpala]

.22 rifles and pistols should be age 18
Everything can be 21.

Except that Federal law is 21 for handguns.

For the reason that handguns are involved in most domestic shootings, and domestic shootings kill more people than the highly publicized mass shootings.

So, the precedent is already there. Our politicians just need to take action.