Dick's won't be selling "assault" rifles…

How so?

WalMart restricts sales by age. They don’t discriminate against individuals.
Cake shop is discriminating against individuals.

The cake case is still being heard by the Supreme Court with a decision expected some time this year. Will be interesting to see how that shakes out, but I agree it’s a very different beast than what Wal-Mart is doing.

Dutchboy wrote:

WalMart restricts <nobr style=”font-size: inherit”>sales</nobr> by age. They don’t discriminate against individuals.
Cake shop is discriminating against individuals.

just for the sake of discussion…….would that not be AGE discrimination??????

the way this discrimination stuff is going????????????????????

No, it’s corporate policy. Same rules across all stores.

No, believe it or not it needs to be a group that would likely be discriminated against. Gays, minorities, women, etc… under 21 is not one of those groups.

I just found out that Oregon has an unusual law where age discrimination includes anyone over 18. Most other states that age is 40.

i just read an article in my local newspaper, granted it was an opinion piece but found it interesting. with all this going on the article talked about lowering the voting age to 16 to give the “young people” a voice. it stated since they can drive cars………..alot like back when they dropped it to 18 all can fight in a war senerio!

now i think i follow the news alot but this is the first i heard of lowering the voting age. on one hand i think this could be goo in the fact i think this would make alot of politicians real nervous!! but yea i ready dont think this is a good idea.

There is not anything that we can do to stop a lone person who loses all reason. They can still shoot people with a singleshot. Why don’t we get this worked up about drug use? That kills more people.

glenn57 wrote:

i just read an article in my local newspaper, granted it was an opinion piece but found it interesting. with all this going on the article talked about lowering the voting age to 16 to give the “young people” a voice. it stated since they can drive cars………..alot like back when they dropped it to 18 all can fight in a war senerio!

now i think i follow the news alot but this is the first i heard of lowering the voting age. on one hand i think this could be goo in the fact i think this would make alot of politicians real nervous!! but yea i ready dont think this is a good idea.

Most of us on this site at 16 were working 20 hours a week by sixteen. I feel if you work and pay taxes at 15-16 years old you should be able to vote. I am against taxation with out representation.

We may know how to work but at 16 the vast majority know nothing about life yet.

glenn57 wrote:

i just read an article in my local newspaper, granted it was an opinion piece but found it interesting. with all this going on the article talked about lowering the voting age to 16 to give the “young people” a voice. it stated since they can drive cars………..alot like back when they dropped it to 18 all can fight in a war senerio!

now i think i follow the news alot but this is the first i heard of lowering the voting age. on one hand i think this could be goo in the fact i think this would make alot of politicians real nervous!! but yea i ready dont think this is a good idea.

On a shooting site this morning I saw a suggestion to allow free speech after the age of 21. This might not be a bad idea when a guy considers Dutchboy’s last comment.

Dutchboy wrote:

That was because they would do regular wedding cakes but not wedding cakes for a gay marriage. Night and day difference.

Cake shop- Seems like their business is based on their personal beliefs. (Discrimination based on sexual preference)

Dicks not selling guns to under 21- seems like their business is based on their personal beliefs. (Discrimination based on age)

Why is one more important than the other and why does one group think they can determine this as if everyone should agree?

Easiest fix is the economic system we have, simply BUY ELSEWHERE. Instead people sue because life isn’t fair…. I was always told life isn’t fair, you won’t catch me crying about it but you will see my money spent elsewhere. SIMPLE.

Dutchboy wrote:

WalMart restricts sales by age. They don’t discriminate against individuals.
Cake shop is discriminating against individuals.

Nope.

Discrimination doesn’t allow for people to pick who it applies to in order to fit an agenda. It’s clear cut based on a determining factor. Age and sexual preference are both the determining factor in these cases, thinking you decide which is ok and which is not does not make either one right or wrong, but sounds exactly like the media bias certain groups take as gospel.

More so websters says individually is ok, categorically is not.

a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

But the cake shop would not sell to any gay/lesbians thus your “individual” premise is incorrect to begin with. These days any individual refused service claims some sort of race/sex bias it seems, and usually wins. (Except the one we all know who would be laughed at for even trying)

Seriously. Did anyone watch the video I just posted?

When the amendment was written, a militia was defined as all white males 18-45. While the race and gender restriction is no longer relevant, age still is.

Nope I didn’t.

Dutchboy wrote:

We may know how to work but at 16 the vast majority know nothing about life yet.

ya no kidding. I work with one kid around 22 and I sure as hell wouldn’t want him giving me advice on life. they may be adults at 18 because it says so, but most are clueless on how to be adults and how to make adult decisions. Buying any kind of gun is an “adult” decision and there are plenty of gun owners that are not mature enough to handle it.

biggill wrote:

Seriously. Did anyone watch the video I just posted?

When the amendment was written, a militia was defined as all white males 18-45. While the race and gender restriction is no longer relevant, age still is.

Didnt need to watch to know. Thanks for posting though. PragerU is pretty informative.

Dutchboy wrote:

Nope I didn’t.

That’s a shocker.

Nothing there that would change my personal opinion anyway. If it will make you feel better I can watch it I suppose.

TripleA wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>biggill wrote:</div>
Seriously. Did anyone watch the video I just posted?

When the amendment was written, a militia was defined as all white males 18-45. While the race and gender restriction is no longer relevant, age still is.

so then no one can purchase a gun or own one after they turn 46?

mnfishhunt wrote:

so then no one can purchase a gun or own one after they turn 46?

Ugh. You guys must know I’m deprived of sleep.

I’d rather no explain. Just watch the video.

mnfishhunt wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TripleA wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>biggill wrote:</div>
Seriously. Did anyone watch the video I just posted?

When the amendment was written, a militia was defined as all white males 18-45. While the race and gender restriction is no longer relevant, age still is.

so then no one can purchase a gun or own one after they turn 46?

Apparently the internet messed up as thats not my “quote”. ?

TripleA wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mnfishhunt wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TripleA wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>biggill wrote:</div>
Seriously. Did anyone watch the video I just posted?

When the amendment was written, a militia was defined as all white males 18-45. While the race and gender restriction is no longer relevant, age still is.

so then no one can purchase a gun or own one after they turn 46?

Apparently the internet messed up as thats not my “quote”. ?

nope sorry that was just me being lazy. My apoligies

biggill wrote:

Ugh. You guys must know I’m deprived of sleep.

I’d rather no explain. Just watch the video.

I love this comment. I watched the video and in my opinion it’s far from authoritative. I’m sure it wouldn’t be difficult to find other scholars of law that argue the opposite. But to you they would sound full of baloney. He’s affirming your belief so to you he sounds clear and definitive. Just my opinion.

Re: the cake thing. I think you guys should wait for a decision before you start using that case as though it’s already set a precedent. That case is still very much up in the air.

The verdict doesn’t matter, it’s what the case is about is what I was talking about.

TripleA wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
WalMart restricts sales by age. They don’t discriminate against individuals.
Cake shop is discriminating against individuals.

Nope.

Discrimination doesn’t allow for people to pick who it applies to in order to fit an agenda. It’s clear cut based on a determining factor. Age and sexual preference are both the determining factor in these cases, thinking you decide which is ok and which is not does not make either one right or wrong, but sounds exactly like the media bias certain groups take as gospel.

More so websters says individually is ok, categorically is not.

a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination
b : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

But the cake shop would not sell to any gay/lesbians thus your “individual” premise is incorrect to begin with. These days any individual refused service claims some sort of race/sex bias it seems, and usually wins. (Except the one we all know who would be laughed at for even trying)

In case someone missed the facts…

Here are my thoughts on the two cases. Neither has bearing on the other.

The gun sale case is about the Oregon State law that prohibits retailers from discriminating against anyone over the age of 18. This will not set any precedence for any other state than Oregon.

The cake case I believe is a little different. A retailer has every right in the world to determine WHAT they sell but they don’t have a right to discriminate WHO based on race, religion, age or sexual orientation. I don’t know the details about this but all they have to do is say they won’t put two men, two women, etc… on a cake. As long as they offer their service how they want to do it, no one can do anything about it.

Both seem like valid cases but the gun case is unique to Oregon.

pool2fool wrote:

He’s affirming your belief so to you he sounds clear and definitive. Just my opinion.

Huh? It’s just my opinion that no one would willingly post something that contradicts their own belief. Kind of goes without saying.