Oregon 20-Year-Old Sues Dick’s Sporting Goods

[Argonaut]

All the under 21 for alcohol and tobacco laws are codified laws in Oregon. The long arms for under 21 is not.

The group Oregon has elected to positions of law making and enforcement will have no problem repairing that oversite.....that won't help anyone.

 

[wired]

Like I said they can change the law at any time and make this conversation a moot point but as the law currently stands Dicks is in violation.

 

[Argonaut]

All it will require is a little nudge by a movement like this to make it happen. Then no one will be able to buy anywhere in the state that is under 21. This is the kind of issue that can be best served by people quietly accepting a couple of retailers exemption knowing they can still buy from other outlets legally without pushing the government to make a blanket law prohibiting everyone.

 

[etrain16]

It won't work unless you are discriminating on the basis of a protected class......like all gays, Trans, women or black people. You guys need to apply some logic here and not just pile on the sinking boat.

Did the Oregon Bakers discriminate against an entire protected class? No. In fact, those two had been regular customers of the shop and were only told no when they wanted a wedding cake, which is where the owners drew a line. By the way, there are cases where age is a protected class. Of course it's up to the courts to sort out when and where that applies, but it's certainly not impossible to consider.

No koolaid here - the hard left has made discrimination by a business of an individual enough justification for a lawsuit. And in so doing, they are risking setting a precedent that could backfire against them. Only way to know is to test it.

 

[Argonaut]

Did the Oregon Bakers discriminate against an entire protected class? No. In fact, those two had been regular customers of the shop and were only told no when they wanted a wedding cake, which is where the owners drew a line. By the way, there are cases where age is a protected class. Of course it's up to the courts to sort out when and where that applies, but it's certainly not impossible to consider.

No koolaid here - the hard left has made discrimination by a business of an individual enough justification for a lawsuit. And in so doing, they are risking setting a precedent that could backfire against them. Only way to know is to test it.

Yes they did.........they wouldn't make a cake encouraging gay marriage that they disagreed with. There defense is that having to do it would infringe on there religious rights also protected in the constitution.

 

[etrain16]

And BTW, if you folks haven't seen it yet, look at what Illinois is close to getting through as law - not only preventing 18-20 year olds from buying guns, but creating a mandatory turn-in of guns they already own.

When the anti's say "no one is coming for your guns" they are lying - and this bill proves it. Spread this story everywhere you can. They are coming for our guns, one step at a time.

Flash forward to Thursday. Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled Illinois have passed a bill to — you guessed it — confiscate currently legal firearms from gun owners. So much for being paranoid.

According to Breitbart News, HB 1465 has moved to the state Senate after being passed in the House a week ago. The measure would require citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 to give up ownership of certain guns that they bought legally, or risk becoming seen as criminals.

"The guns and magazines remain legal for persons 21 and up, but persons under 21 would have 90 days to give up ownership," Breitbart explained.

Article: Confiscation: State Congress Orders Once Legal Owners to Turn in Guns

 

[etrain16]

Yes they did.........they wouldn't make a cake encouraging gay marriage that they disagreed with. There defense is that having to do it would infringe on there religious rights also protected in the constitution.

But they had already done business with them, which the couple suing them freely admits. The problem here is that there was no pattern of discrimination against a protected class. They only were refused when a specific request was made - a request that may be protected on the baker's part, under law. That's what the SCOTUS will decide in June.

And let's not forget, this lawsuit and the persecution by the state of Oregon is discriminating against another protected class - religious belief.

 

[Argonaut]

Colorado just approved a law in the senate to allow constitutional carry like we have in Idaho.......probably doesn't have much chance to the democratic house but they are trying.

 

[ma96782]

it isn't that I agree with the policy but I do support the right of an individual or company to do busisness with whoever they choose (aka the Wedding cake baker) but I can't see a logical way forward to support the increase on age policy being illegal in today's Oregon enviorment.

Speaking of the gay wedding cake.......

CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT:

You're an artist (painter of portraits or baker of wedding cakes, both are special). So, someone wants to commission you to create that piece of art for them. Can you refuse?

The State of OR says NO, in the case of the baker.

I'd argue that.....as an artist, I can turn down a commission to create my art for anyone. Freedom of Speech. Yes, art is considered speech. Freedom of association. Then, it's my "Art."

After it's sold....it's yours to do with however you please. Wait....you say you want to burn it at a protest rally. Well, I should have the ability to just say...... "You know what, I refuse your commission to paint your portrait." Hummm, to create a work of art? Can you/should you be able to force Michelangelo to paint your portrait? What if.....Michelangelo wanted to charge you a million dollars but, he usually charged only $100 for portraits? Would/Could you make a successful claim that he is discriminating against you? What if.....I insisted that the portrait be done in the Salvador Dali style? Should I be able to force Michelangelo to paint in a style that he thinks "is not art at all." Nope. IMHO, one should not be forced to create art.

Back to the baker......
Would it have been acceptable to make a crappy cake? No, the bakers have their reputation to think of. Hey, it's just a cake, right? Nope, it's art. The bakers were honest enough to request that they take their business elsewhere. Now.....if the cakes were there on the shelf ready to go. OK, Ok, ok......that's different. Anyone coming into the shop is free to buy them. So sell them. IMHO.....a refusal to sell an "on the shelf cake" is a better case and point to illustrate discrimination.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Argonaut]

But they had already done business with them, which the couple suing them freely admits. The problem here is that there was no pattern of discrimination against a protected class. They only were refused when a specific request was made - a request that may be protected on the baker's part, under law. That's what the SCOTUS will decide in June.

And let's not forget, this lawsuit and the persecution by the state of Oregon is discriminating against another protected class - religious belief.

The issue of doing busisness and celebrating a (protected) class by specific action is the issue and I hope the Bakers prevail but it will take skilled representation.

 

[etrain16]

The issue of doing busisness and celebrating a (protected) class by specific action is the issue and I hope the Bakers prevail but it will take skilled representation.

Agreed. From what I've heard, they've made a good case. Oregon may fall on this one, and I honestly hope they do. I'm tired of government running roughshod over people's rights, particularly constitutional rights.

 

[Izzy1321]

Once a law to raise the age for all purchases is passed then that will be correct. That, however, has yet to happen (I believe it will here in Oregon).

So do I and within a year. The Gov. in Florida just signed the bill.

 

[caarecengi]

Age based discrimination, plain and simple. They would be hard pressed to be able to win this one if the law is actually considered. If no other "valid" reasons would have prevented this 20 year old from buying the gun and Dicks makes the decision not to sell to him due to his age (even though by state and Federal law he is legally able to, age based discrimination plain and simple.

If a baker can get put out of business because they don't want to bake a gay wedding cake, this type of age based discrimination (federally prohibited to discriminate based on age) won't pass the test. This guy will probably be able to fill a room with all the things he could buy after this is over.

He will win easily - all you have to do is substitute "black person" for "20-yr old person"

 

[justcuz]

court cite:
https://reason.com/assets/db/15203198626160.pdf

remember this suit was enabled only because of OR's unique statutes on age discrimination in accommodations and is not applicable for federal or other states which lack the age discrimination in accommodation type statutory oversight.

 

[Caveman Jim]

What really boggles the mind here, a retailer who is betting the whole stack of chips on ether State or Fed courts striking this down, preemptvely installing a "Store Policy" of discrimination against a Constitutnal right, and in OryGun, a State recognsed policy against age discrimination! What this says to me, is that Big business believes it holds enough power over the people to actually influence things, and if the courts strike down this suit, were screwed big time! Just who do these people think they are, with out support of the State they are operating in, and against both State and Fed law, how in Hell do they think this will stand, how in He'll do they think they can get away with this! Think about this, they are not backing down one single inch, despite all this, what does this tell us? Notice how the State is being Very quiet? The Police are being Very quiet, the States A.G. is being Very quiet! I gotta bad feeling about this!

You know those Salem politicians (skeksis) are meeting in dark back rooms trying to figure a cladiron way to circumvent this little bump in the road.
Watch the Dark Crystal to get the meaning....

 

[Ura-Ki]

CavemanJim Ol Buddy, your 100% correct, i have no doubt they are desperatey trying to find any thing they can to blow this away, problem is, the states own law preempts any thing they can try, he'll, even Oregon business law preempts it! Wanna know my dark wish here, I want to see this go all the way to the big show with SCOTUS! We know the retailers will fight tooth and nail, and we know the State is screwed by it's own hand, and we know the 9th will blow it out, so I hope it goes all the way to the top! I have often thought OryGun would be at the center of a fight like this, and here it is! Should give Ol Bloody Kate a fit!

 

[Ura-Ki]

You know what we really need right now, some sort of 2nd rights violation that brings the State and the Fed to heal, force a full accounting of the 2nd against both and we win it all I think the case in OryGun sets up the discrimination against a laweful firearms ownership,and age discrimination arguements, and the case in Illinois sets the anti 2nd establishment on its azz! Boy howdy, bring both to the top and force a full accounting by the SCOTUS, wouldn't that be something!!!
I want to see the full 2nd ruled upon and upheld as written, something the SCOTUS has thus far refused to do, and I think something needs to be done about that! What we need is a case where the whole shebang gets in front of them where they are forced to rule on it in its entirety!

 

[justcuz]

This nation's highest court has all ready upheld the second amendment in Heller!

That said, Dick's, et al., will just make a business decision and cease selling firearms entirely!

Personally, I want to know who set this scheme up in the first place?

I mean anybody consider the timing?

Lad goes in to puchase 10/22 (not an AR type long gun) but a run of the mill 22 long gun hours/days after the sporting good corporate office makes a national statement gaining quite a bit of needed publicity for the business.

Interestingly where does a rejected 20yo come up with the idea and $$$ to seek legal council, yet suddenly & immediately after being rejected in one of the only states in this union with a statute on accommodation, this Lad has an attorney who will pursue a contingency or pro bono (highly unlikely pro bono cuz there's $$$ and great publicity to be made for the lawyer) and has alread filed papers to the courts, as well as wazoo publicity across the country! Oh again there is a huge spike on dick's publicity, again across the country.

please do not forget, OR's accommodation statute notwithstanding, private business have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.

IMHO, Dick's as an FFL can state in court the Lad was shabbily attired and had an odd smell of marijuana about him and didn't wish to sell to him! End of case!

Remember, we are only hearing the aggrieved side of the story pumped up hyperbole by the lawyer. Now if the Lad had a recording device during the transaction then the courts might rule it was a set up from the gitgo and throw it out as frivolous.

Final thought, an employee could be in cahoots and assured they said the right thing for the Lad's possible recording device.

 

[Diamondback]

You know what we really need right now, some sort of 2nd rights violation that brings the State and the Fed to heal, force a full accounting of the 2nd against both and we win it all I think the case in OryGun sets up the discrimination against a laweful firearms ownership,and age discrimination arguements, and the case in Illinois sets the anti 2nd establishment on its azz! Boy howdy, bring both to the top and force a full accounting by the SCOTUS, wouldn't that be something!!!
I want to see the full 2nd ruled upon and upheld as written, something the SCOTUS has thus far refused to do, and I think something needs to be done about that! What we need is a case where the whole shebang gets in front of them where they are forced to rule on it in its entirety!

Problem is, then we're at the mercy of which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy's drunken arse rolls out of in the morning and who has the more compromising blackmail pix to hold over Backstabber Roberts's head... because if gun issues go to SCOTUS it'll be For All The Marbles.

 

[nwslopoke]

please do not forget, OR's accommodation statute notwithstanding, private business have the right to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason.

Look at the previous threads with examples of the bakery shows the act of refusals of business is not true. In Oregon age is a protected class. Just as sex, race & religion are. Is Dick's said we didn't sell him the rifle because he smelled like weed, that would be different.