- 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 1:22 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:22 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
If a buyer has a right to buy something, wouldnt that imply the other party has an equal duty to sell?
Exactly. Of course, nobody actually has a "right" to own a firearm because that implies that another person is forced to accommodate the owner. The bill of rights is goofy like that, there aren't really any rights listed, just a bunch of restrictions on government.
0
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Companies should be able to refuse goods or service to whomever they choose.
But they can't
A bank can't disqualify a 98 year old from getting a 30 year note based on the 99% likelihood of them not being alive to see that note paid off.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:24 pm to MrCarton
quote:
I thought this was so obvious. I guess not
No one ever reads the Constitution anymore sadly. It’s an incredibly short document, would probably clear some things up for a lot of people.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:24 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
The secondment amendment doesn’t apply to private entities though
Walmart and Dicks are not private entities. They are publicly traded companies who engage in interstate commerce. You can not deny legally protected rights to certain groups of people. Forget age, do you think Walmart could refuse to sell guns to blacks? What about old people? How about women? Gays? What about an 18 year old black lesbian? Unless congress raises the age limit to 21, you as a business can’t deny people the ability to excercise a protected right just because you make it company policy. If you don’t want to sell guns to 18 year olds, don’t sell guns period.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:25 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
You were close.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:26 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
They are publicly traded companies who engage in interstate commerce
Yea. This is not the distinction that the law makes between what is public and what is private.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:27 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
Strict scrutiny for protected classes (race, gender, religion)
But not sexual preference.
quote:
an intermediate one that encompasses whatever the justices feel like including depending on whether the case is sympathetic to them (cynically, the actual term for this one is escaping me atm)
It's just called intermediate scrutiny. I'm guessing this is what the Court will apply in the cake bakery case. The argument is, if you apply intermediate scrutiny there and find that the baker cannot discriminate, then why should you reach a different conclusion here?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:29 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
They are publicly traded companies who engage in interstate commerce.
Still owned by private individuals thus, thus private entities.
quote:
You can not deny legally protected rights to certain groups of people
You are getting your 14A mixed up with your 2A.
quote:
Forget age, do you think Walmart could refuse to sell guns to blacks
You can’t forget age. The 14A applies different to discrimination based on race than it does to age.
quote:
you as a business can’t deny people the ability to excercise a protected right just because you make it company policy
This is not actually a law in any way shape or form (at the federal level).
Guns are treating the same as alcohol and cigarettes when it comes to this for federal law.
This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:31 pm to MrLarson
Well, that didn't take long.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:31 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
Just like those cake decorator suits were, right?
Oh do tell what religious freedom is being infringed upon here that dicks holds? The religion of liberalism?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:32 pm to UpToPar
quote:
I'm guessing this is what the Court will apply in the cake bakery case. The argument is, if you apply intermediate scrutiny there and find that the baker cannot discriminate, then why should you reach a different conclusion here?
I go back and forth on what I think they’ll do. Part of me thinks they will throw sexual preference in with the other strict scrutiny classes, although I doubt it because of the conservative lean.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they allowed the state to do it, along a “public accommodation” line of reasoning.
As for this case, I think the cake bakery opinion will weigh on the outcome, assuming it ever makes it out of Oregon state trial court.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:33 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Walmart and Dicks are not private entities. They are publicly traded companies who engage in interstate commerce.
Hahaha
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:33 pm to MrLarson
quote:
A bank can't disqualify a 98 year old from getting a 30 year note based on the 99% likelihood of them not being alive to see that note paid off.
Practically speaking thats not a bad deal as the 98 year old will be kicking the bucket soon, and any payments toward the bank is mostly interest anyway... and the bank gets the house back (or complete payment of principal) upon death of the owner.
Legally speaking, yes because of anti-discrimination laws protecting certain classes of people, of which 20 somethings comprise no protected class.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:37 pm to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
Yea. This is not the distinction that the law makes between what is public and what is private.
Interstate commerce is what led to the desegregation of lunch counters in the 60’s. In short, private businesses claimed they had the right to discriminate against customers. The feds argued and the courts agreed that these businesses by engaging in interstate commerce, did not have a legal right to discriminate against blacks. The same argument still applies here. Walmart and Dicks use the interstate system to transport goods around the country. They do not have the right to deny someone a protected right. If the federal law says you can legally purchase a firearm at 18, you as a business can’t say I’m not going to sell to 18 year olds, but I’ll sell to someone 21 and up.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:38 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Interstate commerce is what led to the desegregation of lunch counters in the 60’s.
Real talk here. Blacks are protected in ways that 20 YOs are not.
More real talk: just because the left thinks this makes sense, doesn't mean the right should adopt it and use it against them. There is no strategic advantage in doing so. None. Zero. Nada.
This post was edited on 3/6/18 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:40 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
The feds argued and the courts agreed that these businesses by engaging in interstate commerce, did not have a legal right to discriminate against blacks.
This is Heart of Atlanta, we all know the case.
quote:
The same argument still applies here.
14th amendment applies differently to race versus age.
quote:
They do not have the right to deny someone a protected right.
The term “protected right” is pure Legal gobble-de-asian you are throwing out. The 14th amendment caselaw does not talk about “protected rights” at all.
quote:
If the federal law says you can legally purchase a firearm at 18, you as a business can’t say I’m not going to sell to 18 year olds, but I’ll sell to someone 21 and up.
I would recommend stop digging this hole deeper.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:43 pm to MrLarson
congratulations to this "soon to be" millionaire for doing the right thing and being smart enough to see a free gift of money these idiot companies gave him.
if more people were smart enough then there would be a class action lawsuit in the billions of dollars started immediately against Dick's and Walmart over this.
i dont know why the NRA is not out there trying hard to see that this happens
if more people were smart enough then there would be a class action lawsuit in the billions of dollars started immediately against Dick's and Walmart over this.
i dont know why the NRA is not out there trying hard to see that this happens
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:45 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
I would recommend stop digging this hole deeper.
I would suggest you sit back and watch. Walmart and Dicks will both lose here unless they manage to come up with a legal argument that allows them to discriminate against legal adults who wish to excercise their right to bare arms. Saying well you can’t buy beer till you are 21 is not going to work.
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:46 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
They do not have the right to deny someone a protected right.
So lets say I own a gun you want, and that I commonly buy firearms across state lines from private buyers.
You're suggesting that you have an absolute right to any firearm that I own?
Posted on 3/6/18 at 1:47 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Oregon law muddies the water, but federal law on this is pretty darn clear.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News