Why would they? Whether you like it or not, the stores are undeniably breaking the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled in the favor of an 18 year old denied a sale in August and have filed charges. The hearing is scheduled for November. They got a bakery $135,000 for discrimination under the same state statute and she’s seeking the same.
The same low-info types who think companies should be sued for manufacturing a legal product want other companies who knowingly break the law protected. Funny how that works.
I have libertarian sympathies, and am a strong fan of the 2nd Amendment AND of businesses having rights. If a business decides to set an age to sell, let ’em do it and junior can find somewhere else to buy it.
I hope it gets thrown out before Walmart and Dick’s have to spend much in legal fees. For this suit, the young person should have to pay the stores legal fees and find some place else to buy a gun. This is a waste of the courts time and money. Only a greedy attorney wanting fees would even take this case..
Does it matter what the law says is the legal age for purchase? The bakery set it’s own standard (a moral standard) and has paid dearly for it. It’s not the same product. I understand that. I’m just wondering where you all think the line is.
The use of age as a set point for restricting certain purchases and attendance is well established (alcohol, tobacco, guns, driving, bars, the list goes on). The flip side would be that a 10 year old could certainly sue any gun store in Oregon for not being allowed to purchase a weapon.
CalDude,
Sorry but you are wrong on this one as the law is clear and one has only to be 18 or older to purchase a long gun. Should the law be revised possibly but it is against common practice to not follow the law as written.
“Watson is not part of an organized effort to push back against the retailers’ policy, the lawyer added.”
Errr, right…It’s Grants Pass Oregon. There are nine independently owned gun stores that would be more than happy to relieve of your hard earned cash for a rifle.
A gay couple, both over the age of 21 would be able to purchase the weapon from the retailer. The bakery was denying service to individuals of any age based on an individual religious opinion, period. There is no state law stating only couples of a certain age, religion, skin color, political persuasion or socio-economic status can only purchase cakes.
When we have children being slaughtered by gay couples wielding croissants, then we can discuss age brackets for responsible pastry management.
Both sets of discrimination are just as illegal under the same state statute regardless of your opinions. Don’t deny the danger of pastries; obesity kills approximately 300,000 people annually in the U.S. and rifles are used to kill about 300 (1/1,000th). But for whatever reason, the left decides to promote unhealthy lifestyles and prattles about “fat acceptance,” encouraging an impaired life and early death while condemning firearms that they keep demonstrating they don’t understand.
I am a little confused by the responses. If the law says that you have to be 18 to purchase a long gun or ammunition for a long gun how can a merchant discriminate against a individual who is allowed to purchase a weapon under the law strictly due to age? My jury is out on the question of what age is appropriate to purchase a gun but that is not the question here, it is solely does a merchant have the right to discriminate against someone based solely on age alone? Would the group be so quick to favor the decision if it was a 65 year old man as they had a policy that no one 65 or older could purchase a weapon?
I personally feel that the feds should pull the FFL’s from these merchants for their discriminatory and arbitrary actions.
A bunch of commentors are in the early stages of ideological subversion, i see. How do you think it starts, losing the 2nd amendment entirely? You all give it up yourselves, little by little. If something goes against the constitution it is by definition Unconstitutional. Now you can try to amend the constitution, but you have to do that first before you pull this crap. This (by law) grown adult man has the right to defend and die for his country but not to protect his own family. The UK is already past this stage, now they are onto banning knives. Just the next cog in marrying the state and destabilizing the entire family unit.
Hope the courts throw the lawsuit out.
Why would they? Whether you like it or not, the stores are undeniably breaking the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled in the favor of an 18 year old denied a sale in August and have filed charges. The hearing is scheduled for November. They got a bakery $135,000 for discrimination under the same state statute and she’s seeking the same.
The same low-info types who think companies should be sued for manufacturing a legal product want other companies who knowingly break the law protected. Funny how that works.
I have libertarian sympathies, and am a strong fan of the 2nd Amendment AND of businesses having rights. If a business decides to set an age to sell, let ’em do it and junior can find somewhere else to buy it.
I suspect the NRA is behind this even if only clandestinely.
I hope it gets thrown out before Walmart and Dick’s have to spend much in legal fees. For this suit, the young person should have to pay the stores legal fees and find some place else to buy a gun. This is a waste of the courts time and money. Only a greedy attorney wanting fees would even take this case..
Does it matter what the law says is the legal age for purchase? The bakery set it’s own standard (a moral standard) and has paid dearly for it. It’s not the same product. I understand that. I’m just wondering where you all think the line is.
The use of age as a set point for restricting certain purchases and attendance is well established (alcohol, tobacco, guns, driving, bars, the list goes on). The flip side would be that a 10 year old could certainly sue any gun store in Oregon for not being allowed to purchase a weapon.
CalDude,
Sorry but you are wrong on this one as the law is clear and one has only to be 18 or older to purchase a long gun. Should the law be revised possibly but it is against common practice to not follow the law as written.
“Watson is not part of an organized effort to push back against the retailers’ policy, the lawyer added.”
Errr, right…It’s Grants Pass Oregon. There are nine independently owned gun stores that would be more than happy to relieve of your hard earned cash for a rifle.
DeRegulator,
And there were numerous different bakeries that would have gladly backed a cake for the gay couple. Your point is?
A gay couple, both over the age of 21 would be able to purchase the weapon from the retailer. The bakery was denying service to individuals of any age based on an individual religious opinion, period. There is no state law stating only couples of a certain age, religion, skin color, political persuasion or socio-economic status can only purchase cakes.
When we have children being slaughtered by gay couples wielding croissants, then we can discuss age brackets for responsible pastry management.
Both sets of discrimination are just as illegal under the same state statute regardless of your opinions. Don’t deny the danger of pastries; obesity kills approximately 300,000 people annually in the U.S. and rifles are used to kill about 300 (1/1,000th). But for whatever reason, the left decides to promote unhealthy lifestyles and prattles about “fat acceptance,” encouraging an impaired life and early death while condemning firearms that they keep demonstrating they don’t understand.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
I am a little confused by the responses. If the law says that you have to be 18 to purchase a long gun or ammunition for a long gun how can a merchant discriminate against a individual who is allowed to purchase a weapon under the law strictly due to age? My jury is out on the question of what age is appropriate to purchase a gun but that is not the question here, it is solely does a merchant have the right to discriminate against someone based solely on age alone? Would the group be so quick to favor the decision if it was a 65 year old man as they had a policy that no one 65 or older could purchase a weapon?
I personally feel that the feds should pull the FFL’s from these merchants for their discriminatory and arbitrary actions.
A bunch of commentors are in the early stages of ideological subversion, i see. How do you think it starts, losing the 2nd amendment entirely? You all give it up yourselves, little by little. If something goes against the constitution it is by definition Unconstitutional. Now you can try to amend the constitution, but you have to do that first before you pull this crap. This (by law) grown adult man has the right to defend and die for his country but not to protect his own family. The UK is already past this stage, now they are onto banning knives. Just the next cog in marrying the state and destabilizing the entire family unit.