Dick's and Hypocrites

[Wirey]

Meh, refusing service due to age just isn't the same as refusing service based on the way people were born, or when they belong to certain cultural groups (especially people who have a history of being persecuted).

By your logic, people should be upset that the legal smoking age is 18, or that kids of any age should be able to join the military. Toys for tots takes on a whole different meaning!

Let's say I'm selling a RF (Made up product) and the government has mandated that you must be 16 to buy one. Let's futher suppose you, at age 17, and @YmirGF at age 20 come into my store and ask for one and I say "Despite the law, I have decided to discriminate against you based on age as I believe that RFs are dangerous to anyone under 18.4 years old." Would I be violating your civil rights?

 

[Wirey]

It’s not bias if they are denying everyone a specific goods or service. It just means they are no longer retailers of assault style weapons. Other stores I am sure are happy to take up the slack.

But they're saying they wont sell a sporting rifle to anyone under 21, although that is not what the law says. If they stopped selling guns to everyone I'd agree.

 

[Falvlun]

But, frankly, I agree that bakers shouldn't be required to bake a cake they don't want to. And I think that requiring people to provide weaponry, when they think it's a bad idea, is wrong. Your argument appears to be a "two wrongs make a right".
Tom

It does seem silly to force someone to bake a cake they don’t want to.

But such compulsion— that goods and services be sold without discrimination— has its roots in civil rights. The problem isn’t so bad if just a few businesses discriminate. After all, just go to a different baker! The problem is when all the businesses in a region discriminate. (And beliefs do tend to cluster.) Then you have a problem, when say, black people can’t obtain a particular service.

 

[columbus]

Let's say I'm selling a RF (Made up product) and the government has mandated that you must be 16 to buy one. Let's futher suppose you, at age 17, and @YmirGF at age 20 come into my store and ask for one and I say "Despite the law, I have decided to discriminate against you based on age as I believe that RFs are dangerous to anyone under 18.4 years old." Would I be violating your civil rights?

I don't think so.
I think requiring Dicks to act against their best interest is a bigger problem.
I would be perfectly fine with them simply choosing not to sell guns at all. But I don't have a problem with them deciding that a person under a certain age needs to get someone else to buy one for them.
Tom

 

[columbus]

It does seem silly to force someone to bake a cake they don’t want to.

But such compulsion— that goods and services be sold without discrimination— has its roots in civil rights.

I understand all that.
But the world has changed a lot since the mid 60s. I think that the broad antidiscrimination statutes we have are now more of a liability than an enhancement to the USA.
Tom

 

[Falvlun]

I understand all that.
But the world has changed a lot since the mid 60s. I think that the broad antidiscrimination statutes we have are now more of a liability than an enhancement to the USA.
Tom

Hm, interesting. It’s my understanding that these laws are based on a pretty convoluted application of the commerce clause, too.

I’m not wholly against the idea, mostly because I agree that you shouldn’t be forced to sell your stuff or services against your will. But I do worry that xenophobia is again on the rise in America, and now may not be the time to remove protections.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bad legal advice.

Well given our litigious society and out-of-control lawyers suing everything in sight for just about every single reason under the sun promising....er suggesting.. millions of dollars in settlement awards, their decision kind of makes sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then bakers should be able to opt out making cakes for same-sex weddings.

Since, they also have the right to protect their liability.

Yes: I remember all those news stories about people being injured by the cakes at same-sex weddings. Opposite-sex couples are much more careful with their cakes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obviously depends on jurisdiction from state to state. Like Connecticut has a law which prohibits using age to discriminate in providing services.

Age Discrimination

Well, in the areas where it would be illegal for Dick's to do what they say they want to do, they should adjust their plan before they implement it to make sure it doesn't break any laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does seem silly to force someone to bake a cake they don’t want to.

But such compulsion— that goods and services be sold without discrimination— has its roots in civil rights. The problem isn’t so bad if just a few businesses discriminate. After all, just go to a different baker! The problem is when all the businesses in a region discriminate. (And beliefs do tend to cluster.) Then you have a problem, when say, black people can’t obtain a particular service.

In my area, there are only 2 places that do wedding cakes within a half hour drive. On any given weekend, especially in wedding season, one or both can be completely booked up way in advance, so couples are often in the situation of choosing between one particular bakery or not having a cake at all.

 

[columbus]

. But I do worry that xenophobia is again on the rise in America, and now may not be the time to remove protections.

Personally, I would like to see the laws rewritten to cover essential services. Emergency personnel, government stuff, housing, that sort of thing. Not cakes or guns or other things people don't need.
As a gay man, I would be fine with simply taking my business elsewhere. Put up a sign, "No Gay Wedding Cakes". Or "No Gun Sales to Under 21". Whatever.
Let the market decide if you are viable.
Tom

 

[esmith]

Personally, I would like to see the laws rewritten to cover essential services. Emergency personnel, government stuff, housing, that sort of thing. Not cakes or guns or other things people don't need.
As a gay man, I would be fine with simply taking my business elsewhere. Put up a sign, "No Gay Wedding Cakes". Or "No Gun Sales to Under 21". Whatever.
Let the market decide if you are viable.
Tom

You have a point; However.....do you really think that the anti-anti-LBGT activist and the aniti-anit-gun activist would agree to this.

 

[columbus]

You have a point; However.....do you really think that the anti-anti-LBGT activist and the aniti-anit-gun activist would agree to this.

Truth is,
I don't find the SJWs any more reasonable than the gun freaks. So, no, probably they wouldn't.
Tom

 

[idav]

Well given our litigious society and out-of-control lawyers suing everything in sight for just about every single reason under the sun promising....er suggesting.. millions of dollars in settlement awards, their decision kind of makes sense.

Yup pretty much. Selling firearms isn’t exactly something immune from liability, even when within the law, which our lawsuit happy citizens have no problem taking on I’m sure.

 

[esmith]

Truth is,
I don't find the SJWs any more reasonable than the gun freaks. So, no, probably they wouldn't.
Tom

Well since you put it that way, do you mean the anti-anti-LBGT freaks?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup pretty much. Selling firearms isn’t exactly something immune from liability, even when within the law, which our lawsuit happy citizens have no problem taking on I’m sure.

The law often puts businesses in a damned if you do damned if you don't position.
One weighs the ethics & the legal risks, then one picks a policy & has the occasional
spat with government.
Every business in the market faces the same costs, so ultimately the customer pays.

 

[Aldrnari]

It is morally reprehensible to deny anyone a God-given right.

With all due respect, what is considered a "god given right" changes from era to era, and from place to place. There was a time when owning slaves was considered such a right (with many bible verses to back up the claim).

All that said, does it infringe on a youth's "god given right" to defend themselves by raising the age bracket at which they can purchase firearms?

Hmmm... With a few bible verses quoted, perhaps (though there are other ways besides lethal force). Does this make it moral by other people's standards, though? Not necessarily. Any verses from any religious text can be used to justify evil actions, and this negates using sacred texts as measurements for morality, IMO.

After all, in Salem they were just doing what they thought was right when they weren't suffering a witch to live, and were just burning people by the scores.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is morally reprehensible to deny anyone a God-given right.

"God given" right? Chapter and verse?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

After all, in Salem they were just doing what they thought was right when they weren't suffering a witch to live, and were just burning people by the scores.

Point of order, witches were hanged in Salem, not burnt.

 

[taykair]

Any retailer should have the right to refuse to sell anything to anyone for any reason (or for no reason at all). If a retailer is in business to make money, however, then he should be willing to sell to anyone. It is foolish (capitalistically speaking) to simply write off potential customers.