• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods Sued

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Be sure to always quote some text for sources with a pay wall.

Free link...
20-year-old man sues Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart over rifle sale restrictions

Looks like the guy has a case in Oregonistan....
Civil Rights Division ENFORCING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS
Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
In a rare move, corporations that usually lack any sort of ethical backbone take a surprising stand on an issue that has failed to be acted upon appropriately by the offices that should be taking leadership on the matter. It's both unsurprising and disheartening to see it challenged.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And here I thought that conservatives actually believe that the government shouldn't intrude on what a private business may or may not wish to sell that is legal otherwise.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
And here I thought that conservatives actually believe that the government shouldn't intrude on what a private business may or may not wish to sell that is legal otherwise.
These were products they already carried.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
In a rare move, corporations that usually lack any sort of ethical backbone take a surprising stand on an issue that has failed to be acted upon appropriately by the offices that should be taking leadership on the matter. It's both unsurprising and disheartening to see it challenged.
One person's ethical behavior is another's illegal discrimination.
Guns & wedding cakes have this in common.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I guess if someone can sue over a gay wedding cake....and no it isn't different.
Age and sexual orientation are different. Just as race is a different thing. The kicker is age discrimination is already rampant depending on products and services and depending on the state laws.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
One person's ethical behavior is another's illegal discrimination.
Guns & wedding cakes have this in common.
There is a big difference when the government and multiple states are looking to enact the very thing those stores are being sued over. I didn’t see a big push for wedding cake legislation like there is for gun legislation. Miles apart.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Age and sexual orientation are different. Just as race is a different thing. The kicker is age discrimination is already rampant depending on products and services and depending on the state laws.

But those are state and federal issues, this is an issue of companies arbitrarily imposing age restrictions on products they already sell despite the state and federal laws.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
The law hasn't yet caught up with what most reasonable people want, hence the current legal battle.

Give it time.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
There is a big difference when the government and multiple states are looking to enact the very thing those stores are being sued over. I didn’t see a big push for wedding cake legislation like there is for gun legislation. Miles apart.
In both cases, it's illegal discrimination.
And both stores believe they're doing the right thing.
Those are similarities.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
This will be interesting. From what I'm reading, FFL (Federal Firearm License) holders could refuse a sale based on mere feelings. Some comments pointed to that they still cannot refuse to a protected class so IMO it's quite contradictory. It's OK to be cautious as long as it's not based on hate. If that's the test against which to judge then I don't think Walmart or Dick's are being hateful. They are being cautious.

https://www.quora.com/In-the-US-if-...n-are-they-legally-allowed-to-refuse-the-sale
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
There is a big difference when the government and multiple states are looking to enact the very thing those stores are being sued over. I didn’t see a big push for wedding cake legislation like there is for gun legislation. Miles apart.

But they aren't laws yet, lets say someone gets caught with a bag of weed in a state where it is illegal I don't think the "well it's legal in some parts of Colorado and a few other states" defense probably won't work in court.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
In a rare move, corporations that usually lack any sort of ethical backbone take a surprising stand on an issue that has failed to be acted upon appropriately by the offices that should be taking leadership on the matter. It's both unsurprising and disheartening to see it challenged.
Yup not surprising but they should be applauded for getting ahead of laws that many states want to pass anyway.
But those are state and federal issues, this is an issue of companies arbitrarily imposing age restrictions on products they already sell despite the state and federal laws.
Yes states and federal issues get the into things with age. There is a law I saw where employment can’t be dicriminated if your under forty, yeah there is already age discrimination because it isn’t all that protected. Also it isn’t arbitrary, it is very specific to even something the president and several states have proposed.
In both cases, it's illegal discrimination.
And both stores believe they're doing the right thing.
Those are similarities.
The difference is very significant. One tried to use religious rights and the other has to do with sale of deadly weapons that already has dicriminatory power. Like those poor felons and domestic abusers that lose their second amendment rights.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The difference is very significant. One tried to use religious rights and the other has to do with sale of deadly weapons that already has dicriminatory power. Like those poor felons and domestic abusers that lose their second amendment rights.
Sure there are differences.
But under the law, both must comply with anti-discrimination
laws, their sense of ethics notwithstanding.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Sure there are differences.
But under the law, both must comply with anti-discrimination
laws, their sense of ethics notwithstanding.
It would be much more interesting if a store gun advocate decided to sell guns to minors and felons and try and take that to court.
 
Top