Oregon: 20-Year-Old Sues Dick’s Sporting Goods for Refusing to Sell Rifle

Need to convince a black 20 year old lesbian transsexual with a limp to file this lawsuit....

for no other reason than to watch their heads explode

 

Well, they do fight for kids to have sex changes before puberty and free birth control access without parent permission. Not to mention the left fights for sex between men and kids.

 

Your comment is, in itself, a strawman. How ironic. Either being denied services offered publicly to everyone based on some personal bias is illegal or not.
If not give the Oregon baker his money and business back. If so then stop your complaining and wasting of time.

And, like with the baker, apparently there are no exceptions based on the seller's well meaning or closely held convictions. So you are stubbornly and defiantly standing on the wrong side of the law and you look pretty ridiculous.

There is absolutely no basis on which to claim this. None!
People are being denied service on the basis of an arbitrary age restriction Dick's Sports has decided to institute. That restriction violates
the 2nd Amendment. It couldn't be more clear.

So fallacious and transparent. There is a right to not be discriminated against. If everyone can buy something from Dick's Sports but you, then there is a problem.

You've done nothing but insist something isn't so without and justification whatsoever.
Just claiming nuh-uh over and over again is what a six year old does. So how old are you?

It actually does since it's based on sound legal
reasoning whereas your view? Not so much.

 

Would you say that to a black person who faced discrimination?

 

In Oregon, age is a protected class. It's protected by state law. From the OP's article:

 

Baking a cake is an artistic expression and buying a gun is not there are different elements to the case.

If the baker was refusing to bake a cake say out of a catalog of cakes he routinely makes that would be discrimination. If he will not make a custom cake that is different.

 

The second amendment has no bearing on your ability to purchase. But then again, I'd explain that to you but I'm sure it wouldn't help !

 

You changed boats in the middle of the river. You are comparing the maker to the buyer. And artistic expression had nothing to do with it. The court ruled that argument did not hold.

It was ruled to be discrimination. It had nothing to do with being custom or not.

 

You honestly don't see the difference between being required to make a custom work of art and basically making something from a template?

I'm a strong advocate for gay rights but I can see this side of the argument.

 

It has nothing to do with participating in a wedding. It was about denying service in a public place of business. Once again the courts have ruled that public businesses cannot discriminate based on age, sex, race, etc.

This has to apply to guns as well.

 

The bakers lost. How does that apply? Even for artistic expression they were not exempt from discrimination laws.

Are we talking about the same case? The Cake Case in Oregon ruled against the bakers.

 

No it doesn't. There is an element of public safety a gun seller can deny the sale of a gun if he's not comfortable selling it

 

Whether intentionally or not you are making a specious argument by conflating the 2nd Amendment with the right to pubic accommodations which is embedded in civil rights which I thought everyone in the nation was afforded (protection against age discrimination is specifically
mentioned under Oregon state law).

Without question if the right to be able to buy a wedding cake from a baker is legally settled then the same exact legal principle applies to the purchase of a firearm. I just explained it to you.

 

It was but a matter of time before an age discrimination suit was brought. Federal age discrimination basically just deals with employment, although there may be more to that than I know about. Many states also age discrimination laws, it is in the states that I think filing a lawsuit will be the most successful.

Strange how one can be 17 with a parents permission, 18 without their permission, join the military and be trained and fire all sorts of military weapons. Yet because of his age, be denied the ability to purchase a gun for his own use.

Now I know several 12 and 13 year old's who are mature, wise, knowledgeable enough to own their own guns of any type. totally trustworthy. I also know a couple of 50 year old's I would trust with a kitchen knife or a bow and arrow let alone a gun. I have pretty much been against using age as drawing line in the sand. One size doesn't fit all and neither does age.

 

Personally I think your wrong but we will see what the judge decides.

 

No, he can't. That argument would eliminate all discrimination laws for businesses.

If I'm not comfortable with black people I can deny service? No.

By that standard, I wouldn't sell guns to anyone who looks like a redneck. LOL!

 

No, your looking at it the wrong way applying one broad brush stroke.

 

So what would you say if a white clerk refused to sell a gun to a black 20yr old? We both know how the left would respond.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ce-gun-store-owners-can-deny-anyone-they-want


Ginger Colbrun, public affairs chief for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, says licensed gun dealers have broad discretion to deny sales, such as in instances where a buyer appears to exhibit erratic behavior.

“As private business owners, [Federal Firearms License holders] can and do use discretion in determining to whom they will or will not provide service,” Colbrun says.

 

Bull sh&t! If someone passes background checks and otherwise is legally entitled to buy a gun then a gun seller's "comfort" is no more
a legal basis on which to deny service than a baker's wish to not be contributing in any way to a gay marriage.

I guess you have to try but that's a really weak argument.

 

That already happens read this article

 

I didn't make the rules read the ATF statement

 

I fully agree with your different strokes for different folks philosophy, but decides who can do what? That's something none of us will ever agree on.

 

Again, specious bull crap! A blanket denial of service based on age constitutes discrimination
against a protected class and is a blatant denial of civil rights.

This is like a T-ball set up for people to knock out of the park. It's so transparently lame.

 

Because US Code says they are part of the militia?

(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age