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

[Elegiac]

Your response to Endus makes me think you don't know how sales tax works.

Yes I, as a resident of Washington state, known for being an outlier in not having an income tax but a high sales tax, do not know how sales tax works. This notion that I'm claiming a specific vendor should implement a sales tax is your inference and not remotely what I said, but okay.

[chazus]

Person goes to buy gun.
Person denied buying gun.
Person throws tantrum when they cannot buy gun.

I think the system is working just fine. This sounds sorta like the person I wouldn't want buying a gun.

[Ragedaug]

There is no law out there stating that a store HAS TO sell someone a gun at 18. It is that store's right to decide who they can & won't sell items to. If those stores deem their rules to be no guns for anyone under 21 then they are free to do that. I know for a fact that Walmart has a policy that if you don't have an ID they won't sell you cigarettes or alcohol even if you are well above the age to purchase it (I've seen them card a senior citizen who didn't have their ID and was told they couldn't sell to them). Contrary to what this guy's lawyer says about him not being part of any movement or organization to push their agenda but I call bullshit. The Dick's policy was all over Facebook the day it was released. After hearing it from Dick's, he more than likely was told about Walmart having a similar policy if he didn't already know before going to Dick's. Its funny how he went to the two businesses that have such rules in place while claiming he didn't know.

While I agree with you that the lawyer's story is BS, your example of carding seniors bolsters the lawyer's point. Carding everyone regardless of age is the opposite of age discrimination, because everyone is treated equally. Deciding on their own to not sell certain things to certain people specially because of their age, when it is otherwise legal, is discrimination. The only questions becomes, do you believe a private citizen has the right to make their own rules to decide who to trade with and who to discriminate against.

[Deleted]

Dicks of age-discrimination, I know that feeling

Darn hot young studs, not giving out them dicks!

[chazus]

could a 8 year old sue for the same reasons? Or is it ok to discriminate against minors? (Seriously wondering, as i'm assuming minors don't have full access to civil rights?)

The point of contention is that the companies are going against state/federal law.

[Ragedaug]

Yes I, as a resident of Washington state, known for being an outlier in not having an income tax but a high sales tax, do not know how sales tax works. This notion that I'm claiming a specific vendor should implement a sales tax is your inference and not remotely what I said, but okay.

OK, I get it. I misunderstood what your point was. If I could suggest, try using more words. Your one liners can be easily misconstrued. As far the idea that the state should levy a 250% sales tax to impede 18-20 year olds from buying guns, I don't get why that would be a consideration when if the state didn't want 18-20's to buy guns, they could just say "the legal age to buy a gun is 21" and accomplish the same thing more effectively.

[Dys]

Those poor giant corporations. They used the wrong words to deny service and now they face litigation, what ever shall they do? Just goes to show that they didn't do proper research to roll out the store policy in a correct manner and just had a knee jerk overreaction to yet another school shooting.

There needs to be a big push towards mental healthcare reform, all this stuff with gun control is superfluous when the systems in place to control are circumvented from the start by shit mental healthcare. It doesn't matter what checks get put in place for buying guns, or even years of waiting, an undiagnosed and unmonitored psychopath can and will lie their way through that process to cause America's Next Big Mass Shooting™.

[Ragedaug]

Person goes to buy gun.
Person denied buying gun.
Person throws tantrum when they cannot buy gun.

I think the system is working just fine. This sounds sorta like the person I wouldn't want buying a gun.

Would you say anyone creating a law suit in the name of discrimination is "throwing a tantrum"? Seems like you are being a bit hyperbolic here.

[zenkai]

I guess it was just about time before a whining idiot would appear to accuse the stores of discrimination even though they made their new rules public. If he wins this, you could claim discrimination on so much shit. In the end, it is the companies rules, shut up and go suck a thumb somewhere else.

This is most likely some stunt created in attempt to have companies forced to revert to their old selling rules.

So if a store publicly put out they won't sell to a certain race then it should be legal to do so? I don't understand your logic.

[Symphonic]

Isn't age as a protected class meant to protect OLDER people (over 40) from being discriminated against? Not younger?

[Ragedaug]

There needs to be a big push towards mental healthcare reform, all this stuff with gun control is superfluous when the systems in place to control are circumvented from the start by shit mental healthcare. It doesn't matter what checks get put in place for buying guns, or even years of waiting, an undiagnosed and unmonitored psychopath can and will lie their way through that process to cause America's Next Big Mass Shooting™.

Nobody seems interested in doing this, however to my understanding, this is the biggest link to all the mass shooters. But I agree, identifying and helping people who need help before they find weapons and start killing folks seems like it should be a big agenda point right now.

One side is shouting about "MAH GUNS!", and the other side is should, "YUR GUNS!!", meanwhile there's a lot of hurting people out there that very few people seem to care about helping.

[A dot Ham]

EZ PZ

I think it just clogs the system, and puts personal information into the hands of people who have no business with it.

By its very nature, the request for, and subsequent handle, and storage of sensitive information, means that the companies hiring those to sell it need to become much more equipped to safe guard such information.

Essentially what I am saying then, is that it becomes much more expensive for Wal-mart and Dicks to be selling guns, and perhaps that don't need to be in that business anyway.

[Elegiac]

One side is shouting about "MAH GUNS!", and the other side is should, "YUR GUNS!!", meanwhile there's a lot of hurting people out there that very few people seem to care about helping.

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.

[Deleted]

The point of contention is that the companies are going against state/federal law.

Doesn't national discrimination laws trump (lol) local state laws?

[Endus]

could a 8 year old sue for the same reasons? Or is it ok to discriminate against minors? (Seriously wondering, as i'm assuming minors don't have full access to civil rights?)

That gets a little hairy but the hairyness comes from basically two angles;

1> Children largely can't have a lawsuit filed, because they're minors. Their guardians would have to file on their behalf, or they would have to seek emancipation and then file on their own behalf. This is a technicality that I'm noting for the sake of being thorough.

2> Most of the limitations on children's rights occur either from their guardians (who have that legal authority) (And yes, teachers have limited guardianship, so schools are included here), or from the government, who create a specific exception to the general rule, based on some justifiably objective factor. This is why kids can't make their own legal choices until majority or emancipation; to protect them from being exploited as they are still growing and learning. It's why they can't buy alcohol or tobacco, harmful substances, prior to an age where they can make such a decision properly. It's why they can't legally drive until 16; they're not deemed to be able to do so safely due to their stage of development.

#2 is the important one. The government can say "you can't sell alcohol to anyone under 21". A store can't say "we're not selling coca-cola to anyone under 21". That's age discrimination.

[Hinalover]

To put it simply businesses do not have the right to reserve to refuse service based on criteria such as age, sex, sexual orientation or ethnicity. Things outside of that "I just don't like you." are fair game. For example a business could refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if they thought they were assholes, but they absolutely would need to be baking other gay wedding cakes for non-assholes.

The Cake case you are referring to has not been fully decided yet by the Supreme Court, so what I could see happen is the court may hold off on giving a final decision until the supreme court gives their decision within the next few months.

[Deleted]

if they want to sell the guns they should use the age restriction from the laws.
if you can say "it is their store, they can chose the age they want" then you can also decide to
not sell to blacks?!
not sell to gays?!
not sell to females?!
etc.

yes i prefer no guns at all or increase the age by law, but we cannot pick out how we handle things based on our feelings/opinions, we have to be fair to all sides.

but well i am not american so i dont know all the information, but from what i read, i would side with the guy, although i dont like guns.

[Endus]

I think it just clogs the system, and puts personal information into the hands of people who have no business with it.

If you're uncomfortable with Dick's having that information, that's fine. But Dick's doesn't have to sell you a gun, either.

Essentially what I am saying then, is that it becomes much more expensive for Wal-mart and Dicks to be selling guns, and perhaps that don't need to be in that business anyway.

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.

[Narwal]

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.

Can a store require you to provide documentation showing you are a US citizen before selling you something?

[Scathbais]

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

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.