- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 20-year-old sues Walmart, Dick's because they wouldn't sell him guns
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:21 am to OMLandshark
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:21 am to OMLandshark
quote:
quote:
Do companies have a right to discriminate in their services based on age, sex, race, etc or do they not?
Age, absolutely. Sex and race: no.
Quick google search
LINK
quote:
The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The Act, which applies to all ages, permits the use of certain age distinctions and factors other than age that meet the Act's requirements. The Age Discrimination Act is enforced by the Civil Rights Center.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The ADEA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) prohibits discrimination against applicants, employees and participants in WIA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities, and programs that are part of the One-Stop system, on the ground of age. In addition, WIA prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship or participation in a WIA Title I-financially assisted program or activity. Section 188 of WIA is enforced by the Civil Rights Center.
So apparently you can not hire someone for being to young, but if they are over 40 you can't not hire them for being too old. However, 39 is just fine
1
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:21 am to MrLarson
Funny when he cites the baker case in his lawsuit. This being the case law that established the principle that a business could not deny the service that is customers wished for that was provided to other patrons of the business
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:22 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
Any discrimination based on age outside of the older people at work receives the rational basis test, just like every other non suspect/protected class of people.
Would be interesting to see the argument here.
This 20 year old could join the police and wander the streets of his town with gun protecting people. He could joined the armed forces and get paid to shoot people. As far as I know there is no study that shows that 21 year olds are less likely to shoot people than 20 year olds.
So this seems to fall under ideology. But can ideology allow age discrimination?
I think they still fail, but would be interesting.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:25 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
After looking more, Oregon does have some language on public accommodation and not discriminating based on age. I would be floored if a state court at any level in Oregon found with the plaintiff, however.
Was a complete thread on the topic. I believe there are 19 states that have language that will set off lawsuits
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:27 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
What are these UNprotected classes?
Um, that's sort of self explanatory.
If you aren't in a protected class..................
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:29 am to StormyMcMan
quote:
So apparently you can not hire someone for being to young, but if they are over 40 you can't not hire them for being too old. However, 39 is just fine
Aren't protected classes grand!!!
They are an abhorrent concept.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:35 am to llfshoals
quote:
This being the case law that established the principle that a business could not deny the service that is customers wished for that was provided to other patrons of the business
That is what makes this case so wonderful. The libs have painted themselves into a corner. The Toddys of the world have no way to argue that Walmart and Dick's MUST support the sale to this man.
Using a gay cake against Dicks not selling guns
This mofo has it all. 
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:35 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
What are these UNprotected classes?
There was a case last year, I believe it was upstate New York, where a landlord refused to rent his place to a man after he found out the prospective tenant was a republican (or Trump supporter.....I forget which). Evidently, you can be discriminated against/denied housing for party affiliation.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:37 am to ShortyRob
Everyone is in a protected class? Do you have a race? You are in a protected class. Do you have a gender? You are in a protected class.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:39 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Everyone is in a protected class? Do you have a race? You are in a protected class. Do you have a gender? You are in a protected class.
Dear Lord............This is such a fricking disingenuous response to my point that it's absurd.
The govt has SELECTED OUT what you can be protected for. Which, by extension means there are things you can't be.
Oh, and if you want to go with your retarded approach, you STILL have an issue because not EVERYONE is in the same number of protected classes.
Hence, you get the absurd hierarchy of grievance created by our government.
But, yeah. You're a dishonest frick, aren't ya.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:45 am to Hightide12
IMO the judges will rule in favor of the big box because they dont want to set a president for other youthful age discrimination cases.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:46 am to ShortyRob
Sure that’s what you meant, you dishonest frick.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:47 am to MrLarson
I'm curious what the guys political affiliation is. There's going to be nothing favorable to the second amendment coming out of an Oregon courtroom.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:55 am to Boatshoes
quote:
I'm curious what the guys political affiliation is. There's going to be nothing favorable to the second amendment coming out of an Oregon courtroom.
I would be shocked if this wasn't an orchestrated move.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:56 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Anyone who thinks that someone should have the right to not bake a gay wedding cake should side with Walmart/Dick’s here.
Normally yes, but at this point I think using the lefts own antics against them is warranted
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:56 am to themunch
quote:
Age should hold more in the merit of constitutional law than baking some persons a cake based on constitutional protections, infringing on their beliefs
So does that mean we can move the legal drinking age back to 18? Could I get an 18 year old kid to sue a restaurant or bar that won't sell them alcohol because they are 18?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:56 am to MrLarson
if those Christian bakers have to abide by this state regulation, so should Dicks
Posted on 3/6/18 at 11:58 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Why? Unless he’s being barred from the military or going to vote, he doesn’t have a case being a 20 year old. They are not a protected class. Anyone who thinks that someone should have the right to not bake a gay wedding cake should side with Walmart/Dick’s here.
Ah but the courts ruled they had to bake the cake. This means they have to sell
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:00 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
Normally yes, but at this point I think using the lefts own antics against them is warranted
It can be used the other way around if you do that. If you aren't convicted to your point then you're just pretending and if you're just pretending you're just a troll and if you're just a troll you have no point and are in no way constructive.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:00 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Sure that’s what you meant
I see you're just going to pretend an inability to read.
Gee. That's new with liberals. Never seen that tactic before.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News