- 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 12:00 pm to MrLarson
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:00 pm to MrLarson
If it’s good for the goose...
Absent a state law or a federal law setting it at 21 along the rationale of alcohol sales, I don’t think the companies prevail.
Absent a state law or a federal law setting it at 21 along the rationale of alcohol sales, I don’t think the companies prevail.
1
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:08 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Absent a state law or a federal law setting it at 21 along the rationale of alcohol sales, I don’t think the companies prevail.
yeah that's going to be the problem, assuming the state non-discrimination law allows "youth" claims
when you enact these sorts of laws, you have already ceded the freedom to contract (among other individual rights) and are mandated to contract with people pursuant to state law and not personal choice. that's why the bakers lost. i don't see how the courts can wrangle their way out of that precedent here (unless the statute isn't an age discrimination law and is an "old age" discrimination law, which just makes that law even worse)
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
The contrarian in me loves the trolling and is looking forward to the wailing and the gnashing of the teeth from the same folks who cheered the cake case.
We’re about to see some naked, bare hypocrisy and ignorance.
We’re about to see some naked, bare hypocrisy and ignorance.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if those Christian bakers have to abide by this state regulation, so should Dicks
That isn't even close to the same level of discrimination. If this kid is able to Sue and win over not getting a gun from Dick's, can a 19 year old sue enterprise for not getting a car even though the legal driving age is 16?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:19 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
can a 19 year old sue enterprise for not getting a car even though the legal driving age is 16
Sure, your ilk opened this can of worms and now they can squirm all over the place.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:22 pm to Ebbandflow
If it's otherwise legal, yes
Welcome to the insanity of anti-discrimination laws in practice
They make the government feel so good when they pass, though
Welcome to the insanity of anti-discrimination laws in practice
They make the government feel so good when they pass, though
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:23 pm to boosiebadazz
They're just going to say the argument is [insert negative comment similar to absurd] and say they won't engage in a discussion 
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:23 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
That isn't even close to the same level of discrimination.
Especially if you really, really, really love cake.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:24 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Sure, your ilk opened this can of worms and now they can squirm all over the place.
I'm going to interpret your retort as you being stumped.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:25 pm to Loserman
The law says businesses HAVE to sell goods to 18-20 year olds?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:26 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
level of discrimination
What is this descriptive notation.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:27 pm to fr33manator
quote:
While many of us think they should, the proggies have already set the precedent that you CAN’T refuse service, so this is just using their own ammo against them.
"progressives are dumb authoritarian shitbags. Quick, let's double down!"
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:28 pm to Ebbandflow
quote:
I'm going to interpret your retort as you being stumped.
Rental laws are not the same a purchasing laws.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They make the government feel so good when they pass, though
We just had a gun store sell an AR to a fricking psycho killer because he "passed the background checks". Had discrimination been allowed, the gun store very well could have excluded that wretched little shite based on his local record and reputation.
"anti discrimination laws" are really just legal exceptions on the kinds of discrimination that are 100 percent necessary for a healthy, functional society.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:32 pm to MrLarson
Oh so now it's ok for the government to force a company to sell it's product
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:32 pm to UpToPar
quote:
It’s going to be funny to watch the left twist and turn to somehow make this okay.
Over 600 comments on the story on Oregon live. It's comical and as expected many are twisting in the wind.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:33 pm to MrCarton
Many progs have forgotten what discriminate actually means...or they have tried to post modern it into being politically slanted for their favored policies. The far left is completely intolerant which requires a LOT of discrimination
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:35 pm to ShortyRob
I tend to agree with you that protected classes have stretched far too broadly. There was a point in time where some version of them was needed during the civil rights era. However in today’s world of relative equality and social media transparency, the market is more than capable of handling discrimination on its own without regulation.
It could still be an issue in smaller places, or business who operate as the only provider of a given service in a broad market. The anti discriminatory stuff covers the bases in that scenario, similar to how anti trust law works in those small markets where true market forces can’t provide a remedy bc of lack of competition.
Some of the classes however, are never going away. It’s just too entrenched in the jurisprudence at this point
It could still be an issue in smaller places, or business who operate as the only provider of a given service in a broad market. The anti discriminatory stuff covers the bases in that scenario, similar to how anti trust law works in those small markets where true market forces can’t provide a remedy bc of lack of competition.
Some of the classes however, are never going away. It’s just too entrenched in the jurisprudence at this point
This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Many progs have forgotten what discriminate actually means...or they have tried to post modern it into being politically slanted for their favored policies
Yep. They've created and enforced a narrative that is 100 percent impossible to implement. Not only is discrimination not "bad", it's one of the most important aspects of society.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 12:37 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
There was a point in time where some version of them was needed during the civil rights era
False. What was needed in the civil rights era were the repeal of laws that mandated certain kinds of discrimination /segregation. Not laws that forces integration/service.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News