Dick's and Walmart Are Being Sued for Age Discrimination re Gun Sales

You can't decide that you don't like non-discrimination laws when you agree with the discrimination that's happening.

That's exactly my point. You also can't argue that a business can run it's business any way it wants, that it has the right to discriminate any way it sees fit (something I agree with, BTW) and then get made when it doesn't discriminate in the fashion that you want it to.
 
Why 16 or 14? Need I remind you a ton of 14-16 year olds thought eating Tide Pods was a good idea or a couple years ago playing on train tracks while the train was coming was a good idea?

Haha, adults do a lot of stupid things too. People are trendy and reckless, and that doesn't usually change until one's late 20s or early 30s. In actuality, I think a (much better, stronger) argument could be made that high school-age kids today are much older and wiser than previous generations due to the proliferation of traditionally adult subjects into their lives and the inability to insulate kids from them.

But, anyways, young persons have important policy interests and political perspectives that diverge from adults. It's ultimately about making democracy more representative and democratic.
 
That genie didn't magically make a car a firearm.


you missed my edit... EEOC law states that age discrimination is 40. Mich state law on anti discrimination:

Except where permitted by law, a person shall not:


(a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service [which includes retailers -EV] because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.
 
That's exactly my point. You also can't argue that a business can run it's business any way it wants, that it has the right to discriminate any way it sees fit (something I agree with, BTW) and then get made when it doesn't discriminate in the fashion that you want it to.

But the court already ruled against the baker and we're left to see the error of our way and agree with you.

Btw- the baker case was more about freedom to practice religion (not that I agreed with them) than the freedom to discriminate. It was a lot more nuanced than this case.
 
OK, then by this same rationale the Christian bakers must bake cakes for gay customers because refusing to IS straight up discrimination and there are laws in place preventing anyone from discriminating against another person because of their sexual orientation.

But with the religious freedom act, the guy actually had a bit of a case that making a cake for a gay wedding was infringing on his rights.

I think he still lost, but all I'm saying is that the gay cake guy at least had an argument based on an interpretation of what his religious rights entitled him to. Dick's on the other hand, has no such ground to stand on. They're just discriminating, with no laws to even consider that they might have a right to do so.
 
No, they don't.

I don't understand gun nuts' obsession with equating firearms to automobiles in analogies, but I assure you that they are different devices, with different utilities. In the end, everything is a balancing game, and there isn't any express incompatibility.

Yes they do. These are state laws that allow for the lawsuits. The states in the link specifically allow for suits to be brought for any discrimination based on age. These state specific laws are far stricter than federal age discrimination laws. Its not just that the litigants have a shot, they will win. Again though this only applies to 9 states with strict age discrimination laws. D.C. also has a similar law but D.C. does not have a gun store so this issue can't be brought there.
 
Dicks should say they are not going to sell guns to gays and the right would support them again.

And if not gays, definitely the Muslims.


Really, if we want to tackle age discrimination, lets look at things like senior citizen discounts.

Damn man. That's cold.


i would like to know who is for businesses being able to choose not to make a cake for a gay couple but against walmart being able to raise the age required to buy a gun. and for those who are, how can you justify it?

And vice versa.


That genie didn't magically make a car a firearm.

What meaningful difference can that make, logically speaking.
 
Since I am consistent, I side with the business. Their store, they can decide what to sell. I am sure there are other places that will sell a gun to an 18 year old. Dicks and Wal Mart are not the only gun game in town.
 
And it's not like either of those businesses has some sort of monoploy on Ar-15s, or that they're saying they should be illegal OR even that they're refusing to sell them. They're saying that they, as a private business with rights to exercise their own will over their own business, aren't going to sell these rifles to anyone under 21. That's perfectly fine. They have elected to eat the loss of revenue created by that decision. That's how capitalism works.

Agreed and I think you made a very good point with your original post. I didn't want to take your argument and run with it in the thread but I just felt like you stated it very well. Cheers
 
i would like to know who is for businesses being able to choose not to make a cake for a gay couple but against walmart being able to raise the age required to buy a gun. and for those who are, how can you justify it?

I don't think anyone is saying that. Some people are just pointing out that it should go both ways, not just one way. Either it's all OK or none of it's OK.
 
I don't think anyone is saying that. Some people are just pointing out that it should go both ways, not just one way. Either it's all OK or none of it's OK.
i didnt read the thread, so i am not sure what others said. my point was just you need to be for both or against both. it would be very hypocritical for any on the right to be against the bakers being forced to make a cake and then against walmart raising the age. you cant just do that because you are pro gun, anti-gay, whatever. too many on both sides try to make it that way and support "freedom of choice" only when it falls on their side of the aisle
 
They can just tell the kids that they can get the guns from their cold dead hands. That seems to be an acceptable way of dealing with this according to gun proponents.
 
i didnt read the thread, so i am not sure what others said. my point was just you need to be for both or against both. it would be very hypocritical for any on the right to be against the bakers being forced to make a cake and then against walmart raising the age. you cant just do that because you are pro gun, anti-gay, whatever. too many on both sides try to make it that way and support "freedom of choice" only when it falls on their side of the aisle

I feel like you're crusading against a Boogie man that doesn't exist.
 
We're not surprised.
what? i am required to get other peoples opinions in order to have my own? i guess whatever party you follow (you dont stand out enough for me to have a clue what your political leanings are) sets the rules for your thought.

my point was i was not sure if what i said had been commented on earlier
 
I feel like you're crusading against a Boogie man that doesn't exist.
no crusade at all. just a comment that you cant have it both ways. if you are for/against the raising of the age, you should also be on the same side of the bakery thing (or anything similar)
 
If a 13 year old is able to pass a written test for a learner's permit in the state of Michigan and able to pass a driving test with an instructor present, can that person receive a driver's license? If not isn't that discrimination based on age?

Why can the Michigan state government discriminate against a person based on age but a business in the state can't?
 
what? i am required to get other peoples opinions in order to have my own?

Commenting on what other people might think without reading what they actually think is precisely the reason why you're wrestling with an imaginary strawman all by yourself, while the others here are actually participating in a discussion about laws.
 
Last edited:
This was kind of his point... the Right (in general) supported the Christian bakers who didn't want to make a gay wedding cake. Why can't they support Wally/Dicks for not wanting to sell firearms to anyone under the age of 21?

First, I would clarify that some or even most on the right supported the Christian bakers. But to simply say "the right" is a generalization. Secondly, I would say there is a lot of nuance to these issues.

There is an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that specifies that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is no Amendment or any other clause that States that the "right to purchase a wedding Cake, shall not be infringed." Gun ownership is a right. Wedding cakes are a luxury. So the two issues aren't equivalent. Pretty much anybody can bake a cake, although it might not be as tasty or visually appealing as one created by a professional. Not everybody can build an accurate, functioning, reliable performing gun and ammunition for hunting, home security etc. And if that became the state of things there would be many more injuries caused by faulty weapons as well as an eventual proliferation of automatic rifles as home weapons manufacturing would inevitability advance in that direction (which I'm not necessarily opposed to but I'm sure Dicks SG's is).
 
Commenting on what other people might think without reading what they actually think is precisely the reason why you're wrestling with an imaginary strawman all by yourself, while the others are actually participating in a discussion about laws.
i didnt realize that everyone in the world that has an opinion posts them right here on sherdog. thanks for setting me straight
 
Back
Top